Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill. It reminds me of that Frank Sinatra song about New York—so good they named it twice. The Bill has in effect been named twice, because it contains two very good and distinct parts, which merit being Bills in their own right. There are so many elements that I want to comment on, but through lack of time will not be able do more than namecheck some of them.

Keeping families together and making children safe should not even need stating as aims, but, sadly, of course, they do. Multi-agency protection teams will help to avoid children falling between the cracks in terms of the support that they require, but there needs to be clarity as to the difference between children in need and child protection.

The Bill has much to say that is positive on children in care, leaving care and kinship care. It has less to say on the value of fostering and nothing at all to say on adoption, which I do not understand. Children in foster care should have the same support to the age of 25 as those in residential care, but the Bill does not provide that. I believe it should.

Proposals for regulating unregistered children’s homes are most welcome—in fact, we might ask why there are such things as unregistered children’s homes at all—as is the provision for the excessive profits of private children’s homes to be capped.

Moving on to schools, I welcome enshrining in law the benefits of universal, free school breakfasts. However, there needs to be a guarantee that these can be effectively reached and support the most vulnerable pupils, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, for whom access to a nutritious start to the day can be life-changing.

On many occasions in your Lordships’ House, I have advocated a register of children not in school. Fundamentally, this is a safeguarding issue and it is one that Conservative Ministers, whom I faced at the Dispatch Box, consistently supported—I cite the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Berridge; I cannot remember whether the noble Lord, Lord Nash, did or not, but I am sure he does from what he said—but nothing happened, and it has been left to a Labour Government to take it forward.

The clauses on academies have caused much frothing at the mouth on the Benches opposite. Of course, I understand that Tories want to defend their record on education, but that record is patchy. A Lords Library briefing reported in 2023 that data from Ofsted

“does not show that schools in MATs have better ratings than other types of school … On academic results the picture is mixed ... The percentage of pupils achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and maths was, on the whole, slightly higher in maintained schools than in MATs”.

I am concerned about the opposition to Clause 46 on the requirement for qualified teacher status. When I take my car to the garage for its MoT or go for dinner in a restaurant or go to the dentist with toothache, I do not expect to be treated by an enthusiastic amateur. While I respect the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and accept what she said, parents do not expect, when they send their children to school, that they will be taught by anyone other than a professional.

Guidance on developing a whole-school approach to mental health and wellbeing was introduced in 2015 and that guidance was updated six years later. But it lacks the statutory backing needed to make it effective, and I hope the Government will consider introducing an amendment that will provide for that.

Finally, I regret that the Bill has nothing to say on the inequality of selection. The 11-plus has been abolished in most parts of the UK for over 50 years, yet it is still inflicted on more than 100,000 10 year-olds in England each year, three quarters of whom are branded failures at that age, with predictable effects on their self-esteem, mental health and perhaps also their life chances. I am not calling for the banning of grammar schools, but they should certainly be banned from selecting their pupils.

I have no time to speak about inclusive school assemblies, UTCs or retaining the 50% cap on new faith schools, inter alia—pace the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I look forward to Committee, which will certainly be interesting and, I hope, productive.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, as someone who has been involved with child abuse issues and child protection down the years, I thought it necessary to add my voice to support the amendment. It may be that we want to talk about the vehicle, it may be that we want to talk about the drafting, but it is really important that the House makes absolutely clear that there is agreement on the principle around mandatory reporting, because that has not always been the case, and that is the first massive step to dealing with this issue.

I otherwise wanted to say only how pleased I was to hear the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. In 2012, when I spoke in this Chamber against the watering down of vetting and barring, I was told roundly that we should have an exemption for all sports clubs and societies because they were exemplars. The last 12 years have shown us how wrong that would have been; they have also shown us how important the amendment is.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 107B, which is in my name. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the same legal rights would apply to a child in care as those which apply to children living with their families. In that sense, it is linked to Amendment 69AB, which I shall move later today.

In 2022, the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, henceforth referred to as IICSA, highlighted the fact that the family court can limit parents’ exercise of their parental responsibility, but the court is unable to intervene in the same way with corporate parents. The report recommended a new

“route by which children in care can apply to the family courts for orders to mandate or limit a local authority’s exercise of its parental responsibility”,

which is what this new clause seeks to achieve.

There are many recognisable harms in the children’s care system, some of which have been identified by noble Lords already, among them: children being moved from settled homes; children being sent many miles from their home area; siblings being split up; children forced to move areas ahead of critical GCSE or A-level exams; children desperately unhappy at where they are living but being told there is nowhere else for them to go; and children approaching their 18th birthday woefully unprepared for life ahead of them. As incredible as it sounds, it is still common for children in care to be told that they must register as homeless once they reach their 18th birthday. It is not difficult to understand why that often causes unbearable stress and anxiety, affecting all areas of the child’s life.

The family court is able to intervene in how parents exercise their parental responsibility, yet it has no equivalent power in respect of corporate parents, when looked-after children are the most vulnerable children in our society. As IICSA’s final report explained:

“Courts can make decisions about children who are not in care, but only local authorities can make decisions about children who are in care”.


That is an inconsistency that I believe needs to be confronted and brought to an end.

IICSA considered the role of the independent reviewing officer, the ability of children in care to apply to discharge care orders, bring claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 and to bring judicial reviews, and it found each of these systems of protection to be insufficient. IICSA foresaw children in care having a straightforward legal mechanism on a par with children in the community, whereby the exercise of a local authority’s parental responsibility could be put under the spotlight and subject to restriction and instruction where necessary.

This new clause would implement IICSA’s recommendation 6 by giving children who are the subject of a care order the legal means of challenging their corporate parent’s actions and, perhaps equally importantly, inactions. When a child in care is suffering, or at risk of suffering, significant harm, this new clause would enable the family court to make an order to prohibit the local authority from taking action that could be harmful to that child. The family court would also have the power to make an order to require the local authority to take particular action

“to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare”.

On 16 January in another place, the Home Secretary made a clear statement that the Government would set out a plan for implementing all 20 of IICSA’s final recommendations. Their Tackling Child Sexual Abuse: Progress Update issued in April very helpfully set out how children in care’s access to independent advocacy services will be strengthened through the publication of revised national standards and statutory guidance.

However, this is a long way from implementing IICSA recommendation 6, the purpose of which is to give children in care a new legal mechanism to challenge the actions and inactions of their corporate parent when these are causing or are likely to cause the child significant harm. Such a measure will go hand in hand with effective independent advocacy services, because it is likely to be independent advocates who assist children in care in accessing this new legal safeguard.

We all know that IICSA was a seven-year public inquiry that heard devastating evidence of the ways a whole host of institutions consistently failed vulnerable children. Its recommendations must be taken seriously and, as I said, the Government are on record as being committed to implementing all its 20 recommendations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, my noble friend may well suggest that the Crime and Policing Bill is a more appropriate vehicle for this amendment. If so, why does it not appear in that Bill? I believe it is a very important step. I hope my noble friend will be a bit more positive than that and be able to offer a commitment that she will return on Report with a government amendment to make children in care legally the equal of children in the community.

--- Later in debate ---

The introduction of new court powers proposed by this amendment risks creating uncertainty around the role of the local authority, when we should be ensuring that the systems and processes in place immediately around the child, available on a day-to-day basis, are as robust and effective as intended.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the points that she has made. She referenced the update that came out in April, but that does not go far enough to meet recommendation 6 of IICSA, which talks about access to courts. It seems to me that there is an inconsistency between that and what the Home Secretary said in January about implementing all 20 recommendations, if the update is—if I understand my noble friend correctly—as far as the Government are prepared to go in this aspect of it at this stage.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In relation to recommendation 6, in very big consultation with the sector, the objective of the Government is to deliver on the intention of the recommendation while recognising—this is something that professionals have also raised—that, for the reasons I have outlined, a new legal route here not only is not necessary but would risk making children’s ability to have their voice heard and for the professionals around them to support them less likely to happen. It is the Government’s view that this is a more effective way of delivering the intentions behind recommendation 6.

Between existing safeguarding mechanisms and planned improvements, this Government set a clear expectation that children are safe, their voices are heard and professionals work together to take immediate action in response to issues or concerns. I thank noble Lords for the range of issues that have been raised on this group of amendments. I hope that I have been able to provide some assurances and that noble Lords will feel content not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

69AB: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Parent-equivalent care by local authoritiesIn section 22 of the Children Act 1989 (general duty of local authority in relation to children looked after by them), after subsection (3)(a) insert—“(aa) to provide care as would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them; and””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the nature and level of parental care expected for children within their own families also applies to corporate parents and to the children’s care system. It replaces amendment 146A.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I always think there is something rather sad about an amendment that sits on its own and forms a group of its own. It looks almost afraid to speak its name. However, I prefer to think of group 4 today as being small but perfectly formed, and I will speak to Amendment 69AB on that basis. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the same kind of parental care expected within families applies to corporate parents and the children’s care system. In that sense, it has echoes of Amendment 107B, which I spoke to earlier.

Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 provides that a court may make a care order in respect of a child only if it is satisfied that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and this is attributable to the care received by the child not being what would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them. There are all sorts of issues, and we have heard many of them this afternoon and evening, about the failures of birth parents. None the less, this amendment would equalise the position of looked-after children and children who live with their parents with no social care involvement. Corporate parents would be required to provide the kind of care which it would be reasonable to expect a parent within the community to give to their child. Surely it is reasonable to expect that the state’s care of children should be at least to the level expected of parents. It should certainly drop no lower.

Under the Children Act 1989, a local authority must safeguard and promote the welfare of every child in its care—that is, those who are the subject of an interim care order or a care order—and every child for whom it provides accommodation for a period of more than 24 hours. Amendment 69AB would add the requirement that the local authority—as the child's corporate parent—must provide care that it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to their child. This would strengthen and give legal clarity as to the primary duty of local authorities in their vital and privileged role of corporate parent: to safeguard and promote each child's welfare and to provide care that would be reasonably expected from a parent.

Statutory guidance issued in 2018 for local authorities on implementing the corporate parenting principles in Section 1 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 says:

“A strong corporate parenting ethos means that everyone from the Chief Executive down to front line staff, as well as elected council members, are concerned about those children and care leavers as if they were their own. This is evidenced by an embedded culture where council officers … do all that is reasonably possible to ensure the council is the best ‘parent’ it can be to the child or young person”.


It was the late and much missed Frank Dobson, in his role as Secretary of State for Health, who first articulated the legal and moral responsibility of being a corporate parent. In a letter sent to every local authority councillor in September 1998, he said:

“For children who are looked after, your council has a legal and moral duty to try to provide the kind of loyal support that any good parents would give to their children”.


That applies no less today than it did all those years ago.

Despite many important amendments made to the Children Act 1989 over the years, aimed at improving the wellbeing and future life opportunities of looked after children and care leavers, it may surprise noble Lords that there is still no clear, unambiguous requirement that looked-after children receive the same level of care from their corporate parents as would be deemed acceptable for them had they remained with their birth parents. The High Court in March 2022, in a judicial review brought by the children's rights charity Article 39, found there is no provision in the Children Act 1989 which requires

“care to be provided in situ or as part of a placement”.

A child can be the subject of care proceedings through the family court until the age of 17 where they have suffered, or are at risk of suffering, significant harm and this is deemed attributable to their parents’ care not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them. Yet once they are removed from their parents and become looked after, there is no express duty on their new corporate parent to provide care within their new placement, which is their new home. How can that situation be defended? I do not believe that it can. It is the equivalent of a local authority saying, “Don’t do as I do; do as I say”, and it must not be allowed to continue. Were that to happen, it would help to transform the children’s care system.

If my noble friend cannot give me a positive answer today, I ask that she consider what I have said and perhaps come forward on Report with a proposal. I believe this is a lacuna, which this Bill has the opportunity to fill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to oppose Amendment 69AB, well-intentioned though it clearly is. I have several levels of concerns about the imposition of yet another duty. I believe that the expectations for looked-after children are generally well understood—whether they are actually carried out in practice is another matter. This particular amendment has some obvious holes. For example, there are kinds of intimacy in normal, healthy parent-child relationships that absolutely would not be appropriate between local authority staff and children.

More generally, there has been a proliferation of duties in legislation in recent years. For example, I became chair of Ofqual 14 years ago. After a particular duty was raised in my first board meeting, I asked my legal director for a session to talk me through all the duties that applied. To my astonishment, I discovered that we already had 28 duties, with a handful more in the pipeline; I am sure it is a lot more since then.

This imposition of duties as the go-to solution has several problems. First, it creates problems of overload. Normal human beings simply cannot hold so many different duties in their thinking simultaneously. Secondly, they get imposed in isolation. They are usually added without reference to previous duties, with which they often overlap but sometimes push in different directions. How do you reconcile them? They can lead to skimping. If duties that have been imposed need resource but are not funded, you can end up with everything being done less well—not only the thing that the duty is aimed at but all the other functions—which reduces the quality at the receiving end. It takes away the ability of public services to prioritise intelligently. It can divert resource away from the main purpose that the duty is intended to protect and towards the kinds of activities that demonstrate compliance with the activity.

Finally, if there is a surplus of duties and an impossibility of giving full effect to them all, a sort of cynicism builds up that can corrupt an organisation’s culture. When everybody knows that they are really only paying lip service to an enormous list, people stop believing in the ability of the organisation to fulfil its real purposes.

Tempting as it is to think that another duty is the great solution that will protect children from all the awful harms that have been talked about today—they are a great salve to all our consciences—we need to resist and make sure that we get to the essence of the things that will do the most to help children.

--- Later in debate ---

Given the extensive duties and requirements already placed on local authorities and those who care for children, I believe that this amendment would have little to no practical impact. For these reasons, I kindly ask my noble friend Lord Watson to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Her last point—about the proposal in my amendment having little to no effect—carries considerable weight coming from someone with her considerable experience as the leader of one of England’s largest city councils; something which she did with some distinction, to put it at its lightest. Her words carry weight. She also talked about—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman—the addition of further duties. The question is whether those duties are appropriate and whether they fill any void that experience shows must be filled.

You can talk in generalities, but there are a number of occasions that have been referred to earlier today about local authorities. I do not doubt for one moment that any local authority sets out to do anything other than its best. But there are situations, such as those I mentioned in the debate on my earlier amendment, where local authorities move children out of their area, separate them from siblings, and, on certain occasions, move them just before they are due to sit GCSEs or A-levels, which can have such disruptive effects, and put them into foster care or adoptive care and then do not provide the resources for that care to be properly effective. There are ways in which councils can say, “We’re doing our best”, but, in actual fact, that might not be enough.

I am slightly troubled by the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, that “We’re just adding extra details and duties on to local authorities”. I know she has had experience at Ofqual and Ofsted, but that sounded more like a comment coming from the business part of her career, because it sounded a bit like corporate jargon—not to add on extra duties for the sake of it. The question is, are those duties looking to prevent what can sometimes go wrong in the council’s care of children? I would argue that they can, otherwise, there would not be the sorts of stories that we get all too regularly about local authorities or those funded by local authorities putting vulnerable children in some pretty dire situations.

While I bow to the experience of those who have spoken in the debate, there are issues here that need to be looked at further. In introducing this, I asked: why should it be that a local authority can take a child away from their birth parents, become their corporate parents and yet then not have the same responsibilities for them? That just does not seem right.

I thank those who contributed to the debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 69AB withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

84: Clause 7, page 12, line 8, after “support” insert “and staying put support”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this group of amendments, half of which are in my name. Before I go on to them, I will say a word about yesterday’s spending review. I apologise that I could not be here for my noble friend Lord Livermore’s session, just before we started the Bill.

There was significant spend announced yesterday on wider children’s social care. The review stated:

“This settlement will improve support for England’s most vulnerable children and young people by setting aside £555 million over the SR period from the Transformation Fund for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government … and DfE, as well as total capital investment of over £560 million to reform the children’s social care system and support the refurbishment and expansion of the children’s homes estate. This will help more children and families stay safely together, expand support for care leavers and fix the broken care market”.


It obviously remains to be seen how that will shake down, but I think it is a very promising start and a real indication of how seriously the Government view the current situation as far as the children’s social care sector is concerned.

In its present form, the Bill extends Staying Close support only to young people up to the age of 25—that is for any relevant child in residential care—but not Staying Put support for those former relevant children who are living in foster care. The increased support that the Bill provides for care leavers is welcome, but it risks creating a two-tier system for care leavers in residential and foster care. More needs to be done for young people in foster care who want to remain with their foster family beyond the age of 21. The amendments in my name in this group seek to extend entitlement up to the age of 25, with proper funding. I suggest that the figures I have just quoted would be a suitable source for at least part of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will have noticed the difference between the answer she gave on the last group and the answer she gave on my amendment in this one. Channelling the reporting through guidance to the virtual school head is doing something that would be immediate, current and present and would affect the day-to-day way in which a local authority and its team conduct their business; something that may or may not appear in the depths of an Ofsted report every three years is not at all as effective. I encourage the Minister, between now and Report, to consider whether it would not be much better for the continual improvement of the Staying Close services if they were reported on annually and personally by the team responsible for delivering them, so that it becomes much more visible and a much more current thing for them to keep improving, rather than something that they hope will get lost in whatever else Ofsted is saying about the local authority as a whole.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, both of whom spoke forcefully in support of the amendments—which may not be surprising, since they added their names to them, for which I also thank them. I say in passing to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the point she raised about 16 and 17 year-olds living in unregistered accommodation, that there will be an opportunity to debate that in group 8 today, if we get that far.

I also thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply, although, of course, it is disappointing. I noticed a nuanced difference in her response—if she will forgive me, it could probably be described in three words, “We’re staying put”, which is effectively what she said—whereas her opposite number in the other place said that the Government were not in favour of extending Staying Put because they wanted to concentrate on young people in residential care, who, she said, had the most complex needs. My noble friend today said that the Government want to concentrate on filling the gaps in current provision. Neither is unimportant, but I think that, where there are gaps in current provision, yes, they can be filled, but that does not mean that there are no gaps in the provision beyond the age of 21 for young people Staying Put.

My noble friend said that, when people in foster care reach the age of 21 and leave for whatever reason, they will have Staying Close to fall back on in certain situations, and of course that is right. But, overall, we are dealing with a relatively small number of people who want to stay on in foster care beyond the age of 21. We are not talking about thousands and thousands, so the cost in additional resources required to do that is relatively modest. I have to come back to the point that I started off with, which is that there was a very positive statement yesterday in the spending review, which may offer the opportunity to deal with this as well, although of course there will be many competing demands.

As I said, it is disappointing. I request the opportunity of discussing this issue a little further with my ministerial colleagues before Report, but I again thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 84 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

105: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Register of foster carers(1) The Secretary of State must introduce a register of local authority foster parents and independent foster parents who are—(a) currently fostering children, or(b) available to foster children.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “local authority foster parent” is defined in accordance with section 105 of the Children Act 1989.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a register of foster carers. The intention is that having such a register, as exists for social workers, would improve the safeguarding of children, and matching and sufficiency of placements, and improve the status of foster carers.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, introducing a national register for foster carers would produce many benefits. Overall, it would enhance their status. One resulting effect would be to attract more volunteers, thus beginning to reduce the shortage of foster carers across England, which currently stands at around 5,000. That in turn would improve the matching process by which children in care are placed with foster families, and increase the portability of foster carers. All those benefits would raise the level of safeguarding of children in the care system.

Last year the Commons Education Committee inquiry into children’s social care recommended that the creation of a national register of foster carers should be considered by the then Minister for Children. The inquiry was interrupted by the general election, but the new committee has reactivated it and is still considering these issues. It has been reported that the Government are considering the merits of a national register, which would certainly be appropriate because both the Scottish and Welsh Governments are consulting on the creation of such a register. Perhaps my noble friend can clarify the current thinking on this.

A register would safeguard children by keeping a central record of foster carers who have had their approval terminated for safeguarding reasons, ensuring that they are not reapproved by another service and then able to care for another child. Currently, services cannot always know this, particularly if potential foster carers are transferring between independents and local authority services. The introduction of a register would go hand in hand with an accredited pre-approval and post-approval training framework and robust national standards of practice, improving the overall quality of care for children.

The number of children in care in England who are moved outwith their local authority area is an issue that we have heard mentioned by noble Lords in several of the debates today. It increased from 41% in 2020 to 45% last year. A register would allow services to make matches more quickly at a local level, which would ultimately reduce out-of-area placements. That could be done by the new regional care co-operatives, which we are going to debate in the seventh group today and which will lead on regional placement commissioning, for which the Bill already makes provision. With a register in place, local authority fostering services could be given access to information on the number of fostering households with vacancies for children in their local area, including those with independent fostering providers, as well as in neighbouring local authorities.

This amendment would require the Government to establish a national register for foster carers. Linked to the regional care co-operatives, that would help to better safeguard children and, as I have said, improve the status of foster carers through formal recognition of their role, allowing services to match children to foster care placements more quickly at the local level.

I hope my noble friend will acknowledge that the register would bring the beneficial outcomes that I have outlined and overall assist in making a significant dent in that shortfall of foster carers, which results in too many young people being denied the option of improving their life chances by being able to find a loving foster family to embrace and nurture them. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 143 seeks to promote the idea of a national foster care strategy. I declare an interest in that a very long time ago my wife and I were registered as foster parents in the London Borough of Lambeth—nothing on the heroic scale of the Timpson family, of whom we heard earlier. It principally involved looking after the children of a single mother while she went into hospital to have her baby; somebody needed to look after her children before she was discharged. The regime in those days was much more relaxed than it is today.

Since then, the relatively informal system has evolved into a much more structured and regulated part of the child welfare system, particularly following the Children Act 1989. There is now a much stronger emphasis on the physical and psychological stability of a child, and more awareness of the risks of inappropriate placements.

I turn to the amendment. Most children grow up in their own home with two parents, one parent, or a parent and a partner, and most of the challenges that confront a family can be met within the normal support mechanism of families, friends, the local authority and heroic voluntary organisations. But at times children have to be taken into care by the local authority. In March 2024 there were 83,630 children in care in England, up from 80,000 in 2020. For those children, there is a range of options: for a very few it will be adoption, but for most it will be kinship care, fostering or children’s homes, and we had a good debate about kinship care and the role of local authorities as a constant theme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that comprehensive response and I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. One thing that has always struck me about your Lordships’ House is the vast experience, on all sides, that often emerges in debates. On this group this evening, we have had two further examples of personal experience from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. Such experience always informs the debate and gives it a depth and breadth that, certainly when I have been in other legislatures, has not always been the case, and it is very valuable.

I heard what my noble friend said in her response about the proposal for a national foster care strategy. One of the strong points of Amendment 143 from the noble Lord, Lord Young—which would have had my name attached to it, incidentally, had it not already had three names when I went to add mine—is subsection (2), from memory, which refers to how we can improve the quality of foster care. That seems self-evident and I am sure the Government are doing it anyway, or trying to do it anyway, but it seems to me that it is important that, however well we are doing, we are not doing well enough, given the figures that have been quoted, not least the number of foster carers coming forward and the high rejection rate, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, referred, which is astounding—I had not heard that before. There must be some reason for that, which we could surely turn around to get to the 5,000 shortfall, if that is what we have across the country.

On the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about what Napoleon said about the need for a strategy, whatever the Government are doing on this and in the broader children’s social care field, it is important that there is a strategy, whether or not it is written down. I do not know whether Napoleon had strategies throughout his lengthy career—which mostly went pretty well until it ended at what I might say is a London mainline railway station—but I still think it is important to have a strategy underpinning what we are doing.

I have gone on long enough. On my amendment proposing a register of foster carers, I was very encouraged by what my noble friend said—although she did chuck a couple of pebbles into the pond by saying there could be an increase in bureaucracy. There has to be an effective bureaucracy, because we are not bringing enough foster carers into the system; I do not necessarily think that is bureaucracy, because there has to be whatever it takes to ensure that we enrol more people.

As far as national versus local is concerned, I think that the two sit very neatly together: we would have a national strategy, and locally you would make sure that you draw in the people in the areas where they are most needed. I do not see them as mutually exclusive. I am encouraged by what my noble friend said, and I look forward to developments in the near future. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I should declare an interest: I am a governor of Coram and a trustee of the Foundling Museum. Particularly with my Coram hat on, I think the story of adoption and how it has been viewed, treated and financed over the last 10 years has been a bit of a rollercoaster. The children who are waiting to be adopted, and the families who have been extraordinary enough to adopt, do not deserve to be on a rollercoaster; they deserve to have as smooth progress as possible to enable them to be as effective as adoptive parents as they can be, to give those children the life they deserve and to enable new adoptive parents to take on these children, many of whom have experienced trauma and many of whom are in sibling groups. I salute those who take that on, but it behoves us and our Government to make that as straightforward as possible.

[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.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, a substantial number of teenage looked-after children are accommodated in adult homes and hostels. They should not be. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

The noble Lord was too quick for all of us. I want to speak on the same subject as he did, that of unregistered accommodation— I have been caught unawares and have the wrong notes in front of me.

I felt it was appropriate to make this point in Amendment 144, in my name, because it really is nothing short of a scandal that some of the most vulnerable children are regularly placed in illegal, unregistered children’s homes. These settings have the least amount of scrutiny, and as a result, children are at increased risk of harm.

Children living in registered children’s homes benefit from the safeguards that regulation brings. Ofsted inspects registered homes at least once a year, and an independent person must visit these homes every month. They check the running of the home and assess whether children are being kept safe—as absolutely anybody would have a right to expect. But children living in unregistered children’s homes do not have these safety nets. There is also no process for assessing the quality of their care or the suitability of the adults providing that care. As my noble friend the Minister said in summing up on the last group of amendments, unregistered means no inspections. Surely this is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.

Children aged 16 to 17 in residential care are treated very differently from their slightly younger peers. In 2021, the previous Government introduced provisions through secondary legislation to prohibit unregulated accommodation for children in care aged 15 or under, but not for those aged 16 or 17. Two years later, the previous Government introduced what they deemed appropriate standards for supported accommodation for children in care and care leavers. These statutory instruments legitimised, and therefore to some extent encouraged, the increasingly shameful practice of placing children in unregulated, unsafe hostels, bed and breakfasts, shared homes, and even, in some cases, caravan parks. All those settings leave them without the support they need and leave them vulnerable to habitual criminals, drug gangs and sexual exploitation—an issue which we have heard all too much about in the last two days.

The changes that followed in 2023 to supported accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds included no requirement to provide these children in care with any care at all. It is important to remember that, legally, they are still children, up to the age of 18. How many parents would be unconcerned at their own 16 or 17 year-olds leaving home, never mind moving to such totally unsuitable accommodation?

It is appropriate to ask why there should even exist such places as unregistered children’s homes. Unregistered means unregulated, and in such homes there is no requirement for qualified staff or managers to be trained, or even present in the accommodation, and, crucially, no requirement for independent monthly monitoring of the accommodation, as happens with registered homes.

The latest available statistics, from March 2024, show that up to 50% of 16 and 17 year-olds who are in care in England—upwards of 800,000—were living in what might we describe as “care-less”, often bleak accommodation. I was one of many noble Lords who argued against this lack of care for 16 and 17 year-olds when the changes that I referred to were introduced in 2021. Tellingly, one of the recommendations of the MacAlister report was bringing to an end the use of unregistered homes. It has not happened. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who was the Minister responsible at the time, can say why she regarded such accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds as appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 119 would provide further opportunities for looked-after children, or those on the edge of care, to have access to boarding school places where appropriate. The principles of this amendment are the same as those of my Amendment 82, on children in or going into kinship care, except that the financial benefits may be stronger for non-kinship care. For example, kinship carers who care for children under special guardianship orders or child arrangement orders are not automatically entitled to the same financial support as foster carers. I do not want to repeat word for word everything I said on Amendment 82—both the Ministers present were in their places at the time—but I will give a brief summary.

Noble Lords participating in this Bill know the huge task that confronts carers when taking on children who are more often than not from broken homes and carrying the emotional scars of the unhappiness that has emanated from this breakdown. This is why I am keen to give so much more oxygen to the prospect of offering boarding school places to children in or on the edge of care. I gave the example of the report carried out by the Norfolk local authority in conjunction with the DfE when I was the Minister responsible for this area. I will not repeat everything that was said, but one of the most important pieces of data was that, of the 52 children who were tracked during the three or so years over which this study was carried out, 33 came off the at-risk register. That is the most tremendous result, and I suspect there are not many other examples of particular types of care delivering such a significant improvement in the welfare of those children.

There are two other advantages, one of which is financial. The costs are substantially lower than that of the foster care or care home route. Also, the educational outcomes in this study were better for the children than the national figures. This is one of those rare moments when a policy can deal with three problems at once and not cost any more money. Therefore, I am very hopeful that the Government will consider the amendment.

We heard on Amendment 82 the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in Liverpool. A tremendous amount of the noble Lord’s career has been spent in education. I am very keen to bring cross-party support to this, so I was very encouraged that he was supportive.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Regarding cross-party support, I am willing to indicate support, but I want to clarify a point the noble Lord makes in his amendment about a boarding school place

“in a state secondary school in their local authority area”.

Can he tell us that such schools exist in every local authority area? If they do not, how would this be put into practice?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, there are around 35 state boarding schools in the country, but there are also a number of private boarding schools that are ready to provide support, which is why I mentioned the Royal SpringBoard scholarships and bursaries that are available. I completely accept the noble Lord’s point—that people need to be kept, wherever possible, near their homes—but we need flexibility. We must not make the perfect the enemy of the good. If there is a good boarding school place that is reasonably accessible to the child’s home, but more importantly to the foster carer or kinship carer, then that is what matters. But I take onboard what the noble Lord said.

In her summing-up of Amendment 82, the Minister spoke about stability of setting, and she was very right. The Norfolk study showed that there was a very strong correlation between improvements in those children’s well-being and the length of tenure. The study showed that three years of continuity made a tremendous difference. I hope the Minister will consider this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has just said is entirely sensible, and, if I may, I add my voice to it.

I did not know about this group of children. It seems wrong in principle that they should not be treated in exactly the same way as all other children in this particularly vulnerable group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, pointed out, they are quite obviously the most vulnerable of all the children. I declare my interest as patron of the Atkinson unit in Exeter, which is secure accommodation.

What I am really standing up for on this is not only to understand and support in principle what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is saying but to express some concerns. I will just take, as an example, Amendment 120. If this child under the age of 13—and that is a very sad circumstance to have a child under 13—is under an order of the court, the Secretary of State would not be able to deal with it further than suggesting that the court order should be reversed. It is important that, when looking at these amendments, one has to bear in mind that it appears that deprivation of liberty may be able to be made without the introduction of the court. In so far as the court is concerned, I remind the Committee, as a former lawyer and judge, that neither the Home Office, the Department for Education nor any other government department can actually change the law of England other than through the parliamentary process. I have no doubt at all that the Minister knows that perfectly well, but it seems to me we have to be a little careful about the extent of the suggested use of these amendments.

I entirely understand what is intended, and it is entirely laudable, but we just need to be very careful as regards in what circumstances and whether there will be a court order. My recollection is that, in the past, Section 25 orders were also made in the family proceedings court. Not a word has been said about that now, and it may be that that does not happen any longer, but certainly there continue to be orders under the inherent jurisdiction, so I just make that warning to your Lordships.

[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.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

Thank you—I acknowledge that more money is going in and absolutely acknowledge that there is an expansion of free school meals. I am only worried about the evidence that we have seen. Yesterday, we had a whole-day meeting of Feeding Britain, and I am afraid that a lot of the information that we heard is that this is not there yet. I hope that it filters down, because it is a very straightforward thing to do.

I have put a lot of things into the amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Walmsley, on what school standards should be. It is a good thing for the Government to aim at, and I hope that they will look favourably on the amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 183D, 186A and 187A in this group. I am delighted that the Bill will deliver on Labour’s manifesto commitment to offer universal breakfast clubs for all primary-age children, which will be a significant step towards ending morning hunger in schools across England. But there is a concern that the policy appears to be designed solely for mainstream pupils and, as a result, risks failing to meet the needs of those with special educational needs and disabilities. My amendments would make school breakfast provision more accessible to SEND pupils and create a more individualised approach to the provision.

Although most pupils with SEND are in mainstream education, special provision is vital for many children and young people across the country, for whom there are different barriers to accessing education, which need to be acknowledged and supported by government. The format in the Bill for universal free breakfasts applies only to primary-age pupils, which would mean excluding secondary-age pupils in special schools from breakfast provision. That is inequitable and, within those schools, ultimately unworkable. Special schools are more likely than mainstream schools to be all-through settings, where children can be taught based on need rather than age. My Amendments 183D and 186A would therefore extend the school breakfast provisions in the Bill to include secondary-age pupils in special schools.

Many of these children also access school transport funding, and it is vital that schools and local authorities work with families to create flexible transport approaches, so that anyone wanting to access breakfast clubs is then enabled to. Additionally, some children with SEND access one-to-one support during the school day. This support is a vital key in unlocking the education system to these young people. Without funding for this support being extended to breakfast clubs, they face the prospect of being locked out. For that reason, I support Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would ensure that breakfast clubs are accessible for all pupils with SEND.

Breakfast clubs need to be accessible, but they should be able to deliver a mixed-model approach to breakfast provision. That means being delivered in the classroom or in nurture groups, as opposed to being available only in the normal dining area. Breakfast clubs are harder to access for pupils with SEND, which is why, in special school provision, only 16% of schools partnering with the charity Magic Breakfast operate a breakfast club without another style of school breakfast being delivered as well. I was privileged to witness that at first hand when I visited Eko Pathways school in East Ham recently. More than just instructive, it was an absolute joy to see the children so enthusiastically engaging in the breakfast club. I was struck by the way in which some of them, after queuing for their food, then took it to their classroom and began to tuck in as the lesson began. I accept that that would not be appropriate for mainstream pupils, but it was clearly an important part of making the delivery of breakfast at Eko Pathways school so effective in preparing pupils for their lessons each day. For that reason, I am happy to signal my support for Amendment 187 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister.

I turn to my Amendment 187A, which calls for the Secretary of State to gather and then publish detailed information on the state of breakfast club provision in schools. Of course, the Department for Education will monitor the overall uptake levels of school breakfast provision, which is the key metric in understanding how far-reaching the impact of the policy is proving to be. I believe that the DfE should gather representative data on the characteristics of those receiving breakfast in schools, such as eligibility for free school meals, eligibility for the pupil premium and inclusion on the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index, which has been referred to in previous groups today. That list is not exclusive, but these are the measures that include children and young people most at risk of morning hunger.

I believe the DfE should also consider collecting what is known as satisfaction data from pupils, teachers and caregivers. Without underlying metrics such as satisfaction, it is difficult to improve and augment the policy to increase its reach. Finally, impact measurements should be considered. These can include measuring positive effects on attendance, behaviour and health and well-being, as well, of course, as educational achievement further down the line. The charity Magic Breakfast collects data in relation to these, through both school surveys and academic studies. I hope my noble friend will agree that the Government should consider a balance of such methods to ensure robust data collection. I suspect she may say in her response that this is not required in the Bill, and I would accept that if she would also give a commitment that the data will be collected along the lines that I have suggested.

However, outside of the legislative structure, the Government are showing a commitment to developing better evaluation of policy. The Evaluation Task Force says that it drives

“continuous improvements in the way government programmes are evaluated in order to inform decisions”.

Including data collection and publication in the Bill would be a strong indicator of the Government’s commitment to evaluation.

The risk of not collecting this data is shown by the Welsh Government example. I refer to Amendment 187B in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, regarding impact assessment. I believe that six months is too short a timescale for meaningful assessments to be made. To some extent, the same might be said of Amendment 190 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Cass, but a period of 12 months would at least allow a full school year to be assessed.

Data collection is essential. Primary school free breakfast provision has been available in Wales since 2007, but the Welsh Government do not publish, nor seemingly even record, significant data on the effectiveness of their policy. That might explain why there have been no substantial changes to that policy, which has been in place for some 18 years.

In 2022, Wales was included in Magic Breakfast’s Hidden Hunger report, which found that, despite the legislation being intended to reach all primary schools in Wales, 85% of disadvantaged pupils were not reached by the provision. In another 2022 report, the Child Poverty Action Group and Parentkind noted that school breakfast clubs in Wales were

“not being made available to all families, despite a universal free primary breakfast offer”.

Wales was a leader in school breakfast provision, but a lack of monitoring risks the policy falling behind. Robust data collection being mandated by the Bill could avoid the risk of England falling to the same eventuality.

Lastly, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is not in his place to speak to his Amendment 184, which seeks to ensure that the Government underwrite the cost of providing breakfast clubs. Although it is not appropriate for that to be in the Bill, I sympathise with the noble Lord’s point. Indeed, this point was also made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Bennett, in their contributions. I was of course pleased to see the rollout in April of the first 750 schools providing free breakfasts for almost 200,000 pupils, but some schools have either not put themselves forward to participate or, in a few cases, have even withdrawn, citing financial reasons.

We all want the breakfast club provisions to be in place the length and breadth of the country, and eventually that will happen. I hope my noble friend the Minister will have something to say on the question of schools having their costs covered to ensure that the rollout can be completed as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 175, 190 and 194. The recent Food, Diet and Obesity Committee special inquiry, very ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was a wake-up call for all of us who served on it. We were shocked by the evidence from parents, campaigners, academics and others about the quality of food in schools. Our recommendations were powerful but are, sadly, unimplemented to date. However, there were bright spots, including Chefs in Schools, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which showed how good food can be delivered at very little extra cost.

The Government’s announcement that they want a major shift to prevention in healthcare is welcome, but they need to follow through with children’s nutrition if they are serious about that. Frontier Economics has estimated that overweight and obesity costs the UK economy £98 billion every year. Much of that is due to increased spending on the NHS—money that is then denied to other departments.

We have an obesity crisis—especially childhood obesity—in the UK. One in five children is already overweight or obese when they start primary school. That rises to one in four among the most deprived 20% of the population, who are most likely to be receiving free school meals. We also have increasing rates of tooth decay in children, and type 2 diabetes. Before 2000, it was unheard of for children to get type 2 diabetes. Many of the poorest children require a strong nutritional safety net to ensure that they are well fed and well nourished as they grow.

Amendment 175 relates to the holiday activities and food programme. The introduction of that programme was a proud achievement of the previous Government. It does what it says on the tin, providing activities and meals to children on low incomes during the summer holidays at a time when they are not able to access free school meals, which many rely on. However, unlike free school meals, the scheme has no basis in legislation; this amendment would change that.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 199ZA in my name. It was previously brought forward by my noble friend Lord Moynihan who, regrettably, cannot be here today, despite his enthusiasm for the subject. I will keep my comments short, as much has been said already on the subject.

This probing amendment goes further than my noble friend Lady Barran’s Amendment 199, out of concern that the Government’s proposals could lead to some schools excluding PE kit altogether as a branded item. This could disincentivise schools and pupils from meeting the Prime Minister’s commitment, made with the Lionesses, that every child across the country should benefit from and have equal access to high-quality PE and sport.

A survey by the Schoolwear Association carried out among school leaders found that over 50% of schools indicated that they would remove PE kits from their uniform policy if a strict cap were imposed, risking reduced sports participation due to the pressure to wear the latest brands, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, particularly among teenage girls. Worryingly, it believes that the Bill, as drafted, would lead to increased PE costs, as mentioned, and pose a risk to sports participation in our schools.

We know why PE uniforms are important: they promote a more equitable environment for students, and inclusivity. Importantly, they remove the pressure to wear the trendy—and, usually, more expensive—kit and create a level playing field. They promote safety, equality and a sense of unity among students, and they enhance school spirit. Schools need to foster a sense of community and belonging.

I of course support the ambition of keeping the cost of school uniforms down, but not at the expense of reducing participation in sport and physical activity in our schools. At a time when we are seeing an increase in the obesity figures for children and concerns about their lifestyles and well-being, we should not put in place barriers to their getting active. In fact, we need to do more to support and encourage activity. Above all, accepting this amendment would raise the profile of PE in schools and the importance of a healthy lifestyle for all our children.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am in favour of Amendment 196, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. That may surprise my colleagues on the Front Bench—to some extent, it surprises me—but I will speak from personal, recently lived experience.

My son is in year 9 at an academy in London. In the Easter break, he moved from one academy to another, so we had to have a complete change of uniform in that period. It was interesting to compare the two schools, because one required considerably more for its badged uniform than the other. The school he originally attended needed a jersey, a blazer, a tie, two PE shirts, two pairs of PE shorts, a house t-shirt, two pairs of monogrammed sports socks, a rugby shirt and a football shirt. The school he has moved to requires just a jersey, a blazer, a tie, one PE shirt, one pair of PE shorts, a rugby shirt and a football shirt.

I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, made on her amendment—which was originally brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—about encouraging young people to be as active as they can in sport. Being active in school may, on many occasions, lead to being active in clubs and societies outwith school; that is self-evident. However, I do not believe that having the school badge on what they wear really makes any difference. I am therefore not in favour of necessitating sports gear being badged.

If boys and girls represent their school, when they play against another school they clearly need to have a jersey with the school badge on it and with proper school colours. But if they are just playing rugby and football, they can do what I did at school: there was a blue top and a white top, which were interchangeable depending on what team you were in that week in preparation for matches at the weekend, and then you got the school top for the actual match on Saturday. Unless you are actually representing the school, you do not need anything with the school’s name on the breast—that would be unnecessary. I do not believe that that will disincentivise people getting involved in sport. PE is compulsory anyway, and it is very much the job of PE teachers and parents to encourage children to be physically active; whether they are wearing a red or a blue top with the school badge on it will not really make much difference.

I take issue with one point that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, made. He said that a blazer can last the whole of a child’s career. I take it that he is not including both primary and secondary schools. Even in secondary school, there are five years between year 7 and year 11. My son turned 14 last month and he is five inches taller than he was this time last year, so the blazer he wore then certainly would not go anywhere near meeting his needs now. It is not impossible, but it would be unusual for a child not to gain much height or girth between joining and leaving a school. I think that most children will probably require three blazers for those five years.

That brings me to another other point about blazers. I am not convinced by the idea that just buying a blazer from a supermarket, and then getting a badge sewn on it, is of any great benefit in tackling the problem of less well-off parents facing the burden of the costs of sending a child—or, in most cases, children—to school. These blazers are not of such good quality. It is well known that blazers bought in a supermarket will not be the same quality as those purchased in bulk by a supplier for a school, which can therefore sell them at a reasonable price because they are bought in bulk.

Incidentally, I checked up on that in relation to my own son. The blazer that we had to buy for him two months ago cost £34; on Amazon, the alternative without a badge was £31. So there was very little difference in price, but the difference in quality—in terms of having to replace the uniform—is important. While I very much support what the Government are trying to do here, I believe that five items, as well as a tie, is perfectly reasonable. This should be given further consideration by my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues in government.

Finally, I am very much committed to children wearing a school uniform. At the moment, we see many children from other countries in and around Parliament, who are clearly on school visits, not wearing school uniforms. In many countries, having a school uniform is unknown. That is unfortunate, because there is undoubtedly the issue of peer pressure, which, incidentally, is not dealt with by some uniform swap system. In many cases, a child wearing a recycled uniform will probably have it pointed out to them by—let us say—not too well-meaning friends, and it may well be obvious. If a child does not wear a uniform, other kinds of peer pressure very much exist, as the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, said in his introduction. That is why uniform is so important.

A uniform school uniform, as opposed to various brands of uniform, is worth having and retaining for a school’s identity, while at the same time not being overdemanding on parents. As I said, I speak from my own recent experience, which, to some extent, surprised me; I thought that all schools had more or less the same requirements, but they do not. However, requiring just three items, as well as a tie, risks parents buying items that are not exactly the same colour or style as that worn by the boy or girl sitting next to their child in class. For that reason, Amendment 196, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is worthy of support.

Amendment 202, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, covers school uniform swaps. In theory, that is a good idea, but it could exacerbate the problems of peer pressure rather than overcoming them.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust. Before I speak to my amendment, I offer my support to all the uniform amendments proposed so far by noble Lords. Schools need a bit more flexibility around uniforms than is allowed for by the Bill.

My amendment, much like Amendments 195A and 199ZA, would caveat the ban on schools being allowed to mandate three items of a branded uniform, excluding branded items that have been provided or lent to pupils free of charge. Why? One reason, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Sater, is that some schools have sport kit sponsors which provide more than three branded items free of charge.

The more important reason is that this prohibition would throw up an obstacle to the expansion of the Combined Cadet Force programme in state schools, which the Government have said they are in favour of. My reading of Clause 29 is that the prohibition would apply to CCF troops, because it says:

“For the purposes of subsection (1)”—


the limit on the number of branded items a pupil is required to have—

“a pupil is required to have a branded item of school uniform for use during a … year if the pupil is required to have it … to participate in any lesson, club, activity or event facilitated by the school during that year”.

A school-based combined cadet force would be an activity facilitated by the school.

I was surprised to see this clause appear as written, because an article in the UK Defence Journal published on 29 May 2025 began:

“The Ministry of Defence has welcomed the findings of a recent academic study highlighting the positive impact of school-based Cadet Forces, and confirmed plans to expand Combined Cadet Forces (CCFs) in state schools as part of a broader effort to improve youth development and opportunity”.


When responding to a Parliamentary Question, from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on 28 May, shortly after this report was published, the Minister of State for Defence, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, affirmed the Government’s support for the report’s recommendation that school-based cadet forces be expanded:

“We very much welcome the excellent research by the University of Northampton on the impact and value of school-based Cadet Forces in the UK, a study commissioned by the Ministry of Defence”.


He went on to describe the report as

“compelling reading for anyone interested in the development of young people”,

noting that it contained

“many useful insights … for school leaders to help support their efforts to seek wider opportunities for all their pupils”.

If the Government are genuinely in favour of expanding the CCF programme, and I hope they are, they must accept my amendment, since the uniforms that members of CCFs have to wear contain more than three branded items. With the exception of combat boots, all the items are provided free of charge by the Ministry of Defence, meaning that if you caveat Clause 29 in the way I am suggesting, it would solve the problem.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord said, as I always do. I prefer the politics of his father, the author of the 1945 Labour manifesto, rather more than his own, but that is something else.

The point he is making about the Combined Cadet Force is interesting. Earlier, I mentioned my son; he is in the air cadets, not associated with a school. The Combined Cadet Force should be available in schools, but it would not be compulsory. It would surely be something that boys or girls would opt in to. Only in a situation where the school made it mandatory that all children join the Combined Cadet Force would the argument he is advancing have any weight.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

As I read it, the clause does not just limit the prohibition to items mandated by the school for every pupil. If those are mandatory for an activity facilitated by the school, I believe this prohibition would still apply. That is my reading of the clause, but perhaps the Minister will correct me on that point when she responds.

To sum up, I welcome the Government’s intention here, which is to avoid schools placing excessive financial burdens on low-income families, but making an exception for items given or lent to pupils would not impose any additional burdens on those families, so I cannot see how the Government could possibly oppose my amendment or the other similar amendments hoping to achieve the same purpose.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

It is worth mentioning in passing that there are often delays in getting the young carer’s needs assessment that is called for in the amendment. I am advised that in some parts of the country you cannot get one at all. Clearly, if the amendment is to be effective in protecting the child, those delays are unacceptable. Perhaps when the Minister replies she can say what is being done to reduce those delays.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 209 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, to which I have added my name, and I thank him for introducing it so effectively. A young carer is defined as someone who is under the age of 18 and is looking after a family member or close friend. Often being forced to balance school and their social life with caring duties could seem an impossible task, which can take its toll on a young carer’s mental health. That said, on the other side of the coin, with the right level of support, many of the skills that they learn while caring are later transferable to adult life and the world of work.

All too often, however, young carers are invisible. If adults outside their family, particularly teachers and school support staff, are unaware of their caring responsibilities, it is unlikely that the help that they need will reach them, so it is important that we recognise young carers and learn how we can help them, because being a young carer is undoubtedly demanding. They assume adult responsibilities and worries while still a child and have to prepare for and get to school, study for exams and look after themselves.

During the pandemic, the Children’s Society launched the young carers count campaign, which highlighted the experiences of young carers and called for a child’s status as a carer to be included in the school census. The DfE acknowledged the value of that, because in 2022 it began to include young carers as a category in that census. Now that data is being recorded, a much clearer picture of the number of young carers across England and how they are impacted by their caring responsibilities is beginning to emerge. With proper resourcing, this should help significantly to improve the support that they receive.

The Children and Families Act 2014 amended the Children Act to make it easier for young carers to get an assessment of their needs and introduced whole-family approaches to assessment and support. Local authorities must offer an assessment where it “appears”—I am not quite sure what that means—that a child is involved in providing care. That legislation is aligned with similar provision in the Care Act 2014 that requires local authorities to consider the needs of young carers if, during the assessment of an adult with care needs, or of an adult carer, it appears that a child is providing or intends to provide care. In those circumstances, the authority must consider whether the care being provided by the child is excessive or inappropriate and how the child’s caring responsibilities affect their well-being, education and development.

Amendment 209 would add to Clause 30, which, of course, is concerned with children not in school. When a local authority is informed that a request has been made for a child to be removed from school, this amendment would require that a young carer’s needs assessment is undertaken. This would highlight cases where a child was being withdrawn to enable them to offer more support to a family member, likely at the expense of them attending school and thus continuing with their education. Increased caring responsibilities almost always mean that there is neither the time nor the facility for a child either to receive meaningful education from that relative or to self-educate, even where he or she was at least theoretically old enough to do so and the appropriate learning materials were made available. The starting point for any such assessment should always be that children are children first.

The young carer’s needs assessment must determine whether a young carer is giving what I described earlier as “excessive” care. Although a child might be undertaking relatively minor care tasks, the time that these take up and the demands that they make on the child could place significant limits on their life—for example, if the level of care interferes with school attendance or appears to be isolating the child in their home and preventing contact with their friends. For that reason, I hope that my noble friend will agree that a needs assessment is necessary to ensure that local authorities are aware of young carers’ needs and that their needs are being met, while preserving their access to education.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I can see why my noble friend Lord Storey added his name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young. Any child taking on responsibilities like those described in that amendment is not having a childhood. In reality, they are getting through from day to day—they cannot be doing much more. School may be the only point where they will get some support and some normal life; enabling them to have that may be the only way that they can have a future.

If you spend your entire life looking after somebody else, and they inconveniently live for quite a long time, you could find yourself in middle age without an education or qualifications and having been de-social skilled—I do not know if that is a correct expression. Your life will have been taken over by another function. That should not be put on somebody that young. When she comes to respond, I hope that the Minister will say something positive, because this is something that we should deal with at the first opportunity.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

I hope that the Minister will look kindly on this amendment. She may not like its wording, and I would be very pleased if the Government were to bring forward an even better framed and drafted amendment. I accept that my amendment’s drafting may not be perfect, but I think the Minister will get the thrust of what I am saying. I am sure she will agree that it is very unfortunate that rural schools have been impacted in this way, and the admissions policy for schools even more so.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Amendment 456 in my name would require new state schools opened after this Bill enters the statute book to have a limit on faith-based selection for admissions of 50% when the school is oversubscribed. This has been a requirement since 2011, but, as it stands, the Bill would end that requirement. We often hear amendments being dismissed by Ministers who warn of unintended consequences, but this appears to be an example of a Bill itself in danger of causing unintended consequences.

The determination by a succession of Tory Governments, initially hand in hand with the Lib Dems, to undermine maintained schools while promoting academies and free schools vigorously has meant that, since 2011, all new schools had to be free schools. There was one benefit of that policy, because free schools are subject to the 50% faith-based cap on admissions as part of their funding agreement. Clause 57 would remove the presumption that all new schools should be free schools and would instead allow other types of schools to be opened. That includes voluntary aided or foundation schools, which can be 100% religiously selective. Those types of schools will be allowed to open for the first time since the cap was introduced 14 years ago.

Was that an unintended consequence? If it was initially, it seems that the Government were not greatly concerned by it. When the issue was debated in another place, an amendment similar to Amendment 456 was voted down by the Government in Committee, and the same thing happened on Report. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that, on deeper reflection, that is a position that she does not want to defend.

I say that because a cap on faith-based admissions has been demonstrated to strengthen ethnic integration. Analysis of data on faith schools shows that religiously selective schools operating under the 50% cap were significantly more ethnically diverse than schools that were 100% religiously selective. We should bear in mind that, at a time when the far right is seeking to divide communities on grounds of ethnicity, it is surely inappropriate to allow schools to entrench differences. This is a time for the Government to be promoting social and ethnic integration, not facilitating a means by which children grow up potentially not knowing anyone of their own age who is different from themselves. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want to see happening.

Faith-selective schools remain less inclusive across multiple factors. Compared to other schools, faith-selective schools admit fewer children eligible for free school meals than would be expected for their catchment areas, and 100% faith-selective admissions would only exacerbate inequalities in the school system. Last year, the Office of the Schools Adjudicator said that disadvantaged children, including those in care, miss out on school places because of faith-based admissions. Studies by the Sutton Trust and the London School of Economics reached the same conclusions. We know that 100% faith-selective schools will open if the provisions of Clause 57 remain. The Catholic Church and the Church of England will certainly do so, and it may be that Jewish, Muslim and Sikh groups would wish to do the same. They already exist.

In Committee in another place, the then Schools Minister Catherine McKinnell MP said,

“on the faith schools cap provision, we want to allow proposals for different types of school that will promote a diverse school system that supports parental choice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/25; col. 454.]

Supporting parental choice is admirable, but allowing new 100% faith-selective schools to open would not expand parental choice. It would actually limit it for parents in an area who do not adhere to the faith of the new school or indeed any faith. According to the British Social Attitudes survey, 53% of people now have no religion. Thus, potentially more than half of all parents have fewer choices for state-funded schools than their religious counterparts, and 100% faith selection allows their children to be rejected from an oversubscribed school on their doorstep in favour of the child of a parent in a home possibly miles away whose choice—that is, the religious affiliation—is the factor that allows them to be selected for admission.

I suggest that that is neither right nor fair. Lifting the 50% cap on admissions would be a regressive move, and not one that I believe should be sanctioned by a Labour Government. I suggest that Amendment 456 offers a means of avoiding that.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to my own Amendment 457 and to Amendment 456 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, both of which deal with the issue of faith- based selection in school admissions.

My Amendment 457 speaks to the missing data that the Schools Minister raised in Committee in the other place. The Department for Education currently does not collect data on how admissions policies are applied in schools, and therefore we do not know how many parents are missing out on their preferred school placements because of their religion or because they do not have a religion. Collecting data would shed light on what the impact of faith-selective admissions is for parents and pupils and whether such selection is contributing to or undermining parental choice.

Amendment 456 should, I hope, be uncontroversial. Since 2011, all new faith schools, as all new schools, had to be free schools, and have been subject in their funding agreements to a 50% cap on faith-based selection in admissions when oversubscribed. In this situation, Amendment 456 is a simple tidying-up exercise—that is how I read it anyway—extending a standing policy for free schools with a religious character to all new state-maintained schools with a religious character that could open under Clause 57.

The Government have not in any way suggested that they oppose the 50% cap in principle. Following a consultation on the cap that showed overwhelming support for it to continue, the Government have stated that they will maintain the cap for free schools with a religious character. If the Government are supportive of allowing new 100% faith-selective schools to open, I ask the Minister to state that clearly before the Committee.

I wish to be clear that neither of these amendments oppose the opening or continuing service of faith schools in this country, many of which provide exemplary education for their pupils. What the amendment seeks to do is ensure that faith schools cannot limit parental choice and pupil diversity by hand-selecting whom they wish to accept.

Using selection of faith leads to less inclusion. Church of England and minority religion schools, subject to a 50% cap, have higher ethnic diversity compared with those not subject to the cap. Faith schools compared with schools without a religious character in the same catchment area have been found to accept fewer children on free school meals, according to the Sutton Trust; fewer children in care, according to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator; and fewer children with additional learning needs, according to research from the London School of Economics. Amendment 456 and my Amendment 457 would promote fairness and parental choice in the schools admissions policy. I commend them both to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

Bizarrely enough, if you look at the cohort studies of people throughout their lives and ask what the best predictor is of someone having a worthwhile, highly satisfying life on their own terms and self-identifying as such, you see that it is their well-being as a child, not their income level or exam results. These things matter hugely. If we get this right, it will be the most important thing we have done in this Bill, but, at the moment, there is no measurement.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 479 in my name. Before doing so, I offer an apology to noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Holmes of Richmond. I added my name to their amendments in the previous group and fully intended to speak in support of them, but I got my timings rather wrong and did not arrive here until the first three speeches had been made. Because of that discourtesy, I felt it would have been inappropriate to contribute on that grouping.

Amendment 479 would not mean a material change for schools and colleges because it aims to make the existing guidance statutory, with programmes and support around that guidance already in place. Previous Governments have acknowledged concern at the worsening mental health among children and young people, with the most significant policies stemming from the 2018 Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care joint Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health. That referenced the non-statutory guidance issued in 2015, Promoting Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Wellbeing: A Whole School or College Approach.

I welcome the fact that the Labour Government have continued with this commitment. The announcement from the Department for Education in May indicated that the rollout of the mental health support team programme will continue, with additional funding committed for this year and full rollout—aiming for 100% coverage of schools—expected by the end of the 2029-30 academic year. However, as the guidance is non-statutory, there is a current inequity of access to support for schools that would like more help with improving mental health and well-being in their setting. Most schools will have a trained senior mental health lead who understands whole-school approaches, but that person is often a current member of staff who may be juggling other roles, such as a pastoral lead, a SENCO or a safeguarding lead. Also, many schools may not have further access to a mental health support team until that programme reaches its conclusion by 2029-30.

Additionally, without statutory status, leaders and senior managers in schools may be tempted, understandably, to overlook this approach to improving a school’s ethos and environment when they are faced with a range of other issues, not least the challenges presented by attendance and behaviour. The Schools Wellbeing Partnership campaign group argues that, by improving the mental health and well-being of pupils, attendance and behaviour can be positively affected. This forms the foundation of support for all pupils, so that they can feel a true sense of belonging at a school and can thrive in that school’s environment. Whether or not the current guidance is made statutory, it certainly requires updating; incidentally, that last occurred in 2021.

With that in mind, I want to elaborate a little on the points listed in my amendment on whole-school approaches. There is an old saying: “You cannot improve what you cannot measure”. This relates to what the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, just said about evidence. Incidentally, I say to him in passing that I have bad news for him: he suggested that Manchester United are not as bad as seventh in the league table, but it is twice as bad as that, I am afraid. You have to measure before you can begin improvements. Identifying and measuring children and young people’s mental health and well-being will offer the necessary data, which schools can use to improve their environment, their teaching and their support.

I welcome Amendment 472, but a whole-school approach already has the tools to respond to that data. However, the current guidance needs to be strengthened to offer more robust information about schools. Updating the guidance and making it statutory would support schools in turning data into action plans and action plans into improvement, although that improvement will require further training for mental health leads. The training for staff taking on these roles ended in March this year. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be able to say if and when that essential training will resume.

Access to mental health support in schools was a manifesto commitment last year, and I commend the Government for wasting no time as that delivery has now begun. That is very welcome, of course, although there is concern that some mental health support teams are not able to provide the support that some specific cohorts of children require in some schools.

Finally, I want to touch on wider aspects of a whole- school approach. The Schools Wellbeing Partnership has long campaigned on this issue and recently published eight principles necessary for that approach to be fully effective. I will not list them just now due to the time, but I am very encouraged to note that all eight of those principles are contained in Ofsted’s proposed new inspection framework, so there is a very good chance that they will soon enter the mainstream. That would strengthen the effectiveness of the whole-school approaches necessary to ensure that children’s and young people’s mental health are taken seriously, and the necessary support is properly resourced. That support is too important to be left to optional guidance and simply must be made statutory to ensure those in need of it get the support that they deserve.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, to which I have attached my name. I have to say that after such a powerful speech—probably one of the best we have had in Committee—I was sort of waiting for the Minister to jump to her feet and say, “Look, I can bring this to an end and accept that amendment. It makes such consummate sense that we need to underpin with data all the ambitious goals we have for the well-being of children”.

What can we do without data? Introducing policies that we do not know are effective or ineffective costs too much; we need data. Nobody is arguing today that this data should be compulsory among all schools. This is voluntary, but I expect virtually every school I have ever visited in the state sector to want to do this, to be party to this, because there can be opportunities to benefit from this as well.

Some of us had the opportunity the other day to listen to the CEO of Lego, Niels Christiansen, who was giving a presentation here in Parliament. He was talking about the work he and his company were doing with young kids—five year-olds in Slough—to get fantastic benefits at an early stage in life by playing with Lego rather than playing online. If you had the data and the evidence that companies such as Lego were doing such good work, more schools would want to do that. Having that information available would be second to none.

I am confident that this evening the Minister is going to be wholly supportive of this amendment. I am not going to dwell on the points that have been made so far, but on the reasons why. How would the measurement we are talking about benefit the well-being of young people? It would promote children’s mental health, enhance learning outcomes, promote fairness, strengthen accountability and build a healthier and fitter society. It would have long-term social benefits. Schools play an absolutely central role in shaping future citizens, and this information would help us foster well-being, which improves social cohesion, productivity and public health. It would help us create a national policy to support the UK’s wider commitments to tackling not just mental health problems but physical health problems and challenges, and it would reduce pressure on the NHS.

This data would support teachers and staff. Well-being measurement data can highlight systemic issues such as high-stress levels and workload concerns that also affect staff and allow us to address them. It can lead to healthier, happier school communities, benefiting both students and educators. Staff can use insights from well-being data to tailor pastoral care and teaching more appropriately and more effectively to the problem.

We can have a cultural shift in education. The more we know what is going on in schools on this front, the more we can do to have a cultural shift. Embedding well-being measurement reinforces the message that mental health and physical health is an important issue and, in many ways for many children, just as important as academic achievement. It normalises conversations about well-being and reduces stigma around mental health issues. This shift helps prepare young people for life beyond school, fostering resilience and emotional literacy.

I can see that the Minister is just about to get to her feet to accept this amendment. But if, in the event, she is just going to pause to reflect because she wants to hear a little more about how this amendment is going to benefit her Bill, her reputation and her legacy in education, I will say this: regular well-being measurement can help schools identify mental and physical health and well-being challenges before they escalate into serious issues. Earlier detection enables timely support, reduces long-term risks such as school dropout, self-harm and disengagement, and preventive intervention is more cost-effective than crisis management in the health and social care systems.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

These amendments ask only that laws be judged by their fruits and that liberties be defended when they are most vulnerable. That is how we protect children more effectively, support families more fairly and preserve freedom more securely. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, if my Amendment 505C appears something of an outlier, it is only because it is. It would have been more appropriate for it to have been introduced in Part 1 of the Bill, but I have to be honest and say that, at the time, I was unaware of it as an issue. Being even more honest, I have to say that, had I been following the progress of the Mental Health Bill, I might well have been. I acknowledge the assistance of the clerks in the Public Bill Office for finding me a peg on which to hang this, and also the assistance of JUSTICE, the law reform charity, for briefings and context.

Whatever the view of noble Lords on the contracting out of vital public services, I am confident enough to say that nobody on any side of your Lordships’ House wants people to be treated less decently and with fewer human rights because a service is being provided by an outside contractor rather than directly. The Human Rights Act is an essential tool for individuals to hold public bodies to account. It requires public authorities to act in compatibility with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, and this definition of a public authority has been narrowly interpreted by the courts. In a 2008 case, it was found that a private care home was not a public authority, despite the plaintiff’s placement being funded entirely by that local authority.

The years since then have of course seen a large expansion of core government services contracted out to the private sector, leading to an accountability gap in our human rights legislation. In the care sector, more than 80% of children’s homes are now run by private companies. That is an increase of 20% since 2010, and the figure continues to rise.

In 2014, an attempt was made to fill that accountability gap for care provision with the Care Act of that year. The then coalition Government made it clear that

“it wishes all providers of publicly arranged care services to consider themselves bound by the Human Rights Act, including private providers under contracts with local authorities”.

But a 2024 case demonstrated that this was not sufficient. A man with chronic and treatment-resistant schizophrenia, whose care and treatment had been funded by a combination of Manchester City Council and an NHS trust, sadly died. His family brought a claim against the private nursing home provider and the trust, arguing that his death had resulted from the private provider’s breaches of the Human Rights Act. However, the High Court struck out the human rights aspect of the claim, ruling that the man’s circumstances fell outside the scope of the provisions of Section 73 of the Care Act 2014.

That ruling highlights significant wider concerns for commissioned children’s health and social care services—although they are not covered by Section 73 of the Care Act because, as things stand, a private provider does not have human rights obligations to children in their publicly funded care. This is particularly important given the scale of outsourcing in the children’s social care market. Some 90% of children’s social care services shut down by Ofsted for not meeting standards to protect children, or where there was evidence of harm, are operated by private organisations.

Since four out of five children’s homes are operated by for-profit companies, there are reasons to be concerned about how well children’s human rights are protected in that social care sector. Children’s care settings provide services to some of the most vulnerable children in our society, and the Children’s Commissioner said in highlighting this last year:

“Children in care have the most prescribed rights in law, and yet these rights are often the least reflected in their experience. … We cannot meet children’s rights unless our public services are of sufficient quality to provide what children need”.


In January, when the Bill had its Second Reading in another place, the Minister of State said that the Bill would

“stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks in our services”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/25; col. 953.]

The Human Rights Act is a crucial safeguard for individuals up and down this country on a day-to-day basis, especially for those with vulnerabilities who rely on the state. As the Care Quality Commission set out in 2023, a focus on human rights

“ensures people receive good care and helps us fulfil our duties and purpose by meeting our legal obligations”.

However, people do fall through the cracks, and not just young people. The uncertainty in the law means that private providers may have no direct statutory obligation to act compatibly with children’s ECHR rights and that children—and, by definition, their families—may have no direct remedy against private providers for human rights violations. The Bill is an important opportunity to extend human rights protections to all those in commissioned children’s care, irrespective of who the provider is.

It is not sufficient to say that it may be possible for a claim to be brought against a local authority. Why should parents be required to do that? The Joint Committee on Human Rights dealt with this during the passage of the Care Act 2014, making it clear that:

“The inadequacy of such indirect protection has long been a matter of consensus in debates and reports about this issue”.


It has also been a cross-party position for many years that those in publicly funded care deserve full human rights protections and that providers must be directly accountable for breaching human rights, as was demonstrated by the cross-party support for changing the law through the Mental Health Bill earlier this year. During Report of that Bill in your Lordships’ House, when my noble friend Lady Keeley proposed an amendment on adult mental health care and treatment, the Minister—my noble friend Lady Blake—said that the Government were

“particularly conscious of the references to children’s services”,

and that it was

“an issue that we have, of course, been discussing with the DfE”.—[Official Report, 2/4/25; col. 337.]

My noble friend pledged to take the matter forward, and she did so very effectively, because it resulted in what is now Clause 52 of that Bill, which amends the Human Rights Act 1998 and states,

“A registered care provider is to be regarded for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 as exercising a function of a public nature in providing any of the services mentioned in subsection (2) (to the extent that it would not otherwise be so regarded)”.


The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is, as I said, an important opportunity to ensure that all private providers of children’s services commissioned by local authorities, whether in social care, education or disability-related services, are treated as public authorities under the Human Rights Act. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will signify that the Government intend to follow the lead of her Ministerial colleagues on the Mental Health Bill when this Bill reaches Report. If she is unwilling or unable to do so, I hope that she will arrange for the statement called for in Amendment 505C to be published.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments would introduce a number of reviews of the Bill. Those in the name of my noble friend Lord Wei also seek to limit the new powers in the Bill in relation to elective home-educated children.

Amendment 502C from my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth would introduce a review of the Act after five years, and my noble friend made an extremely articulate and clear case for this. I think my noble friend said that there were already over 20 examples of amendments seeking reviews of different parts of the Bill. Although concerns about Part 2—which we have debated more recently—are certainly uppermost in my mind, those of us with long memories will remember some of the concerns about the pace of and evidence base for the reforms to children’s social care in Part 1.

My noble friend set out some criteria for post-legislative scrutiny: it should be a substantial Bill—I think that, on day 12, we can agree this is a substantial Bill; it should introduce major changes; it has unquestionably been controversial; and it did not have pre-legislative scrutiny. I thought almost the strongest point is that this would allow the Government to demonstrate their confidence that the Bill will deliver on the changes that the Government seek and the impact that the Government desire, so I hope very much that the noble Baroness will be able to accept my noble friend’s amendment.

Amendment 505C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, again very ably presented, highlights concerns about the responsibilities of private providers of children’s social care in relation to children’s human rights. Again, it would be helpful to hear the Minister’s response to this. For my part, I suppose I would prefer the Government’s focus to be on the quality of care that children receive when they are in local authority care, in a children’s home or, potentially, in foster care, as in this case. They already have considerable rights enshrined in legislation, as the noble Lord said; what we need is for the culture in those organisations to make sure that children receive the care that they so very rightly deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that noble Lords have spent considerable hours on this—some more than others, I think it is fair to say.

Amendment 505C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seeks assurances, via a published statement, on how the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to private providers of publicly funded children’s social care services. The amendment seeks a pause in the commencement of Clauses 12 to 18 of the Bill until such a statement is made. These clauses cover measures relating to provider and financial oversight, profit caps, Ofsted and Secretary of State powers to impose monetary penalties, and information sharing between Ofsted and the Secretary of State.

I thank my noble friend for bringing important human rights considerations to our attention. Protecting the human rights of all children is of paramount importance, and the Bill is delivering a number of important measures to stop vulnerable children falling through cracks in services. I completely understand the reasoning behind my noble friend’s amendment and would like to provide the Committee with reassurances on the robustness and broad applicability of the human rights legal framework, including for children’s social care services.

Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights, and this duty extends to private providers when they are performing functions of a public nature. There is no statutory definition of “functions of a public nature”, but relevant factors considered by the courts include the extent to which the body, in carrying out the relevant function, is publicly funded, exercising statutory powers, taking the place of central government or local authorities, or providing a public service. This broad-scope approach is intentional to ensure that a wide range of services can be captured, as appropriate.

Any statement that the Government make, as proposed by my noble friend, would not be legally binding. Whether a provider is carrying out functions of a public nature and is therefore in scope of the Human Rights Act is for the courts to determine, based on the facts in each specific case. However, to be clear, the Government’s position is that, were a court required to decide whether the private provision of core children’s social care services—services that local authorities are legally required to provide—falls in scope of the Human Rights Act 1998, we believe that the court would conclude that they were indeed performing a function of a public nature and would therefore be in scope.

My noble friend has identified the distinction between the approach taken here and that taken in the Mental Health Bill. As he said, the DHSC is making it explicit in that Bill that certain mental health services are deemed to be exercising a public function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, but those amendments are being made following case law that identified a gap in the application of the HRA to the private provision of the services in question—some of which my noble friend referenced, I think.

No such gap has been identified through case law in relation to private provision of children’s social care services. Therefore, our view is that no clarification of the law is necessary for these services and, as I have emphasised, we continue to be of the view that the private provision of core children’s social care services would be considered to be within scope of the Human Rights Act. I suspect that, in pushing me, my noble friend might say, “Why don’t we take a belt-and-braces approach here, anyway?” The issue is that attempting to provide further specificity around certain services risks other services being unintentionally excluded by virtue of their omission. This is the way, as I understand it, that lawyers tend to work.

I emphasise again that we are content that the Human Rights Act as drafted is flexible enough to capture those functions that need to be within scope of the Human Rights Act 1998. We believe that would be upheld in any case with respect to children’s social care services. It is also important to remember that children’s social care is a highly regulated sector, subject to inspection and accountability processes aimed at keeping children safe and promoting their best interests. The local authority arranging or funding the relevant service would also always be within scope of the Human Rights Act in the exercise of its functions as a core public authority.

On this basis, I hope my noble friend might be reassured. We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to delay the commencement of other important Bill measures that are designed to ensure children in relevant settings are protected. We are confident in the existing legal framework and hope that we have provided the necessary reassurances and statements here today to reassure him. I hope, given my responses, that noble Lords would feel able to not press their amendments.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that very full response to Amendment 505C. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say at this stage whether I accept the reassurance. I would like the opportunity to discuss it with her before Report, perhaps with some legal support on those points. She and her team have clearly gone into it deeply, and I appreciate that.

In closing, my noble friend talked about the extent to which this Bill has been subjected to scrutiny in Committee. I have been here 22 years now, and do not remember any Bill having had 12 days in Committee. I checked and we started this Committee on 20 May, fully four months ago, so I do not think anybody can say it has not had proper scrutiny. I would just like to draw an analogy. My noble friend mentioned earlier that she ran a 10K at the weekend, I imagine that must have felt like a walk in the park compared to steering this Bill through. I thank her and her other ministerial colleagues and Whips for the way in which they have approached it.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am more than happy to meet my noble friend and to bring those legal minds with me that I hope will enable him to be reassured. Given that this is the last group that I will be responding to today, I also thank him for what he has said about this Committee stage. It has been lengthy, but usually carried out in a respectful, amicable and constructive way. For that, I particularly thank the opposition Front Benches and, obviously, my excellent Whip and co-responder my noble friend Lady Blake. I agree with my noble friend that I do not think anybody could say that we have not done our jobs as legislators in this place in well and truly giving this a good going over, and I thank all those who have been involved in that.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

37: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of staying put funding(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the level of funding provided for staying put arrangements (within the meaning of section 23CZA of the Children Act 1989) to local authorities and independent fostering agencies to determine its adequacy to meet its aims.(2) The review must produce recommendations regarding any steps necessary to increase the funds available per young person.(3) The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State undertakes a review into the level of funding allocated to local authorities for “staying put” arrangements to determine if it is sufficient to allow all eligible young people to benefit and meets its aims as set out in Staying Put Guidance.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am introducing this group as Amendments 37 and 38 are in my name and I have added my name to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I will not steal the thunder of the noble Baroness on Amendment 59 so will merely say that the arguments I advanced when a very similar amendment was discussed in Committee seven months ago still apply. I stressed then that, in the long term, there will be a significant cost benefit to the Treasury of young people being allowed to extend Staying Put from 21 to 25.

Four years ago, the MacAlister report quoted figures from 2020 which showed that the average cost of supporting a child in foster care was just 35% of that of a residential care placement. Mr MacAlister is, of course, now the Children’s Minister so he will know that it really is not in the Government’s financial interest to deny support to those between 21 and 25 who want to remain with their foster families. I acknowledge the point made by my noble friend when she replied to my amendment in June that the Government wanted to prioritise filling the gaps in current support, in particular for young people transitioning to independent living. That is admirable but it is exactly what the support of a foster family provides.

Amendment 37 seeks a review of Staying Put funding. That would involve the Government conducting a full and comprehensive review into the level of funding allocated to local authorities for Staying Put arrangements to determine whether it is sufficient to allow all eligible young people to benefit and whether it meets the aims as set out in the Staying Put guidance. A review of funding for Staying Put is certainly overdue, given that the arrangement was introduced as long ago as 2014. The case for such a review is bound up with the arguments in support of Amendment 38, which aims to introduce a national minimum allowance for foster carers offering Staying Put arrangements, which does not currently exist, and to ensure that it matches the amount currently paid for 16 and 17 year-olds.

Recent surveys have highlighted the need for the extension of Staying Put support beyond the age of 17. In fact, a Department for Education report published two months ago—after Committee had concluded—found that in 2024-25, 62% of 18 year-old care leavers continued living with their former foster carers, but that figure halved for those aged 19 and 20. This illustrates that Staying Put is not being provided for as many young people as it could really help as they transition to adulthood and independent living.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interest in this area. As he opened the group, I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Watson for his sincere interest, as we heard in Committee, when we had a good exploration of the issues.

I will first discuss three amendments together: Amendments 37, 38 and 59. Amendments 37 and 38, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seek a review of current Staying Put funding and the introduction of a national minimal allowance for Staying Put arrangements. Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, proposes extending current Staying Put duties to the age of 25. We know that the existing Staying Put duties, which continue until a young person reaches 21, enable local authorities to support young people to remain longer in the stable and secure foster homes they know. This continuity helps them to step into adulthood with the same opportunities and life chances as their peers. We recognise that additional stability at a crucial age.

We remain firmly committed to supporting young people in Staying Put arrangements. The provisional local government finance settlement includes continued funding of £100 million through the first multiyear settlement in a decade for local authorities supporting these arrangements. I am sure that all Members who have had local authority experience will recognise that multiyear settlement as crucial in bringing stability back into local government finance. As I said, this will provide greater certainty and enable effective sufficiency planning for Staying Put arrangements.

However—and I emphasise this again—we must also ensure that we prioritise addressing the gaps in current provision with the available resources that we have. That is particularly the case for those moving into independent living at 18 who have not been able to remain with their former foster carers and for those with the most complex needs. This is precisely why we are introducing statutory Staying Close duties. Under these duties, all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those who have a Staying Put arrangement, will receive Staying Close support where their welfare requires it. This will help them find and keep suitable accommodation, and access the wraparound services they need to thrive.

As we introduce a number of new duties for care leavers through the Bill, it is essential that we allow these changes to embed and begin to deliver the outcomes we expect before we review Staying Put and look to amend or include further requirements within the duty. I hope that this gives some comfort to my noble friend Lord Watson. We are not seeking to ignore his comments; we are looking at this in a pragmatic way that will bring things forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about the initial cost estimates, which amount to several hundred million pounds. Further proper assessment is therefore needed, and we will not shy away from that. Further assessment of the impact of local authority funding will be needed, in this changing picture, for both residential and foster care. As has been set out, we must prioritise those gaps. I know that this is a difficult message to get across, but we need to make sure that, through Staying Close, we reach as many young people as possible.

Amendments 41 and 42 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 41 seeks to require local authorities to publish information in their local offer about transition arrangements for care leavers in relation to health and primary care. While fully supporting the aim of the amendment, we believe that it is not required, as there is already an expectation that local authorities will include details of services that may assist care leavers in relation to health and well-being in their local offer.

Similarly, the Government support the intention behind Amendment 42, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would require that general practice contracts have due regard to the additional health needs of care leavers under the age of 25 when negotiating general practice contracts in the future. However, again, it is not required, as there are already clear expectations in statutory guidance for local authorities, integrated care boards and NHS England to have effective plans in place for looked-after children to make a smooth transition to adulthood, including continuation of access to the health advice and services they need. Additionally, the corporate parenting responsibilities that will be introduced through the Bill, which we will go on to discuss, will require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and NHS England, as relevant authorities, to be alert to matters that might adversely affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers in the exercise of their functions, including negotiating GP services.

Amendment 95, tabled by right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a national offer for care leavers. Throughout the Bill, the Government are taking significant steps to ensure that young people leaving care are not left to navigate adulthood alone. Our aim is clear: to ensure that every care leaver has a stable home, access to necessary health services, support to build lasting relationships, and the opportunity to thrive in education, employment and training. These are the foundations that every young person deserves, and care leavers should be no exception.

Care leavers’ legal entitlements are already set out in the Children Act 1989, supported by regulations and statutory guidance. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 strengthened this by requiring local authorities to consult on and publish a local offer for care leavers. Statutory guidance makes it clear that this local offer must include information on both the support that care leavers are legally entitled to and any additional help a local authority chooses to provide. Clause 8 of the Bill further strengthens those expectations. Here I am addressing in particular the argument on local as against national that the right reverend Prelate made.

Most importantly, it is local authorities that are best placed to understand the needs of their young people. Crucially, this support should be shaped in consultation and by understanding the needs of care leavers themselves. Therefore, the amendment risks unintentionally creating a one-size-fits-all approach that leaves care leavers in different areas and with different requirements not getting the support that best meets their needs.

With regard to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that her comments about the cost of foster caring are possibly more relevant to the next group, under Amendment 110C.

I recognise that we are putting in place measures that will take some time to embed and move forward, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that we are absolutely committed to improving the life chances of all young people and, in this case, particularly of young people in care. With those comments, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for those remarks. I will just start on the point that she finished on: that the Government are totally committed to ensuring that all young people have the support that they need. I do not question that. It is unfortunate that there seems to be a cohort of young people who are in foster care, and when they reach the age of 17, they may be able to continue with their foster parents, if they want to and the foster parents are happy to keep them, but there will not be the national minimum allowance, which applies to 16 and 17 year-olds. So, it is incumbent on the foster carers themselves to make up that shortfall. In many cases, with the best will in the world, that simply is not financially possible.

It then opens up the situation where some young people, having just turned 18, have to find alternative arrangements. I take the point that my noble friend the Minister made about wraparound care, the local authority’s offer and the Staying Close arrangements. All those are valuable, and most young people in that situation will make use of them and take advantage of them. But there are some who will not be able to do so. I stress the fact that, in seeking for the national minimum allowance to be extended beyond 17, it would apply only to those situations where the foster family felt able to keep the child and the child wanted to keep the family, as it were. It would not apply to every child of that age.

I am not quite sure about the answer my noble friend gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on her question about cost. In my Amendment 37 on a review, there is no cost implicit. My noble friend the Minister gave a ballpark figure of several hundred million. I do not know whether that would be the case or not: it would depend on the outcome of the review. I had hoped that she might say—although obviously it was never my intention that this should go in the Bill—that the Government would undertake that review. I cannot see any harm in undertaking a review of the Staying Put arrangements that have been in place now for 12 years, since 2014.

I cannot avoid saying that I am disappointed in the response. There are many options for young people. The place I am coming from is: how would any noble Lord who had a child who turned 18 feel if they were obliged to leave home—I am not talking about going to university or college—and find other arrangements at that important and psychologically difficult time in their life? It is no accident that children in care are far less likely to go to university than their peers who live with their birth parents and are far less likely to take up training and apprenticeships. I just make that point to my noble friend. I am not saying that she is being unsympathetic, but I hoped we could at least have a review, which might have pointed the way forward to advancing the number of young people who turn 18 and are able to stay with their foster parents. Foster parents do such a fantastic job. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

For all these reasons, I hope that the Minister will look at this very carefully and, above all, think about the families who really need this consistency of support and of the children whose lives within an adopted family may be at risk.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell. As he said, he has played a major role within Coram, the organisation which, as we sit here now, is celebrating the centenary of the Adoption of Children Act 1926. For noble Lords who do not know about this, the celebration is on the Terrace between now and 8 pm. If you get the opportunity, please go along and meet the many people who make such a large contribution to adoption within the UK. It is appropriate to mark the centenary appropriately.

That landmark legislation introduced, for the first time in England and Wales, a legal process by which the rights and responsibilities for a child could be transferred from birth parents to adoptive parents. Because of that, I find it unfortunate to say the least that on the centenary of that Act, the Bill we are discussing this evening features the word “adoption” only four times in 137 pages. I do not understand that. Three of those mentions are just mentions of adoption in other Acts of Parliament. Why that should be the case, I simply do not understand. A Bill with children’s well-being in its title surely should not ignore the key role played by adoptive parents in their children’s well-being. I made this point in Committee and I am not going to repeat what I said then, but those working with adoptive families who have suffered the cut in the adoption support fund to which the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell, have referred feel undervalued, despite the important job they do in keeping children out of care and residential homes.

We need to think again about how we approach adoption and give it the respect and resources it deserves. If any noble Lords choose to go down to the Terrace this evening, they will meet people who are very active and hardworking in that sector, who will tell you that they feel undervalued and under-supported. I hope that before long, that will change.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. In Committee and again this evening, we covered in detail the distress caused to parents and children by the very late timing of the announcement in relation to the support fund and by the cut in the size of the grant. In particular, Amendment 46 gives the Government an opportunity to review how best to use this funding ahead of the grant period in March 2027. I am not aware of any compelling evidence that supports the earlier decision to cut the grant size and to reduce the funding for specialist assessments, but if that exists perhaps the Minister can share it today. Of course, we on these Benches are open to improving the way funds are distributed, but we are genuinely concerned by the lack of visibility on what will happen next year. I hope very much that the Government will address this tonight.

I have also retabled my Amendment 100, which would give foster carers clear delegated authority for the children in their care on practical day-to-day matters. Foster carers have been clear that they would value this and, crucially, it is one of the reasons why we see too many leaving the profession. I hope the Minister can be more encouraging today than she was in Committee on this important point.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 233, to which my name is attached, in the place of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, who apologises that he is unable to be present. I will also speak briefly to my Amendment 237.

I am sure many of us were struck by the passionate arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and others in Committee for a national well-being measurement programme. The need for a holistic, regular survey of young people’s experiences remains pressing. Surveys show that the UK’s young people have some of the lowest well-being in Europe and the second worst in the OECD, according to PISA data.

Amendment 233 would provide for an optional online well-being survey, delivered annually in schools, with centralised support, administration, analysis and data storage. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Watson, for adding their names to this amendment as well. It is not calling for that data to be published or used in any way to penalise schools, and the wording requires confidentiality and consent at three levels: schools, parents or carers, and pupils. It is a fundamental point of this amendment that the survey is optional.

A national scheme such as this would give young people a louder voice and would create a shared evidence base that would allow us to make a shift to prevention and early intervention across a wide range of services and issues that impact on well-being. It would also promote action outside school gates to support young people. This is important because schools alone are not responsible for our children’s well-being; we all are. The new national youth strategy highlights that fact, but without good data the Government will fund the scheme yet be unable to measure its impact.

I recognise that since we began debating this Bill, the Minister’s department has begun consulting on a pupil experience framework, and this is a positive first step. However, there are two notable exceptions in the draft that I feel substantially reduce its potential. First, there are no proposed questions on psychological well-being and, secondly, there is no intent to collate or publish any of the data. I am very keen to hear from the Minister whether the Government are willing and able in some way to address these concerns. On this amendment, I end by pointing out that it is popular. According to a recent YouGov poll, 75% of parents agree that to improve young people’s well-being we need to measure it. More than 60 organisations included in the Our Well-being, Our Voice campaign, which includes the Association of School and College Leaders and the Local Government Association, are keen to see this introduced.

I now turn to my Amendment 237 on the vital topic of mental health support in schools. Mental health support teams are already making an important contribution, particularly in providing early intervention for children with mild to moderate mental health needs. The Government’s commitment to expanding these teams and, indeed, to piloting an enhanced model, is very welcome, but the evidence from schools, families and practitioners is clear. The current model does not work for all children. There is a well-recognised group of children whose needs are too complex for these low interventions, yet who do not anything like meet the threshold for specialist support. These children are often referred to as the missing middle. Too many of them are left without timely or appropriate help, and their needs often escalate as a result. As a consequence of perverse incentives within the system, children must become more unwell before they can access the support they need.

Many children also experience distress to do with family relationships or developmental issues. They benefit from therapeutic support that cannot always be delivered within the strictly structured and time-limited interventions often offered by mental health support teams. This amendment seeks to address that gap by ensuring that, alongside existing provision, children can access school-based counselling delivered by appropriately registered practitioners. It would create a clearer and more appropriate pathway for those whose needs are not currently being met and reduce pressure on CAMHS. I know that many schools are already trying to fill this gap by funding counselling services themselves, often at a significant cost to already overstretched budgets. The result is an uneven and unsustainable system in which access to support depends on geography or local resources rather than need. By placing this expectation in legislation, I feel that we can create greater consistency and equity. I also very much support Amendment 242 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which I will leave him to outline. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, nine months after Second Reading, in which I spoke, it falls to me to speak to the last of the, by my tally, 254 amendments on Report, on top of 725 amendments tabled in Committee, so we certainly had maximum scrutiny of this Bill in your Lordships’ House.

I shall speak to my Amendment 242 and support the two other amendments in this group. Amendment 242 is similar to the one I moved in Committee in September. In that debate and in subsequent correspondence, the Minister confirmed the Government’s commitment to the principle of whole-school approaches, but she also made it clear that existing guidance will remain non-statutory and that the key support programmes that are now closed will not be reintroduced.

As a result, significant inequity in provision remains, and that is the reason that I have returned with this amendment on Report. Children’s mental health and well-being are a significant concern, and recent statistics highlight that school is a major determinant of children’s lived experience and mental health, but the voluntary guidance on whole-school approaches to mental health and well-being has reached its limits after being first published in 2015.