Report stage in the Lords
Lords Report stage covered family group decision-making, multi-agency child protection teams, safeguarding in nursery chains, data-sharing identifiers, child contact centre accreditation, and the reasonable-punishment defence.
B(The pilot evaluation published in July used family group conferencing, not family group decision-making — so which model are the Government actually committing to? Amendment 1 seeks that clarity. Amendment 2 presses for no dilution of the evidence-based model — 'a meeting' in the Bill is not the same as the careful preparation and family network support packages the evaluation says matter. Amendment 3 would require FGDM to be offered when a child who has been in care returns home: that happens in over a quarter of cases, and about a third of those reunifications break down — a second care placement is traumatic and avoidable. Amendment 5 introduces a kinship support plan to shore up placements where the threshold of significant harm has already been met.My Lords, it is good to be back scrutinising the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill after what seems like a long break. But noble Lords will remember that, while I think all sides of the House supported the approach of family group conferencing or a family group decision-making meeting, as described in the Bill, a number of points required clarification. I think those are still outstanding and I hope the Minister will be able to cover them in her response today. Amendment 1 seeks to clarify what the Government really intend to implement. We have been told that the introduction of family group decision-making is based on the success of the pilot sites in the Families First for Children pathfinders, but the evaluation published in July is clear that family group conferencing, not family group decision-making meetings, was used in the pilot sites when children were on the cusp of care proceedings. Which approach is it and if it is not family group conferencing, what is the evidence base? I suppose I am concerned that the Government are not actually committed to following the evidence-based family group conferencing model, but a slimmer or stripped-down version that we might call “FGC light”. The evaluation published in July did not have any outcome data and was largely a process evaluation, because of the stage the pilots are at. Amendment 2 aims to press the Government for a commitment to no dilution of the model. The Bill talks about a meeting while the evaluation talks about the importance of careful preparation, including pre-meetings, and that being followed by funded support through the family network support package. Again, can the Minister be clear that the Government are proposing that the evidence-informed model is followed? Turning to Amendment 3, we questioned in Committee whether it was necessary to have a duty to offer family group decision-making in statute at all, and in particular at the point of care proceedings, when there is already an expectatio…
Family group conferences give extended family members — who may have been kept in the dark or given only the parents' version of events — a chance to hear the local authority's concerns, share information, and explore what support they could offer to divert the case from legal proceedings. They also secure real financial savings for authorities and courts. Proper preparation is essential, and timing matters: offering them at the point of reunification, as Amendment 3 would require, would be a good opportunity to clarify the local authority's expectations and address the difficulties the family will face.My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for returning us to this important topic of family group conferences and for the refined amendments she has now presented, including Amendment 3, to which I have added my name. They would embed what is now established as good practice into legislation. I also welcome the noble Baroness’s request for clarification of what lies behind the differing terminology. The Government, to their credit, recognise the important role of family group decision-making meetings. The arguments for such conferences are strong, enabling family members to be informed about local authorities’ concerns and proposals, including the wider family members, who may have been kept in the dark or given an incomplete version of the problems from just the parents’ perspective, perhaps coloured by a negative view of the local authority’s intentions. They are a good opportunity to maintain focus on the child or children while listening to and respecting the views of the family, particularly if the family has otherwise been marginalised. As well as sharing information, conferences allow social workers to explore and assess what family members might have to offer, and what support might assist them to help divert cases away from legal proceedings. There is no doubt that family group conferences secure considerable financial savings for local authorities and for the courts. I emphasise the point that the noble Baroness has made: proper preparation for them is essential. Ideally, such conferences should take place as early as possible, and at the pre-proceedings stage that we discussed in Committee. However, Amendment 3 would also require such a meeting to be offered when it is planned that the child will be returned to the care of family members. Again, that would be a good opportunity for informed discussion to clarify the expectations of the local authority for the future care of the child, and to discuss any difficulties that may hav…
'FGDM' is an umbrella term — the Explanatory Notes say so themselves — and without clear principles in the Bill there is a real risk of a proliferation of watered-down local variants unsupported by the evidence. If the Minister cannot accept Amendment 2, please confirm in her response that statutory guidance will require local authorities to follow the principles drawn from the robust evidence base for family group conferencing. And on reunification: 78% of local authorities admit what they currently provide is inadequate — please look favourably on Amendment 3 even at this late stage.My Lords, while welcoming the Government’s amendment to ensure that the child’s voice is heard in family group decision-making, I add my support to the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. As we discussed in Committee, family group decision-making is a broad, generic term—without clear principles and standards—about what families can expect. Indeed, the Explanatory Notes for the Bill themselves state that “FGDM is an umbrella term”. As a result, concern remains, unsupported by evidence, among charities and organisations supporting vulnerable families that FGDM approaches may proliferate at a local level as a result of the lack of specificity in the Bill. As my noble friend highlighted, that is despite clear evidence, both in the UK and internationally, that family group conferences in particular are a successful and effective model for diverting children from care and supporting them to remain in their family. If the Minister is unable to accept Amendment 2, I hope that in her response she will be able to provide strong reassurance that, in the regulations and statutory guidance, it will be made clear that local authorities will be expected to follow the principles and standards drawn from the robust national and international research findings on the efficacy of the group conference approach. I turn to Amendment 3. As was highlighted during our discussions in Committee, reunification is the most common way for children to leave care but, sadly, too many reunifications break down due to lack of support. There is currently no strategy by which to support reunifying families, and 78% of local authorities admit that what they provide is inadequate. In winding up our previous debate on this issue, the Minister said that she had some sympathy with the objective of including this measure in the Bill, not least because of the challenges of reunification, and the need to ensure that it is supported. I hope, then, that even at this late stage,…
Kinship caring is undertaken at a time of high stress — I know from personal experience. Everyone must be clear about the expectations of the arrangement and what support is available, because it will be needed. The Family Rights Group says careful preparation, independent co-ordination, genuine family leadership and children's voices are all essential. Kinship adds that the independent review recommended the duty to offer FGDM alongside complementary support for kinship families — and we desperately need more kinship carers.My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and particularly Amendment 5, to which I added my name. I declare my interests as a teacher in a state school in Hackney and someone who has also been a kinship carer. I can speak from personal experience that kinship caring is usually undertaken at a time of high stress. It is vital that everybody is clear about the expectations of the arrangement, and what support is available when it is needed, as it most probably will be. According to the Family Rights Group, a clear set of principles is needed to ensure that there is careful preparation, and that the meetings are independently co-ordinated and genuinely family-led, and that the voice of the children is heard. The charity Kinship adds that when the independent review of children’s social care recommended the introduction of a new legal duty to offer FGDM, crucially, this was accompanied by complementary recommendations to deliver much-needed support to kinship families and all family networks afterwards. These very simple amendments have the potential to make the lives of future kinship carers considerably less stressful, and we must be very clear that we desperately need kinship carers.
The family meeting we had with Lambeth when adopting our children was harrowing — the council did not understand where we were coming from and had done little homework. Are the Government confident that those running these family group meetings will prepare thoroughly? A social worker who has worked with the child over time has far greater knowledge and should be brought in much earlier. I hope the amendments, particularly Amendments 1 to 4, may allay some of those fears — but please make sure these meetings do not knock the spirit out of those trying to do the best for children with a troubled childhood.My Lords, anecdotal evidence often does not help, but Margaret and I adopted a brother and sister because their mother had died of cancer. The boy was eight and his sister was three. They came to live with us. After quite a considerable period of time, we consulted their family in Uganda, who were very happy that we could adopt these children. The social workers who were working with us, particularly a lady called Ruth, were supportive of that arrangement. We then had to meet the local council—Lambeth. That meeting was very harrowing. The people from the council did not understand where we were coming from and asked, “Why is a family living in Britain wishing to adopt Ugandan children?”, to which I answered, “But I am Ugandan. We have been in touch with the family. They know what has gone on and about the years of trying to help these children integrate into our family”. It was not a very easy meeting. With the family meetings that are being suggested, are the Government confident that those involved will do a lot of homework before the meeting takes place? Eventually we had to go to the family court, where the judge took a decision purely in favour of the children and where they wanted to be placed, and continued to be responsible for ensuring that this happened. If a child has been put into care away from their family and the intention is to reunite them, I suggest that it is not always very easy to assess the interests of a child. Those who have been with the child, particularly the social worker who has been working with the family over a considerable period of time, have greater knowledge. They should be brought into the picture much earlier than what happened with us. I know it is anecdotal but, reading the original clause of the Bill—I am glad the Minister has tabled an amendment that may improve it—I feel that the amendments tabled to it, particularly Amendments 1 to 4, may go some way towards allaying my fears and concerns. I ask noble Lords to forgive me f…
Far too often families are kept in the dark about what is happening, and that leads to mistrust. If models have been tried and proved successful, we should learn from them and roll them out carefully. And the voice of the child — that phrase is too easily forgotten — is hugely important at every stage of the process.I look forward to the Minister’s response on this issue, which is important. It is important that families understand exactly what is happening. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, used the phrase “kept in the dark”. On far too many occasions people do not know what is going on, and I think that can lead, sadly, to mistrust and concern. Throughout the process, the opportunity to feed back, understand and talk is hugely important. If models have been tried and have been successful, we should be learning from them and rolling them out as carefully as possible. Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, used a term that we always forget and which is hugely important: the voice of the child. Far too often the voice of the child is not heard, but what they have to say is hugely important at all stages.
Government Amendment 4 to Clause 1 requires local authorities to seek the wishes and feelings of the child — not merely their views — and give due consideration to them, including very young, non-verbal and non-capacitous children. On Amendments 1 and 2: including 'family group conference' and 'evidence-based' as distinct statutory terms risks confusion for local authorities. Instead, we will embed clear principles — informed by the FGC model — in statutory guidance; 80% of authorities already use this model, and we will direct all authorities to the strong evidence base. No dilution is intended. On Amendment 3: we agree reunification needs support but a second statutory trigger point risks delaying reunification for some families; guidance through *Working Together* already provides for FGDM to be championed at that point. On Amendment 5: Clause 5 already places a duty on local authorities to publish a kinship local offer.My Lords, I turn to the first group of amendments to this important Bill on Report. I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I start with a message of reassurance that this Government are committed to hearing from and listening to children about what matters to them most. It is for this very reason that we have laid government Amendment 4 to Clause 1, on family group decision-making. The amendment requires local authorities to seek the wishes and feelings of the child, as opposed to their views, as was in the original drafting, and to give due consideration to those wishes and feelings in exercising their functions under this clause. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is absolutely right about the importance of the child in these proceedings and the need to make sure that they are included wherever it is appropriate. That includes ascertaining the wishes and feelings of very young children, non-verbal children, and children who may lack capacity and are not able to express their views. This is a complex area that requires the expertise that we have referred to. In making this requirement, the amendment strengthens the requirement on local authorities to hear and give weight to children’s voices, without changing the overall effect of the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is absolutely right. From experience, these situations often come out of a state of crisis, where extended family members might not have been expecting the difficulties that were going to come up. It is crucial that there is clarity. As we all know, relationships and families are complex, and we need to do everything that we can. Evidence shows that engaging family networks through the use of family group decision-making meetings can reduce applications for court proceedings and divert children from entering the care system, improving the outcomes for children and their families. It is important to keep that at the front of our deliberations. I turn to Amendments 1 and 2, tabled…
- When the kinship local offer template is developed, will the consultation include a specific section on reunification — which is a quite different context from other kinship arrangements?
On the last point on Amendment 5, the noble Baroness talked about the local care offer. Is she able to say today whether she expects that, when the consultation happens and a template is developed for what that will look like, there will be a specific section on reunification? Obviously, that is a rather different context from the other situations.
- Those comments are fed into the process and they are listened to.
I can assure the noble Baroness that her comments are fed into the process and that they are listened to.
- I am reassured on Amendments 1 and 2 — clear principles in guidance, no dilution, and I accept that using both terms in statute could create confusion. On Amendment 3: there is an inconsistency — *Working Together* already recommends FGDM at reunification, just as at the point of care proceedings, yet the Government are putting one on the face of the Bill and not the other. The choice between delay and stability should always prioritise the child's stability where the delay is proportionate. I am disappointed the Government did not accept Amendments 3 and 5, but I hope local authorities will use all their discretion and creativity as they implement this legislation.
I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks; she also comes with huge expertise on this subject. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for not acknowledging his co-signature of Amendment 3. I was reassured by what the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said on Amendments 1 and 2. I accept that there could be confusion if you use both terms. I was glad to hear her say that clear principles would be set out in the guidance—as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park—and that there would be no dilution of the models. I thank her very much for that. I am encouraged by the noble Baroness’s last comments on Amendment 3. I think there is an inconsistency when she points to the recommendations in Working Together to Safeguard Children that there should be family group decision-making meetings at the point of reunification because, as I understand it, that is the same recommendation as there is for using those meetings at the point of care proceedings. The Government have chosen to put one on statute and not the other, but that is, ultimately, the Government’s prerogative. She is, of course, right to bring up the point about delay and avoidable delay, but the choice is between delay and stability. I hope that, where the delay is proportionate, stability really is prioritised in the interests of the child. In my intervention I touched on the noble Baroness’s remarks on the local support offer. Obviously, I am disappointed that the Government did not accept my Amendments 3 and 5 in particular. I hope that, as they implement this new legislation, local authorities will use all their discretion and creativity to address the needs of specific children in the way that we all, across the House, hope. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
- Amendment 6 would require sign-off from the director of children's services when a child under five who was previously on a child protection plan becomes subject to Section 31 care proceedings. Children under one account for roughly 30% of serious incident notifications; 65% of child deaths and serious harm cases involve under-fives — yet this age group is barely visible to society because they are not in school. A director would, on average, need to review about 20 such cases a year: it is the least we should ask. On Clause 3 more broadly — the Minister for Children himself warned against an 'ever-growing stack of rules', yet Clause 3 goes in the opposite direction. The July pilot evaluation concentrates on process, not outcomes; there were only 10 families interviewed, no control group, and one pilot site recently moved from 'good' to 'requires improvement'. Wanting a model to succeed is not the same as demonstrating that it does — Amendment 17 would therefore delay implementation until a proper evidence base is available. Amendment 11 would remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe 'support of any kind', which is dangerously broad. Amendment 13 would stipulate minimum qualification levels aligned with the NHS intercollegiate document — safeguarding health leads are deeply concerned that the Government's approach would effectively halve the capacity of designated doctors and nurses. Can the Minister explain how, with 50%-plus cuts to statutory safeguarding posts in health, standards will not deteriorate?
My Lords, Amendment 6 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, who through no fault of her own is unable to be with us this afternoon, would require sign-off from the director of children’s services or head of social work practice when a child under five and previously on a child protection plan becomes subject to Section 31 care proceedings. Last year there were about 18,600 children involved in care proceedings and about 16% of children in care are under five. Yet children in this age group are disproportionately represented in the most serious cases. Children under the age of one accounted for about 30% of serious incident notifications last year, and earlier triennial reviews found that about 65% of cases involved children under the age of five. If we pause to think about that, this age group appears roughly four times as often in serious incidents in which a child is killed or seriously harmed as it does in the care population. In this context, the amendment is a really modest and practical safeguard that could help prevent avoidable abuse and tragedy, and save very young lives. I very much hope the Minister will consider her position. My back of the envelope estimate is that a director of children’s services would, on average, have to look at 20 of these cases annually and, given the length of time of care proceedings, it is the least we should expect them to do. On the wider group of amendments, on 17 December the Minister for Children and Families wrote to Peers following two very helpful round tables about Part 1 of the Bill. In that letter, he rightly emphasised “the importance of local authorities operating within the right framework” so that “families receive intensive well evidenced help early, that children are protected through more expert and decisive multi-agency child protection and that children … leaving care benefit from enduring relationships that the care system has facilitated”. He warned against overreliance on legis…
The evaluation circulated — 'Implementation and Process Evaluation Report: Early Findings' from July 2025 — is surely not sufficient to drive full implementation before the end of the year. In some pathfinder areas, case loads for family health lead practitioners are increasing, and Section 47s appear to be going up — which would contradict the Government's claim that the reforms reduce demand. Surely the sensible response is to understand why before rolling out nationally. Publish the workforce metrics, the comparative data from wave 1 and wave 2 sites, and the cost-per-agency analysis first. Partner agencies — police, ICBs — are nervous about extra strain on their already limited capacity, and there are real recruitment difficulties. I also echo the concern that 'police staff' could mean the cheapest option rather than those with the right skills — and I share the reading of the Minister's 7 January letter that this would include special constables.My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran on Amendments 6, 13, 17, 250 and 251. I have also added my name to Amendments 11, 15 and 16. I remind your Lordships of my registered interests: I am a councillor in the London Borough of Bexley and was previously leader and a cabinet member for children’s services—hence my interest in this area. I put on record my thanks to the Minister in the other place, Josh MacAlister, for the round table discussion on this subject last November. We discussed some of the points covered by our amendments today, so I hope he will find them helpful. Likewise, I understand that the Minister here opened up communications with directors of children’s social care across the country last summer during recess, for which I thank her; I know it was welcomed. I apologise if some of the points I am about to make today are similar to those they may have made to her last summer. First, not everything in the Bill is bad; as I said previously, we all want a system that seeks to keep children safe. However, I do not understand the Government’s reticence on ensuring that the pilots are fully evaluated—and that information shared with others —before full implementation, which they are proposing happens before the end of the year. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, just made the case for evidence-based changes; I hope that I am knocking on an open door. When we met the Minister from the other place in November, he promised to share the evaluation, but the document circulated—from July 2025—was Implementation and Process Evaluation Report: Early Findings. Surely this is not sufficient to drive full implementation before the end of the year, and I hope to explain why. First, I hear that, in some areas, the case loads are increasing for the family health lead practitioners. I am also told that the number of Section 47s is increasing in some of those areas. There is a suggestion that it could be about enlisting the expertise of the multi-agency child protect…
Government Amendment 12 broadens the police category to include 'police staff experienced in child protection', but 'experience' is imprecise — it could mean one week or six years. The unique value police bring to these teams is powers: arrest, entry, seizure. Police staff don't have those powers, so why include them at all unless the real reason is cost? If you want someone with policing experience, the fire-and-rehire scheme already lets former constables return as staff. My biggest fear is that 43 forces will each decide 'experienced' means the cheapest option — and that will be police staff, not officers whose judgment about the life situations families face is irreplaceable.My Lords, I think I understand why government Amendment 12 has been tabled, but I am worried that it is imprecise, and I am not sure that it is absolutely necessary. The unique thing a police officer will bring to these teams is powers—power of arrest, power of entry and powers to seize evidence—but if the teams do not exercise those powers, it is not clear why they need the police at all. More importantly, the person needs experience. The amendment talks about a member of the police staff—that is, somebody who is not a police officer—who has “experience”. I do not understand the imprecision and wonder whether the Government might try to find some way of making it more precise. Experience could mean one week or six years. There is an accreditation process for trained officers—perhaps the police might offer some form of accreditation measure before they put someone in this role. I would like to see somebody with experience of going into people’s homes, dealing with situations where childcare is needed, sometimes arresting the parents, sometimes moving the child to another location and sometimes involving other agencies to make sure that the child is looked after in the future. The reality is that, on the whole, police staff will not have that experience. The only argument I can see for the amendment is that you might have a police officer who is retired—so, has previous police experience—and has become a member of the police staff. If that were the case, I am not sure it is necessary. There is now a scheme of fire and rehire—most chief constables seem to be working on it. The basis is that someone retires from their constable post, takes their lump sum, abates their pension and carries on being paid as a constable. So, if the requirement is to have someone in the role who has police experience, I would see that as a reasonable reason for doing this. My biggest concern—I say this against the police, who of course I love—is that the 43 forces might come to different co…
Amendment 6 targets children under five — the most vulnerable group, without the added protection of a school environment watching over them. If the Government don't like this approach, where else will that oversight come from? Amendment 17 is compelling: if you are entering a new area of government activity, why not verify it is working before full rollout? And the House should take the concerns Lord Hogan-Howe raised about police staff — imprecise definitions invite the cheapest interpretation.My Lords, I stand here today as a rather inadequate replacement for my noble friend Lady Tyler, so I will be very brief. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, pointed out, in Amendment 6 we are talking about the most vulnerable group—certainly a group that does not have the added protection of, for instance, the school environment and people looking on. So, having greater attention paid to it self-evidently seems like something we should have. If the Government do not like the suggestion made by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, perhaps they can tell us where else they will get it, because it is very important. The other amendments in this group go into a new area of government activity—new teams. We should explore in considerable depth the concerns that have been raised about how it will work and the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. The experience of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, dwarfs any that I have in this field. I hope the Minister answers those questions thoroughly and explains why she thinks her amendments are necessary—I have no doubt that she will do that, as she normally does. Amendment 17 really attracted my attention. If you are going into a new area, why not first check to see how it is working? There is a general agreement about the approach, but let us make sure that it is done properly. As well as the other amendments in this group, the House should consider those two amendments very fully.
The reforms put far more on the shoulders of less-qualified staff, and paradoxically this could lead to *more* Section 47 investigations rather than fewer. The hypothesis — that the social care system was too focused on individual children rather than children in their family context — overlooks children with severe disabilities, children whose parents cannot cope even with extensive support, children with no capable adult in their family, and unaccompanied migrant adolescents. These children account for a substantial share of the looked-after population, yet the reforms do not acknowledge their particular needs. Amendment 17 — defer full implementation until the pilot findings are published, discussed and understood — is simply the safe thing to do.My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran. We have heard from a number of Members of the House about the changes that this part of the Bill is making. A fundamental rebalancing of responsibilities in social care is being carried through in the pilots. It is putting much more on to the shoulders of less-qualified staff. The reforms are intended to streamline the system and manage rising costs but, as my noble friend has pointed out, there are many concerns from experts such as Professor Eileen Munro and from many practitioners about the implications of inexperienced staff finding themselves doing child protection work, which, paradoxically, could lead to more Section 47 investigations, not fewer, which was one of the aims of the reforms. Taking one step back, the hypothesis behind the reforms was the idea that the social care system had become weighted too much towards individual children in isolation rather than children in the family context, and that more of the support available should be diverted to families rather than given to individual children. However, little account was taken of the profile of the children most likely to be in the care of a local authority. They include children with severe disabilities and special needs, often children who are most likely unavoidably to live in social care as adults. They are children whose parents simply do not have the capacity to manage at home, even with extensive support. Indeed, the strain of trying to manage a child’s needs has sometimes fractured parental and other family relationships. More family support and more kinship care is often simply not a solution. Then we have to acknowledge that there are some children who simply do not have a decent parent nor any other decent adult in their family and realistically never will have. It is horrible, but true, that there are children who simply do not have a family member able and willing to give them the care, attention and lov…
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)Lab17:00 HansardCreating multi-agency child protection teams through Clause 3 is not about saving money — it is about bringing together social workers, police, health and education colleagues with child protection experience to act swiftly and protect children at the earliest opportunity. On government Amendment 12: we worked closely with the National Police Chiefs' Council and College of Policing to broaden the category to include police officers and police staff with child protection experience — regulations will specify the required experience, seniority, qualification and expertise. To the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on Amendment 6: child protection plans should end only through a multi-agency conference when practitioners are confident the child is no longer at risk — not automatically when proceedings are initiated — and reforming the system to wrap multi-agency teams around every child is precisely how we ensure no child falls between teams. On Amendment 13: practitioners in these teams are already required under existing duties in Sections 16E, 16G and 16K to comply with the *Working Together* statutory guidance. On special constables — I want to be clear: the intention of the broadened category would not mean a volunteer special constable would be suitable for one of these roles, but appropriately qualified police staff could be. Regulations will set out required skills, qualifications and experience, subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. These teams will not spring into full operation the moment this Bill passes — the provisions will not come into force before late 2027. We have a £2.4 billion, three-year programme and comprehensive quarterly monitoring. Please don't slam the brakes on a reform that is already showing real benefits for children.My Lords, creating new multi-agency child protection teams through Clause 3 is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, suggested, about saving money; it is about bringing together social workers, police, health and education colleagues with experience in child protection to take swift and effective action that protects children from harm at the earliest opportunity. I hope that I will be able to respond to the points raised in this short debate, as we did at length in Committee and have continued to do since then through engagement, which noble Lords have acknowledged, including, in my case, directly with directors of children’s services. Government Amendments 12 and 14 broaden the range of police staff who can work in these teams to include police officers and other police staff experienced in child protection. The need for this amendment arose as we talked more closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing to make sure that we were providing the scope for the correct representatives from policing to be on these teams. We are confident that this will improve front-line operational capacity through the right people with the right skills working in the team. Regulations will be clear that individuals must have appropriate levels of experience, seniority, qualification and expertise. I will come back a little later in my remarks to how we will ensure that those appropriate levels are delivered. Noble Lords have heard me speak before in Committee—in fact, at some length—about the Families First Partnership programme, where we are investing £2.4 billion over the next three years to change the way that we help, support and protect children. One element of that—introducing new multi-agency child protection teams—brings a sharp focus to better multi-agency working, information sharing and decision-making. I therefore welcome the opportunity to address amendments relating to these new teams, to clarify what we are learning through the natio…
- The Minister's 7 January letter to all Peers said the government amendments to Clause 3 would broaden the police category to include 'police, staff and special constables'. She is now saying special constables would not be eligible. Can she explain the contradiction?
I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification. When I was speaking, she said that special constables would not be represented, and I think she has said that again just now. In the letter she sent to all Peers on 7 January, she said that, to Clause 3, the Government are laying two amendments to broaden which practitioners from the police can be deployed to multi-agency child protection teams so that it includes police, staff and special constables. Can the Minister explain that?
- I regret that we included special constables in that letter. Given the criteria in regulations — the level of expertise, experience and skills required — I could not envisage a situation in which a volunteer special constable would be an appropriate member of these teams.
I regret that we included special constables. Given the criteria that will be set out in regulations for the level of expertise, experience and skills necessary to be part of these teams, I could not envisage a situation in which a volunteer special constable would be an appropriate part of these teams. I was about to reiterate that we are setting out in regulations the skills, knowledge and qualifications that all practitioners nominated in multi-agency child protection teams will need, and that these regulations will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. In that way, we will be able to be clear about the types of people from those safeguarding partners who would be appropriate to be part of the teams. Amendment 11 seeks clarity on the support that multi-agency child protection teams will provide to local authorities to keep children safe from harm. I have listened to requests to be more specific about what these teams will do in practice. That is why, last week, the department published a policy statement to give clarity about the scope of regulations for the operation of these teams. I hope noble Lords have had the chance to look at that. The statement makes it clear that the teams will deliver all statutory child protection functions, from strategy meetings to conferencing. The teams will lead investigations and make decisions about what needs to happen to keep children safe from harm and then hold agencies to account for delivering support. I hope the statement reassures noble Lords that we are working closely with multi-agency partners, and will continue to work with noble Lords and others, as we develop the regulations through public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny to make sure that these teams are the very best they can be. Amendments 15 and 16 seek to allow the social worker and education practitioner in multi-agency child protection teams to operate on behalf of multiple local authorities, where teams are combined across loc…
- Can the Minister confirm that the pilots are not all identical — so the evidence coming back will differ between them? Surely the sensible course is to find out what works best and what doesn't before committing to full rollout.
Will the Minister confirm that all the pilots are not exactly the same, so therefore there will be different evidence from the different types of pilots done? Surely the sensible thing is to find out what works best and what does not.
- It's not semantics — the pathfinders are deliberately trying different approaches within a common framework, and that diversity is a feature, not a bug. I hosted a round table with pathfinder directors specifically asking to hear from sceptics as well as enthusiasts; I heard overwhelmingly that, while the change has been challenging, the benefits of multi-agency expertise are already visible in decisions and outcomes for children. The provisions will not come into force before late 2027 — we will take time to get the regulations right and continue learning from the pathfinders before full national rollout.
I know this is semantics, but the point that I made about pathfinders is important. The pathfinders are trying out different approaches within the criteria and the framework set for them. They are discovering, as we suggested at some length when we talked about examples in Committee, different ways of doing things. They are also ensuring that we are doing this on a basis that will have the right professionals in the right place so that children do not fall between gaps—and in fact will actively close the gaps that exist within the system now—and from which we will continue to learn. I will come to the point about timing in a moment, because that is important. I was just coming to the point about the round table with pathfinder directors of children’s services and representatives from each of the regions that I held to discuss the opportunities and challenges in implementing these new teams. I reassure noble Lords that I said specifically to my team in setting up the round table that I was interested in hearing not only from people who thought that everything was going well but from those who might be more sceptical as well. I have to say that I heard overwhelmingly from pathfinders that, while changing the approach to child protection has been challenging, the benefits of multi-agency expertise and working are already evidenced in the decisions and outcomes for children. For example, areas shared positive examples of innovative whole-family work enabled by multi-agency collaboration, and noted that more empowering and transparent practice has given partners confidence in the approach. I want to take a moment to reassure noble Lords that we recognise the scale of the ask here. This is a complex national system reform that requires leadership, co-operation and commitment from agencies, and that requires us—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, is right—to learn from the pathfinders. By the way, I undertake to ensure as far as possible that, as we continue, we are able to…
- Two clarifications, please: did the Minister confirm that the qualifications for health staff in the multi-agency child protection teams will align with the NHS intercollegiate document? And did I hear correctly that the teams will not be implemented until the end of 2027 — which feels later than previously projected?
I wonder if the noble Baroness could clarify two things. I apologise if I missed the first, but she went through a series of expectations for qualifications for staff in the multi-agency child protection teams and I did not hear her confirm that those would align with the intercollegiate document, so I would be grateful if she could confirm that in relation to health staff. Also, I wrote down that she said “these teams”— I was not sure whether that was the multi-agency child protection teams, the early help teams or both—will not be implemented until the end of 2027, which feels later than was previously projected. I wonder if she could clarify that.
- The existing *Working Together* requirements already cover what the intercollegiate document provides, and regulations will set it out more fully. On timing: multi-agency child protection teams are already being set up through the pathfinder process — the point about 2027 is that we will take time to get the regulations right and ensure national rollout is done safely.
On the point about the NHS document on intercollegiate guidance, the point I was making was that we believe the provisions are already set out in the Working Together requirements. We will be able, of course, to set them out more fully in regulations; I am pretty confident about that. If I have gone beyond where I should have, I will make that clear. When I referred to teams, I was in some ways shortening my speaking note. I think every time I did so, I was referring to multi-agency child protection teams. The point I was making was that many of those teams will already be set up and operating as part of the pathfinder process. But in recognition of the scale of the challenge, we are clear that we will take time to get the regulations right and continue the learning from the pathfinders, and to do that in a way that ensures we can all be confident that they will be successful. That is the reason for the timescale I set out.
- On Amendment 6: under the Government's model, the same social worker will both work with the family and chair the child protection conference. That means there is no independent fresh set of eyes on the very young children — those who account for 65% of child deaths and serious harm — who are least visible to society because they are not in school. I am not convinced by the Minister's answer. I was also genuinely amazed to hear her say she 'regrets' including special constables in her letter — many Peers who received it are not in the Chamber today and I hope she will write to them to clarify. On Amendment 17: I believe what the Minister says about enthusiasm from some local authorities, but very senior and committed people also have specific concerns, and the Children and Families Act 2014 SEND reforms are a cautionary tale of well-intentioned change introduced at pace that ended up nowhere anyone intended. I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 6.
I thank the noble Baroness very much for that clarification, as I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I also acknowledge the Government’s financial commitment to this programme. In relation to my Amendment 6, the Minister said that a child protection plan should end only when there is a multi-agency child protection case conference. One could argue that under the Government’s proposed system, where the same social worker will work with a family but also chair that conference, there is the need for fresh eyes to look at those cases of very young children who are at risk of not having adequate protection and are not nearly so visible to society as those over the age of five, because obviously they are not in school. I am not convinced by the arguments the Minister made. I am amazed that the Minister regrets she put special constables in the letter. I can imagine she is feeling a bit irritated about that, but I think a lot of people who will have received the letter are not in the Chamber, so I hope she will write to clarify that special constables will not be eligible, because that looked like a cost-cutting measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, alluded to. In relation to cross-border work, I agree that one should not in any way blur accountability, and Amendments 15 and 16 aimed to introduce some more flexibility. But as the Minister knows, families move around a lot, particularly in London, so having rigid boundaries will be unworkable and more flexibility will need to emerge in future. Turning to Amendment 17, whether they are pathfinders or pilots is semantics. I hear and absolutely believe what the Minister says about the Government seeing increasing commitments from some local authorities, but she is also aware that some very senior, experienced and committed people who want to see the best for children also have specific concerns. This was before my time—I am not for a second suggesting I would have got it right—but those who were invol…
- Amendments 7–10 target large nursery chains and groups where decisions are made far from the individual setting. A recent tragedy in Cheadle — a child on a mattress who rolled over and died — and another case show how devastating safeguarding failures in nursery chains can be. Amendment 7 would require large nurseries and groups to actively participate in local safeguarding arrangements, enforced through registration and funding conditions. Amendment 8 would make any chain operating across multiple registered settings an automatic designated agency. Amendment 9 would give Ofsted the power to inspect and report at group level — so that problems spanning multiple settings can be identified at source. Amendment 10 would require group-level safeguarding training across all settings.
My Lords, these amendments, in my name and supported by my noble friend Lord Mohammed, all refer to early years safeguarding in general, and particularly in large nurseries and early years group settings that are regulated. When a child goes to nursery, we all expect them to be safeguarded and looked after. However, two MPs have recently faced horrific situations in their constituencies where constituents have come to them saying their child was not properly looked after in the nursery. In Cheadle, a child who was lying on a mattress rolled over and sadly died. You can imagine the absolute horror, upset and devastation that those families must have faced. These amendments make suggestions about how we might provide added safeguards, particularly to nurseries that are in groups or part of a chain. I thank the Ministers for being prepared to meet me, listen and understand. I not only met the Minister here; I also met Minister Bailey last week. She was very supportive, as you would expect. I pay tribute to them, and I thank them for their understanding and response. Amendment 7 would require large nurseries and early years groups to actively participate in the arrangements, including local briefings and training, and would enforce this through registration and funding conditions. Amendment 8 in my name would ensure that any large nursery or early years group that operates in more than one registered setting is automatically brought within the arrangement as a designated agency. Amendment 9 would insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling Ofsted to inspect and report at the level of large early years groups or nursery chains, so that safeguarding problems that span multiple settings can be identified and addressed at group level. Finally, Amendment 10 would require the statutory framework to be revised so that large nursery groups must ensure that the safeguarding leads and staff are trained and engaged with local safeguarding arra…
- The appalling failures in certain nursery chains are a serious matter and I pay tribute to the MPs who championed those families. But Clause 2 already places a duty on safeguarding partners to include education and childcare settings in their arrangements — settings covered by Amendments 7 and 8 are already within the legal framework. Adding a further layer of statutory designation risks legislative duplication without operational benefit. On Amendments 9 and 10: we are committed to reviewing nursery chain regulation and we expect that review — confirmed in the Government's 'Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life' strategy and reconfirmed in the Secretary of State's Statement on Operation Lanark — will very likely lead to recommendations about inspecting chains, including training requirements. Careful consideration is needed before legislating, but I am happy to reconfirm that commitment today.
On group 3, particularly Amendments 7 and 8 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, let me be clear that I fully recognise the vital importance of ensuring that every education setting and childcare provider is fully embedded in local safeguarding arrangements. We are acutely aware of the appalling incidences of abuse that have occurred within certain nursery chains, and no one in this Chamber underestimates the gravity of those failures. While I cannot comment on the specifics of ongoing reviews, I know that our thoughts will remain firmly with the children and families affected. I extend my thanks to the commitment of the honourable Members Munira Wilson, Tom Morrison and Tulip Siddiq, who have been powerful champions for the families and children affected. Their contribution underscores the importance of the reforms the Bill takes forward. It is precisely because we take this so seriously that we must avoid the temptation to duplicate duties unnecessarily, or to legislate in ways that create complexity rather than strengthen safeguarding practice. I emphasise that the system already places clear multi-agency safeguarding duties on all registered early years settings through existing regulations. Clause 2 reinforces and clarifies these obligations by placing a duty on safeguarding partners to include education and childcare settings in their arrangements, and ensures that providers continue to take part in safeguarding activities. In short, the settings in scope of Amendments 7 and 8 are already captured by the legal framework and measures in this clause. Adding an extra layer of statutory designation risks creating legislative duplication with no clear operational benefit. In addition, robust accountability is already in place, including through independent inspection and statutory guidance under the Children Act 2004. This ensures that relevant agencies participate fully in safeguarding arrangements and are supported to do so. Additional legislative compliance co…
- In a large nursery chain, decisions about staffing and practice are taken far from the individual nursery — you cannot have the immediate corrective impact that a head teacher on site can. I pay tribute to the bereaved parents who, while grieving, came forward with ideas to improve safeguarding for other children. I am grateful for the Government's commitment to work with Ofsted on group-level regulation and I accept the assurances given.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her fulsome response. Like her, I have concerns—it is almost the opposite position to that of my noble friend Lord Addington—about large nursery chains, nursery businesses and large groups of nurseries run by a business where often decisions are made away from that individual nursery. I should say that I was a head teacher and had a nursery of 100 places. If there was any issue, I was always on hand to deal with it and support my staff. I am wondering whether, if you have a nursery business of several dozen nurseries, you can have that immediate impact of change that might be required. I add that after hearing about the parents in these two tragic cases, you feel helpless, and you want to do something. I pay tribute to them for, while grieving for their child, coming forward with ideas to improve the safeguarding arrangements. It is amazing that they can think of other children, having faced the loss of their own child. I am very grateful to the Minister. She recognises the problem of those large chains and that we should work with, or talk to, Ofsted about how we can bring forward some recommendations in the future. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
- The Government's own documentation set out that the transformation stage for multi-agency child protection teams would be complete by March 2026, and this has been described as the most significant reform to child protection in a generation. We do not want to slam the brakes on — but we do want confidence it will make things better for children. The Minister had an opportunity today to set out clear milestones and she did not. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Minister said that the rollout of the multi-agency child protection teams would not be complete until the end of 2027 and called on the House not to “slam the brakes on”. However, the Government set out in their documentation on this that the transformation stage would be complete by March 2026, and this has been described in many places as the most significant reforms to child protection in a generation. On this side of the House, we do not want to slam on the brakes, but we do want confidence that it will make things better for children and achieve what the Government aim for. If I may say so, this gives the Government an opportunity to come back and potentially set out in more detail some of the milestones. Had we heard those today, I would not be pressing this amendment, but we did not, and so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
- Amendment 18 and related government amendments remove Clause 62 and tidy references in Clauses 4, 13, 18, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 45. The original drafting sought to flag that duties to process personal data are subject to data protection law. Those references are now unnecessary following the commencement of Section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 on 20 August 2025, which introduced a general data protection override into the Data Protection Act 2018. No data protections are removed — this is purely drafting housekeeping.
My Lords, I will Amendment 18, which is in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. This group covers minor and technical government amendments relating to data protection. These remove Clause 62, and amend certain text in Clauses 4, 13, 18, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 45. The original drafting sought to clarify that any duties or powers to process personal data are subject to data protection law. However, these references are now unnecessary, following the commencement of Section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 on 20 August 2025. I reassure noble Lords that this absolutely does not remove any data protections; this is about refining drafting to reflect the latest legislative developments. Section 106 of the 2025 Act introduced a general data protection override into the Data Protection Act 2018. This ensures that the UK’s data protection laws are not overridden by future legislation that imposes a duty or grants a power to process personal data, unless expressly provided otherwise. This does not remove any data protections; this is about refining drafting to reflect the latest legislative changes to the UK’s statute book. I beg to move.
- Clause 4 as drafted creates a one-way flow of information between those with safeguarding duties. I am confident neither Minister actually believes that is how it should work in practice. If we are to make a difference to children's safety, information must flow back and be shared in a multi-agency context — in a MASH initially and in child protection processes thereafter.
My Lords, as when we debated this in Committee, Clause 4 is drafted so that there is a one-way flow of information between someone with safeguarding duties to someone else with safeguarding duties. I am pretty confident that both Ministers do not believe that this is how it should work in practice. If this is to make a difference to the safety of children, we need to be clear that information needs to flow back and be shared in a multi-agency context, such as a MASH initially, and potentially later on in terms of child protection.
- Information is the new gold — but only if it is acted on. We need a frictionless system where information flows both ways and there is a responsibility to respond to what is shared. Amendment 19 is a very sensible fix.
My Lords, will speak briefly, having added my name to Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. As teachers, we had it drummed into us that information is key—it is the new gold—but, as the noble Baroness said, that is no good without action. We need to have a frictionless system where information flows both ways but there is a responsibility to act on it. This is a very sensible amendment.
I chaired the Cleveland child abuse inquiry in 1987. One of its central findings was the deliberate refusal to share information about 120-odd children, with disastrous consequences. During my years as a family judge, again and again cases came before me because information held at practitioner level was not passed on and action was not taken. What is unbelievably sad is that, since I retired, this has continued — every report into a child's death cites the same failure. I strongly support Amendment 19.My Lords, in 1987, I chaired an inquiry called the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. One of the aspects of it was the deliberate refusal in those days to provide information about 120-odd children. This had disastrous consequences, because they were removed from home and many had to be sent back, whether or not they had, in fact, been abused. During my years as a family judge, again and again the cases that came before me did so because, at the level of dealing with children’s safeguarding, there was a lack of communication and, consequently, a lack of action. What is unbelievably sad is that, since I retired many years ago, this has continued. We have had endless reports of the death of a child, and one of the reasons for that is that people had information that was not passed to somebody else and, consequently, there was no action. Therefore, I very much support Amendment 19.
- I express my sincere thanks for government Amendment 21 on an information standard — it directly reflects an amendment I tabled in Committee, which drew on Professor Sir Anthony Finkelstein's work for the social care review. I strongly support Amendment 23 on the NHS number as a consistent identifier. In our joint targeted area inspections and area SEND inspections, information sharing came up as a problem every single time — data protection law has made it harder, not easier. Everything the Government can do to make it straightforward is deeply welcome.
My Lords, I will speak only very briefly. I express my most sincere thanks to the Minister for Amendment 21, concerning an information standard. It directly reflects an amendment that I proposed in Committee, which, in turn, drew on the work of Professor Sir Anthony Finkelstein in his capacity as adviser to the social care review steering group. I am delighted to see that provision and glad that the Government are taking the opportunity to introduce that power. I express my support for the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, above all else that concerning the explicit use of the NHS number. Information sharing is hard. In the thematic and joint inspections we carried out at Ofsted—the joint targeted area inspections and the area SEND inspections—time and again information sharing came up as a theme. Whether we like it or not, data protection legislation has not made it easier to do that, so everything the Government can do to make it as straightforward and uncomplicated as possible in the situations where it is needed is deeply welcome. Therefore, I support the amendments, and Amendment 23 in particular.
- A single unique identifier using the NHS number is essential — it links health and education and is crucial for tracking children who move between schools. Amendment 19 is also right: in a multi-agency system, information and understanding must be shared between teams when cases are handed over, not just pointed in one direction.
I will speak to the amendments in reverse order. We very much support having a single unique identifier. Unless the pilot of using the NHS number causes some unforeseen problems—we hope that that would not happen—we believe that it makes absolute sense to use the NHS number to link health and education. It is also important for children’s safeguarding: we need to know where they are, what is happening to them and when they change schools. It rightly brings added responsibility to schools, headteachers and governors. We also believe that Amendment 19 is important. When there is a multi-agency approach, it is important that information and understanding are shared between different teams when cases are passed between them. This amendment rightly highlights the problem and comes up with a way forward.
- Information sharing is a necessary but not sufficient foundation — it must lead to action. On Amendment 19: I want to reassure the House that Clause 4 does not imply a one-way flow; it was never intended to. We will publish statutory guidance before commencement — including a template data-sharing agreement to help partners establish consistent multi-directional flows. On the consistent identifier: we are piloting the NHS number only; we want to be assured of the benefits and information governance before naming a specific identifier in legislation. Government Amendment 21 introduces an information standard and Amendment 26 a code of practice to support effective operation of the identifier.
We are cooking with gas today. We are all fresh—at this point. Throughout the passage of the Bill, there has been strong interest in provisions to improve information sharing for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and others that information sharing is a necessary but not sufficient determinant of whether we have an effective practice. As others have identified, it is enormously important and has too often been lacking in cases where children have come to harm. It must be a basis for action. The call for improved information sharing includes the long-requested introduction of a consistent identifier for children which mirrors provision for adults introduced as far back as 2015. As we have heard, there is broad support for these measures, with concerns focused on ensuring that they can be implemented successfully, appropriately and as soon as possible. The government amendments in this group aim to provide further clarity. Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require safeguarding partners to establish practical multi-agency arrangements for initial information sharing before Section 47 thresholds can be determined. As the amendment suggests, clear information sharing processes are crucial. However, as I have previously suggested, that needs to be followed by action, which is why safeguarding partners must already publish their multi agency arrangements, including how they identify and respond to children’s needs. Therefore, the requirements set out in the amendment would duplicate existing requirements. Local leaders must retain flexibility to establish effective systems for their context, including how information flows between services. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that it is neither our intention nor our belief that the legislation as currently drafted implies a one-way flow only—it does not. It det…
- Child contact centres — first established in Nottingham in the late 1980s by a family court magistrate — have become essential to the family justice system, enabling courts, Cafcass and parents to manage contact disputes safely. Sir James Munby called the NACCC movement 'a distinguished example of the voluntary sector at its very best'. This amendment would simply require all contact centres to be accredited to national standards for safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse, with accreditation granted by the National Association of Child Contact Centres. Use of a well-run centre reassures anxious parents and allows contact to progress away from the centre after six months or so — but the Cordis Bright report showed scope to improve emotional safeguarding and domestic abuse training, and there must be consistent standards everywhere.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is unable to be here and has therefore asked me to lead on this amendment. It follows on from that moved by the noble Baroness in Committee on 22 May last year. As I have said, the noble Baroness regrets that she is unavailable, but I want just to take a moment to recognise her dedicated support for the work of child contact centres and her wish to maintain and raise the standards of such centres, standards which are already high if accredited by the national association. This is a more straightforward amendment than that moved in Committee. It would simply require all contact centres and organisations to be accredited in accordance with national standards for safeguarding and preventing domestic abuse, with such accreditation to be granted by the National Association of Child Contact Centres. There can be no doubt about the value and effectiveness of child contact centres, as they have evolved, since the first was set up in the late 1980s in Nottingham by a family court magistrate to help those separated parents who could not arrange contact for themselves. The centres allow parents and children to adjust to child contact in a safe and neutral environment. The use of such centres, when court-directed, has been reinforced since 2000 by judicial protocols, the first of which was endorsed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, when president of the Family Division, and was later updated and revised by her successors. One of those was Sir James Munby, who sadly died earlier this month. In a speech in 2018, he said: “Everyone in the family justice system knows just what a vital role is played by Child Contact Centres and the contact centre movement. Child Contact Centres enable contact which otherwise might not occur to take place and they play a central part in maintaining, and if necessary restoring and rebuilding, the child’s relationship with parents, grandparents and other relatives”. He went…
- It is all too common for a separated parent to say 'the child won't want to see daddy' or 'I know I won't be allowed to see her'. Both parents are convinced the child shares their feelings — but children usually love both of them. Contact centres exist precisely to cut through that, in a neutral and safe space.
My Lords, I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. One of the rather sad aspects of a minority of families who cannot get on and separate is that they so often do not recognise that the children love both of them. It is all too common for one parent to say, “The child won’t want to see daddy; she can’t stand him”, or for daddy to say, “I know that I won’t be allowed to see her; that woman can’t bear me”. This is, I regret to tell your Lordships, absolutely typical.
The Cordis Bright report found that contact centres provide a vital service for thousands of families, but identified scope to improve emotional safeguarding, strengthen domestic abuse training for staff, and adopt a more system-wide approach to safeguarding adults and children from abuse. This amendment is about raising standards everywhere and keeping the child at the centre of every decision.My Lords, I have my name on this amendment and I am grateful to the Minister from the Ministry of Justice, who met a group of us to look at how the findings and recommendations from the Cordis Bright report could be met. I would like to add a tiny word to the way in which this amendment was so well introduced. The report’s findings showed that contact centres provide an important service, as we have already heard, and enable thousands of parents to have contact with children safely. But it pointed out that there is scope to improve emotional safeguarding and the provision of domestic abuse training for contact centre staff, and the importance of a system-wide approach to safeguarding adults or children from the risk of domestic abuse and other harm. The report presented a series of evidence-led recommendations to support this. The point of the amendment is to ensure that there are appropriate standards. This is about raising standards everywhere, because it keeps the child at the centre of what is happening and being recommended.
The problem of unregistered contact centres is real and it does not always show up in court proceedings. I have been before magistrates where it was not obvious whether the proposed centre was registered or not — and on one occasion I heard that a party had personally set up a centre as a way of gaming the system. Registration and training are the answer, and I hope the Minister is as encouraging as possible.My Lords, in my time as a family magistrate, I have dealt with the issue of contact centres a number of times. I want to make a point that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, did not make: the problem with unregistered contact centres. When you are in court, it is not always obvious to the court making the decision whether the proposed contact centre is registered or unregistered. This of course is a potentially very serious problem. I have even been in court and been told that one of the parties had personally set up a contact centre as a way of gaming the system, if I can put it like that. So this is a real problem, and registration and training of course are the answer. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be as encouraging as possible.
- The NACCC already accredits the majority of centres and the Cordis Bright research found unaccredited centres were uncommon — but we don't have a firm number. Work is already under way: officials are working with the NACCC to count unaccredited centres, exploring a protocol requiring mediators to refer families only to accredited centres, and reviewing mandatory training for contact centre staff. On the specific concern about courts and self-representing litigants — I take Lord Ponsonby's point and will ensure my noble friend Lady Levitt is informed. Mandatory accreditation is not necessary given the existing leadership from the NACCC and the work now under way.
My Lords, this amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It would require all providers of child contact centre services to be accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres to national standards set by the Secretary of State. In responding to this, I start by recognising, as all noble Lords have, the vital role played by the National Association of Child Contact Centres and the many dedicated child contact centres across England and Wales. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made clear, their work is fundamental to the family justice system, providing supervised or supported contact in a safe, neutral environment, allowing children to maintain a meaningful relationship with a non-resident parent. The commitment of staff and volunteers to safeguarding and creating a child-focused space is invaluable. I express my sincere appreciation for the work that they and the NACCC undertake. I understand the motivation behind this amendment, but the Government do not believe that it is necessary and are already responding to some of the points made in this debate and in the debate in Committee. The NACCC already accredits the majority of centres in England and Wales, with research showing that unaccredited centres are uncommon. In preparing for this, I asked the obvious question: how many unaccredited child contact centres are there? Interestingly, the Cordis Bright research that the noble Baroness referred to found that there was only a small number of unaccredited contact centres, but the report did not provide a figure or estimate for the number of unaccredited contact centres. When those working in accredited child contact centres who took part in the research were asked about unaccredited contact centres, they indicated that such centres were few in number. This may well suggest that we have made progress, due to the efforts of the NACCC, in ensuring that many more child contac…
- What action can actually be taken against a dubious, unaccredited centre? Children using such a centre could be exposed to real risk — and if that activity is effectively underground, local authorities and courts may simply not know it is happening.
Before the Minister sits down, what action can be taken against a centre that appears to be quite dubious and unaccredited? While the amendment is not being accepted, there is recognition that there may be activities going on which are effectively underground. The children who may be having contact with a family member—usually a parent—in such a situation might be exposed to quite serious risk.
- Local authorities already have a statutory duty to ensure that any provision they use meets safeguarding requirements and promotes the child's welfare. The evidence suggests very few unaccredited centres exist and the NACCC accreditation scheme covers the vast majority. A protocol requiring mediators to use only accredited centres will add another layer. I will ensure courts' ability to identify accredited centres is looked at — Lord Ponsonby raised a reasonable point.
I do not believe that there is evidence to suggest that that is the case. All the research suggests that there is a very small number of unaccredited centres. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby made an important point about how it is possible to identify centres that are accredited. The vast majority of them are. Given that it is clear that the NACCC accreditation scheme covers the vast majority, I would have thought that that is the appropriate route. As I have said, we are going to ensure that there is a protocol for mediators that means they use only accredited routes. I would have thought that that would also have been the case for courts. An unaccredited child contact centre might be used in limited circumstances for specific, short-term purposes because of the individual circumstances of the case—for example, in order to limit the travel that a child had to do in particular circumstances. Local authorities are under a legal duty to ensure that such provision meets all statutory safeguarding requirements and promotes the child’s welfare, so there is another level of assurance in the system. I will refer to my noble friend Lady Levitt the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby about the ability of courts to always be able to determine the nature of the contact centres where they are referring children. He raised a reasonable point, and I am sure all of us would want to ensure that it is covered.
- A protocol for mediators is welcome, but very often in private family cases there are no mediators — there are self-representing parties, usually men, who propose a contact centre themselves. A court may have no easy way of knowing whether that centre is registered or not.
Before my noble friend sits down, I just want to be clear about one aspect. She talked about mediators recommending only contact centres that are registered. Of course, very often in court, particularly in private cases, there are no mediators; there are people self-representing, very often men. They are the ones who propose contact centres, which may or may not be registered. The point I was making was that it is not that straightforward for a court to find out the nature of the contact centre that is being recommended.
- That is exactly the point I am accepting — I will ensure Lady Levitt is made aware, and I am sure we will want to make accreditation status more obvious to courts in precisely those circumstances.
No, and this was the point I was accepting when I said I would ensure that our noble friend Lady Levitt is informed about it from this debate. As I have said, I am sure we will want to give more thought to how the labelling, almost, of the accreditation that does exist for the vast majority of contact centres can perhaps be made more obvious to courts in the sorts of circumstances that my noble friend identified.
- Child neglect is the number-one reason people contact the NSPCC helpline, yet there is no national focus on it. Amendment 28 would require a national child neglect strategy — essential alongside the new multi-agency teams and information-sharing duties in this Bill. Neglect often overlaps with other forms of abuse and is driven partly by poverty and the collapse of early help services. Many parents living in poverty make astonishing sacrifices — poverty does not equal neglect — but without a dedicated strategy, neglect will continue to lack the attention it urgently needs.
My Lords, I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield. Her flight was delayed by 24 hours, so I am afraid noble Lords have got me instead. In moving Amendment 28 I will speak also to Amendment 97. For far too long, child neglect has been absent from the conversation about supporting families and reducing the number of children in care. The consequences of neglect are devastating. It can impact on a child’s physical and mental health, hinder their development and disrupt their ability to form secure relationships. With a shift towards a greater focus on multi-agency family support across local authorities through the Families First initiative, now is the opportune time to take a strategic approach to tackling child neglect. NSPCC data over the past five years has consistently shown neglect to be the number one reason for people contacting its helpline. Professionals continue to speak of a lack of national focus on tackling neglect, which has left many children without the right support. Resources and early help services —which have been at an all-time low while economic pressures have been at an all-time high—are receiving a welcome boost through measures in the Bill. But the new focus on support must go hand in hand with a greater focus on tackling neglect. Persistently high levels of neglect, and those circumstances remaining unnoticed or unaddressed, reflect reduced early health services for families and uncertainty among the public about when services need to be involved in a child’s life. They are also impacted by rising child poverty levels. As they take steps to address embedded issues in children’s social care and implement their new child poverty strategy, the Government have a rare opportunity to ensure that neglect is a fundamental part of the discussion. It is also important to note that many parents living in poverty make astonishing sacrifices to ensure that their children are not adversely impacted by material hardship…
- Amendment 97 does not force the Government to abolish the reasonable punishment defence — it simply asks them to assess the Welsh review findings and report to Parliament within six months of this Bill passing. Three years in, the Welsh implementation is going well: zero convictions, fewer than five CPS referrals, 365 families diverted to an out-of-court parenting support scheme, 95% of Welsh parents now knowing physical punishment is illegal. Nearly 70 studies reviewed in the *Lancet* show physical punishment harms children with no positive outcomes. 24 leading organisations in child health and child protection support this amendment. The Government promised to wait for evidence from Wales — that evidence is now before us.
My Lords, I return to the issue of the defence of reasonable punishment. My Amendment 97 asks the Government to look carefully at the report from Wales, following three years of implementation of their legislation. In response to my amendment in Committee, the Government repeated the statement that they were waiting for evidence from Wales. My amendment seeks only to make sure that this happens; it does not force the Government to take a decision but asks them to inform Parliament of their assessment of the Welsh findings and the implications for England. I am grateful to the Minister for having met me after the Committee stage of the Bill. The evidence has increased that physical punishment harms children’s health and well-being and does not improve behaviour. That includes nearly 70 studies reviewed in the Lancet and evidence from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. No positive outcomes have been shown and there is a higher risk of later physical abuse, with clear links to behavioural problems and mental health difficulties. This amendment is supported by 24 leading organisations in child health and child protection, social care and human rights. While we delay, children continue to be inappropriately physically punished. Contacts to the NSPCC adult and child helplines have shown an increase, not decrease, in concerns over physical punishment in recent years. Polling has shown that those with professional safeguarding responsibilities overwhelmingly support the approach taken in Wales and Scotland. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child committee has repeatedly recommended that the UK repeal the defence of reasonable punishment when a child has had physical abuse. The Wales report shows that the legislative changes are progressing well. The Minister for Children and Social Care, Dawn Bowden MS, described the review as evidence that the law is working and making significant progress in protecting children’s rights. The report concludes that Wal…
In Committee I likened the Government's 'waiting for Wales' position to a legislative *Waiting for Godot*. Well, Godot has arrived. The Welsh report is thorough and its overall message is positive. On positive parenting — the Minister's key objection in Committee — the report is clear this is not an either/or: abolition in Wales has been implemented in a way that promotes and supports positive parenting, with the law acting to educate and support parents rather than criminalise them. Nearly 60% of professionals say the Welsh Act has supported or greatly supported them in protecting children's rights. This amendment is a compromise — there is no good reason not to accept it.My Lords, I support Amendment 97, to which I have added my name. In Committee, I likened the waiting for Wales argument to a legislative Waiting for Godot. Well, Godot has arrived in the form of a very thorough evaluation of the first three years of the Welsh legislation. The overall message, as we have heard, is very positive. I was particularly struck by what the report says about positive parenting, as this was a key argument used by my noble friend the Minister in rejecting the original amendment in Committee. The report makes it clear that this is not an either/or situation. The abolition of the reasonable punishment defence in Wales has been implemented in such a way as to promote and support positive parenting practices. Thus, the report makes it clear that, thanks in part to the introduction of a parenting support scheme which we have heard about, the response to physical punishment is proportionate and focused on behaviour change rather than criminalisation. Elsewhere, the report notes that the aim of the Act was to protect children’s rights while adopting an educating and preventive approach which avoids criminalising parents. It suggests that this aim is being realised in practice, in that implementation is acting not to criminalise parents but to help educate and support them in managing behaviours differently. This addresses one of the fears sometimes expressed about abolition of the defence. I argued in Committee that this is a very much a children’s rights issue, and the report points to research that indicated that professionals view the Act as having enhanced their ability to safeguard children’s rights, with nearly 60% reporting that it had either supported or greatly supported them in protecting children’s right to be free from violence. This is, of course, an interim report, but in Committee my noble friend referred to it as helping to build the evidence base needed for the Government to make a decision, and I think it is fair in its claim to pro…
Children in England remain uniquely vulnerable — less protection from assault than adults and their peers in Scotland and Wales. In Wales: zero convictions, fewer than five CPS referrals, 95% of parents know physical punishment is illegal, 86% believe it is ineffective. We feared criminalising parents; that has not happened — families were diverted to supportive parenting programmes instead. NSPCC polling shows majorities of teachers, healthcare professionals and police all want the law changed. This amendment asks only that the Government meaningfully consider the existing evidence and respond. Childhood lasts a lifetime: children should not have to wait indefinitely for equal protection.My Lords, I support Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Tyler, which I hope the Government will support. I should like to speak on Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the legal defence of reasonable punishment. I declare an interest as vice-president of Barnardo’s, which has been campaigning for the end of the reasonable punishment defence, along with its partners in the children’s sector. We already know that physical punishment can cause significant harm to a child, including poorer mental health and increased behavioural problems, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has said. Any child who is physically punished is also at greater risk of even more serious abuse, which can be devastating. Professionals who work with children can find it difficult to assess and respond to potential risks, since distinguishing between physical punishment and abuse is challenging. As a result, Wales and Scotland have acted to remove the reasonable punishment defence from the law, but England has not done so. Children in this nation remain uniquely vulnerable, with less protection from assault than adults and other children elsewhere in the UK. I turn my attention to the Welsh review, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Some 95% of parents in Wales now know that physical punishment is illegal and 86% believe it is ineffective. We feared widespread criminalisation of parents, but that has not occurred. Fewer than five cases have been referred to the CPS, with no convictions to note. Instead, families have been diverted to supportive parenting programmes, which have led to positive outcomes for many of them, including in children’s behaviour and parental well-being. Professionals have also reported greater clarity and confidence when dealing with such cases. That shows that the law is working but, most importantly, that children are being protected. There is widespread support for change. Polling from the NSPCC has shown that the ma…
- Children in England have less protection in law from assault than adults or their peers in Wales and Scotland. As a teacher, when a child tells me they will be beaten if they don't get good grades, the law's ambiguity makes safeguarding harder — it is a nightmare for safeguarding leads who must judge the extent of any injury. 90% of social workers, 77% of healthcare professionals and 75% of teachers want the law changed. In Wales, with zero convictions and hundreds of families accessing parenting support, the law is working. Amendment 97 is a pragmatic compromise — report to Parliament on the Welsh findings in a timely way and let the evidence drive the next step.
My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 97. As we have heard, the law changes in Wales on reasonable punishment are going well. Children in England have less protection in law from assaults than adults and their peers in Scotland and Wales. The law as it stands is unclear and open to interpretation, making it harder to safeguard children. As a teacher, I know first-hand the challenges that this poses for professionals safeguarding children. When the law contains ambiguity, safeguarding becomes more difficult. I have come across cases where children have reported that if they do not get good grades then they will be beaten. That is a safeguarding risk that I would report, but for safeguarding leads it is a nightmare that they have to judge the extent of any injuries. The fact that you can still legally hit a child with calculation is bizarre and barbaric. That is reflected in the NSPCC’s YouGov polling from August that 90% of social workers, 77% of healthcare professionals and 75% of teachers all believe that the law in England should be changed—and they are voters—while some 81% of parents with a child under 18 think that physical punishment of any sort is unacceptable. Like many others, I want to see the reasonable punishment defence removed entirely to give all children protection from assault. I support the amendment as a clear and pragmatic compromise to bring in, in a timely way, the evidence that the Government want to see on the impact of implementing this change on parents, professionals and public services. The Government’s openness to reviewing the evidence and hearing from a range of people on this issue is welcome. I therefore hope they will support this amendment in that spirit. Given the challenges that the current law poses for professionals, it is welcome to see the positive impact that removing the defence has had in Wales. Professionals across safeguarding, education and healthcare report that the law has clarified and strengthened their ab…
Those on these Benches have long endorsed abolishing physical punishment of children. What is most encouraging in the Welsh report is that the out-of-court parenting support workers were instrumental in engaging with families, offering positive parenting guidance and providing early preventive support before issues escalated — which addresses the concern about unintended consequences for parents. This is evidence-based policy-making moving in the right direction.My Lords, I support Amendment 97. The abolition of the physical punishment of children is something that many of us on these Benches have long endorsed. My right reverend friends the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of Derby in particular wanted to reiterate that support alongside mine. The amendment is eminently sensible, as we have just heard. I was pleased to read in the report from Wales that the introduction of the role of the out-of-court parenting support worker has significantly facilitated the implementation of this Act, as we have heard. My concern when we talk about legislation with penalties is always the unintended consequences, in this case for parents and wider families—we do not need any more children being impacted by parental imprisonment—but it is music to my ears that these parenting support workers in Wales have been instrumental in engaging with families, offering guidance on positive parenting strategies and providing early preventive support to resolve those issues, as we have heard, before they escalate to criminal proceedings. In short, I always support evidence-based policy-making, and this seems like a sensible step in the right direction on this issue. I support Amendment 97.
The only parents who can currently use the reasonable chastisement defence are those who use reasonable discipline — no harm caused, objectively reasonable behaviour. Abusers are already prosecuted under existing law. The truly tragic child death cases we see in the press invariably involve children well known to social services but with overstretched social workers who missed them — the problem is capacity, not the law. Amendment 97 is more measured than its predecessor in Committee, and I welcome that change of approach, but I oppose it.My Lords, I will respond to Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and oppose it. It is over six months since we last debated this issue in Committee in June last year. I welcome the change in tack. A previous version of the amendment sought to abolish the reasonable chastisement defence outright. Amendment 97 is more measured, given the serious implications that such a change in the law would have for parents and children. In England, the only parents who can use the legal defence of reasonable chastisement are those who use reasonable discipline, like a mum tapping a tot on the back of the hand to teach the child not to play with the electrical sockets at Granny’s house. The defence protects parents from being unfairly charged, prosecuted and convicted for smacking their own children, and does so only when no harm was caused and the parent’s behaviour is objectively reasonable. We are not talking about allowing parents to get away with abuse, as Government Ministers have helpfully acknowledged from the Dispatch Box on previous occasions. Under the reasonable chastisement law, if a parent punishes a child in a way that causes anything more than temporary reddening of the skin, that is unreasonable and therefore illegal. Some in the media have exploited horrific cases of children being brutalised to try to bolster their case for outlawing mild parental smacking. I reiterate that abusers are prosecuted under existing law. The tragic cases that we have seen in the press invariably turn out to involve children who were well known to social services but the social workers were invariably overstretched.
We must draw a firm distinction between physical punishment and abuse — English law already does so. The reasonable punishment defence applies only to the lightest chastisement where no harm is caused. Removing it shifts the balance significantly away from families and towards government control, when what is needed is education and support. The experience in Wales and Scotland has led to thousands of additional referrals to social services that divert attention from children at genuine risk — at a cost the NSPCC estimates at at least £145 million. I oppose Amendment 97.My Lords, I too oppose the removal of the defence of reasonable punishment. I realise that Amendment 97 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, no longer does that directly, but it is intended as a staging post, and this is why I would like to talk about the issue. As a child, I was subjected to physical punishment. My parents were overly strict. My father came from a military background and my mother had little patience with children. I was also a boarder at a Catholic school, where the nuns were extremely strict. On one occasion, I was caught talking to my neighbour and was made to kneel on the platform by the teacher’s desk with tape placed over my mouth for the rest of the lesson. This was a clear violation and would rightly be unacceptable today. However, we must draw a distinction between physical punishment and hitting a child and an occasional light smack that causes no harm. These are not the same morally, psychologically or legally. English law reflects that distinction. Any punishment that causes injury, leaves marks, involves implements or amounts to abuse is illegal and rightly prosecuted. The defence of reasonable punishment applies only to the lightest chastisement where no harm is caused. It does not excuse abuse nor physical punishment. It prevents ordinary parents being treated as criminals when, from time to time, they apply proportionate discipline to an unruly child. To remove it is another step towards a nanny state where the balance between parental responsibility and state intervention is quietly but significantly shifted away from families and towards government control. All children are not the same. Some respond to a word or a look and never need to be scolded; others test the boundaries. For those children, the calm assertion of parental authority is not cruelty but guidance, helping them learn limits, responsibility and respect for rules. I am also a parent. On one occasion, after repeatedly warning my eldest son, I smacked him lightly on…
I am keen that the Government dig deep into the Welsh evidence — and I am keen they conclude that this should not be extended to England, on the basis of that evidence. In Wales, the guidance to organisations working with children is that anyone who witnesses a parent smacking must immediately contact social services. That has produced thousands of new referrals involving police — millions of pounds and enormous time diverted from children at genuine risk of serious harm. Even the most committed anti-smacking campaigner should concede that a well-intentioned tap by a loving parent is not the same as abuse. The conflation of the two distorts the evidence and is insulting to parents.My Lords, when I saw Amendment 97, I was pleased to see that the focus was on the post-implementation review report on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Act. I am keen that the UK Government dig deeper into the impact of what is known as the Welsh smacking ban. I am keen that the Government review the evidence and data and, I hope, draw a conclusion that this should not be brought into UK law—but that they do that by looking at the evidence. As somebody in Wales, I have obviously been involved in this debate for some time. I have had lots of media discussions and spoken on the issue over the years. Having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talk about the report, I felt as though we probably read different reports and had different interpretations, which just shows that it is worth digging into. I have some serious reservations about the success of the law change, as there have been some rather unintended, though predictable, outcomes. I want to raise a few of those. I understand that the proposers of this amendment are motivated by concern about the abuse of children, but it is important to note that we are all motivated by a concern about the abuse of children. That is something that we share. But one of my worries is the impact of the law change, given the pressures it is placing on social services in Wales. Thousands of new referrals have been made to Welsh social services that have involved the police, and these are costing millions of pounds and lots of time. To be honest, this can mean that real abuse is being squeezed out or relativised by what is happening. The influx of referrals is not a surprise when any report of smacking automatically triggers an investigation by social services. The escalation of reports is no doubt because of the Welsh Government’s guidance to a wide range of organisations which work with, care for or volunteer with children that anyone who witnesses a parent smacking a child should immediately c…
- I was just accused of insulting parents, which I have never been accused of before. The law as it stands allows a bruise that is not visible within three days — on dark skin, that requires considerable force. There is a huge area between 'light tap' and 'brutalising a child', and the law's ambiguity sits squarely in that middle ground. Calling that out is not an insult to parents.
My Lords, if I may speak again, I believe I was just accused by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, of insulting parents, which I have never been accused of before. I would like to explain myself slightly. The law, as far as I understand it, is that the bruise must be not visible within three days. On dark skin, you can get quite a lot of force into a mild slap to leave a bruise that cannot be seen in three days. If one side is that we are practically calling parents punch-drunk, mad people and the other is, “It’s a light tap, because a child has done something wrong”, there is a huge area between them. To call me insulting to parents is what I find insulting myself.
- A national child neglect strategy risks causing professionals to focus on one element of a child's experience and overlook others — neglect almost always coexists with other forms of harm — so we do not support Amendment 28. On Amendment 97: the speeches from Lord Jackson and Baroness Meyer and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, reminded the House of the current law and of important balancing points about the impact of the Welsh legislation. I am sympathetic to the push for transparency about the data. One point not yet raised: children also suffer terribly from psychological violence and emotional abuse. Whatever approach is taken, parenting programmes and positive support for parents — including Best Start in Life hubs — must be at the heart of the response.
My Lords, I will respond briefly, given the hour. Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerns implementing a government child neglect strategy, and I absolutely understand his aim in advocating for this. It is right to raise issues concerning the neglect of children, but in my own experience, neglect almost always coexists with other forms of abuse or harm. I fear that focusing on one element of a child’s experience might lead professionals to overlook others that are frequently interlinked. There are real risks with that approach, so we on these Benches do not support the amendment. I genuinely look forward to the Minister’s reply to Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We had powerful speeches in favour of what has happened in Wales, and, I would argue, equally important speeches from my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Meyer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. These reminded the House of the current law and raised important balancing points about some of the impacts of the Welsh legislation. I am sympathetic to the push by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for transparency and understanding the data as the Government navigate this very difficult area. On a smacking ban, the only point that has not been raised this evening, and which worries me—I am sure that nobody would disagree with this—is that children also suffer terribly from psychological violence, emotional abuse or coercion from their parents. The point was made early in the debate about the importance of parenting programmes and positive support for parents. I hope that the Minister can talk about the Best Start in Life hubs, and say that the Government are finding routes, which we all want to see, to support parents without having to criminalise behaviour.
- Neglect accounts for 50% of all child protection plans in England — we take it seriously. The £2.4 billion Families First programme, new multi-agency teams, stronger information-sharing duties and explicit guidance on neglect throughout *Working Together* are the Government's answer — backed by the child poverty strategy addressing the stressors that co-occur with neglect. On Amendment 97 and the Welsh evidence: government amendments in this group ensure that providers of regulated children's social care settings and youth detention accommodation can be held accountable for the ill-treatment or wilful neglect of under-18s in their care. We will continue working with key stakeholders — including the What Works Network, Foundations and the national child safeguarding practice review panel — on child neglect specifically. I am not able to commit to accept Amendment 97 today.
My Lords, we have had a good debate in this group on new clauses regarding a national child neglect strategy and the removal of the reasonable punishment review in Wales. I will also speak to three government amendments that will ensure that providers of regulated children’s social care settings or youth detention accommodation are held accountable for their role in the ill-treatment or wilful neglect of under-18s in their care. As we have heard in the debate, this group of amendments raises important issues around child safety and well-being—areas to which the Government are wholly committed. Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a national child neglect strategy. Protecting children from all forms of abuse and neglect is a key priority for this Government. Neglect accounts for 50% of all child protection plans in England, and we know that it is often cumulative. Harm builds up over time if not addressed early. This is why, along with measures in this Bill and backed by over £2.4 billion of investment, our focus is on strengthening multi-agency family help and child protection through national reforms, and statutory guidance that explicitly references neglect as a safeguarding and child protection concern throughout. These practical steps will support practitioners to identify and respond effectively to children and families who need support, including where neglect is present. We also know that poverty can increase the risk of neglect, although I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that being poor does not imply that you will neglect your children. It does, of course, make your life more difficult. That is why the recently published child poverty strategy prioritises early intervention and integrated support for families, addressing stressors such as parental mental health difficulties, parental substance misuse and domestic abuse…