Committee stage in the Commons
The Committee scrutinised Clauses 3–7, debating multi-agency child protection teams, the children's consistent identifier, the kinship local offer, virtual school heads, and Staying Put, with the Opposition pressing amendments on reporting, recording non-disclosure decisions, and kinship feedback.
N(Clause 3 won't commence until 2027 — so will local authorities actually be resourced in time? The LGA told us plainly that the new burdens doctrine must be applied and that additional funding will be required for these multi-agency units. What are the Government's rough cost estimates, and when will that be agreed with local government? On Amendment 19: continuous improvement is the spirit of it — we want to know how these teams are working on the ground, learn from the best, and share that learning. I intend to press it to a vote.I have already talked about our general support for clause 3, as well as some of the issues around the geography, content and cast lists of the teams, which brings me on to funding. On Tuesday, we asked the Local Government Association about the new burdens doctrine and whether there would be clarity on funding for these new requirements. The Government do not plan to commence this clause until 2027, so will local authorities be appropriately resourced to meet these demands? In its summary of the Bill, the Department for Education says: “Later commencement allows more time to secure funding and resources and workforces will have more time to engage and prepare for change.” Do the Government know roughly how much extra funding will be required? As Ruth Stanier from the LGA said in her evidence to us on Tuesday, “the new burdens doctrine must be applied in the usual way. There are a number of measures in this Bill for which additional funding will be required, for example the new multi-agency units.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 13, Q21.] We are talking about those multi-agency units here. What are the Minister’s rough estimates of what will be required, and at roughly what point will that be agreed? Again, the DFE notes on the Bill say that it will be “set out in regulations how the multi-agency child protection teams will carry out their day-to-day activities.” That will be extremely specific; for example, it says: “The new provisions will include a power for the Secretary of State to set out in regulations requirements for the practitioners who are nominated to be part of the multiagency child protection teams. This might include examples of the types of ‘minimum qualifications or experience’ that they will need, which have not been included in the legislation as this will require discussion with the relevant work forces, including police, health and education, to understand what would be relevant”.…
Amendment 19 is good and important — we need to focus on actual practice, not just what the law requires on paper. There is real variety in how multi-agency working happens in different places; I know that from looking at it on the Education Committee in 2012. Will the Government give more operational guidance stressing professional curiosity and ownership? And to what extent is what Clause 3 proposes different from existing MASHs? How does it interact with the supporting families programme, which has now moved into DfE — there is a real opportunity there.It is very good to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I think everybody agrees with the principle of this clause, and there is undeniable valuable in having all the relevant agencies working together. I am afraid it is invariably a conclusion of reviews that, when things go badly wrong, part of the issue is that working together has not functioned as well as it could. The Bill does not invent multi-agency working—that is not a new thing—but it does write something very specific into primary legislation, and that is welcome. Amendment 19 is good and important and requires reporting back on the work and impact of multi-agency teams. What we need to focus on is actual practice. It is one thing to set out that so-and-so must talk to somebody else—no one would argue with that—but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said, there is quite some variety in the way these things happen. Will there be more guidance in terms of operations to stress the importance of following process and procedure, but also recognising the centrality of professional curiosity and taking ownership of problems through to their solution? I am keen to understand better from the Government the extent to which what the clause proposes is different from multi-agency safeguarding hubs, commonly known by their acronym, MASH. Is it the same, or is it for a subset of higher level cases? Are we drawing a distinction between safeguarding and child protection? MASHs themselves have worked in quite different ways. I said that these things are not new—I remember that in 2012, when I was on the Education Committee, we did an inquiry in this area. We visited a couple of different MASHs and had a couple of local authorities, one from Devon and one from Leeds, at a Committee hearing. One of those authorities had a MASH; the other had actively decided not to because it felt that there were better ways of achieving some of the same aims. That highlighted the importance of what is done operati…
- To sharpen my right hon. Friend's point: will existing MASHs still run alongside the new teams, or does one turn into the other? And on continuity of knowledge — which matters enormously because often the same family is in trouble over a long period — does the Government expect that practitioners currently on a MASH would typically move across to the new teams?
My right hon. Friend asks a really good question, and I intervene to sharpen that further. He asks whether the new teams are displacing or replacing the MASHs. Does the Government think that the MASHs that exist now will still be running alongside these new teams, or does the one turn into the other? On the point about continuity of knowledge, which is so important in these cases as often the same family is in trouble for a long time, is it the Government’s expectation that it would be quite normal for people who are currently on one of the MASHs to find themselves on the new teams as well, or is this a new thing? I am just trying to understand the intent.
- Amendment 19 has real value and I hope it will be agreed. On resourcing: it is one thing to legislate for people to do a new thing, but if the people simply cannot be hired that is an obvious impediment. By how much does this programme create a new human-resource requirement — how many additional person-days per year are we actually talking about?
I think amendment 19 has a lot of value and I hope it will be agreed. I want to ask about resourcing. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has rightly asked about cash resourcing—how much there will be—and there is of course the new burdens principle to follow, but I want to ask about staff availability. It is one thing to legislate for people to do a certain thing, but if it is very difficult to hire those people, that is obviously an impediment. To what extent and, if it is possible to quantify, by how much, does this programme create a new human resource requirement? How many more person days per year are we talking about?
Clause 3 requires a multi-agency child protection team in every local authority area. Safeguarding partners already have a statutory responsibility to publish annual reports on their arrangements, and once the clause comes into force that will include reporting on these new teams — so Amendment 19's spirit is already met. We are funding 10 pathfinder areas right now, and from April we are investing over £500 million to roll out the families first partnership programme nationally. Where an effective MASH already exists, local areas can build on that infrastructure — the new teams are in addition to MASHs, not a replacement.It is an honour to have you in the chair today, Sir Edward. Clause 3 requires the establishment of multi-agency child protection teams in every local authority area. I welcome the focus of amendment 19, laid in the names of the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, on monitoring the impact of the effectiveness of these multi-agency child protection teams and on continuous improvement, as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston put it so well. It is essential that we know how the multi-agency teams are leading to better outcomes for children and that we share that learning right across the system. It may be reassuring to know that safeguarding partners already have a statutory responsibility to publish annual reports on their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. Once clause 3 comes into force, that responsibility will include reporting on the multi-agency child protection teams. We are already funding 10 local areas to implement multi-agency child protection teams. From April, we are investing more than £500 million to roll out family help and multi-agency child protection teams nationally. The evaluation of the 10 pathfinders and the national roll-out of the families first partnership programme will inform the operational detail, including reporting, which will then be set out in regulations and updated statutory guidance. On the question about how the teams will work, local authorities are currently not required to have a multi-agency safeguarding hub. This new duty will impose a specific form of child protection arrangement. The emerging evidence from the 10 local area pathfinders shows that where there is an effective multi-agency safeguarding hub, local areas can build on that existing multi-agency infrastructure and achieve closer multi-agency working relationships, which then creates that multi-agency child protection team. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked about the supporting famil…
- I agree with everything the Minister is saying. But on the specific point about where MASHs already exist — do these new teams replace them? Are they likely to have similar members? What happens to existing bodies when the new one is created?
I agree with everything the Minister is saying—it all sounds very sensible. She may be coming to this, but on this point about where MASHs already exist, do these new teams replace them? Are they likely to have similar members? What happens to the existing bodies when the new one is created?
- Local authorities are not currently required to have MASHs. We will build on the work that has been done to make sure every local authority has a child protection multi-agency team — so no child falls through the gaps where provision does not currently exist.
As I said earlier, at the moment, local authority teams are not required to have multi-agency safeguarding hubs. We will build on the work that has been done and make sure that every local authority has a child protection multi-agency team, so that no child will fall through the gaps where provision does not currently exist.
- I genuinely am not clear on this from reading the legislation and the explanatory notes. Is the multi-agency child protection team replacing any existing MASH, or is it in addition to it?
I hope that the Minister does not mind me intervening to ask this question, but I genuinely am not clear on it from reading the legislation and the explanatory notes. Is the multi-agency child protection team replacing or in addition to any multi-agency safeguarding hub that exists today?
- The new teams are based on the MASH models, following the recommendations of the child safeguarding practice review panel. We are already testing the approach with 10 pathfinders and working toward a consistent national approach. Where we have seen this working well in practice, we build on it — and this clause ensures delivery in every local authority for every child.
The multi-agency child protection teams will be based on those models. We have used robust evidence including the supporting families and strengthening families programmes. It very much follows the recommendations from the child safeguarding practice review panel to make sure that we have a multi-agency child protection unit in every local authority to address a lack of joint working across agencies. We are already testing this approach with the 10 new pathfinders and working to make sure that safeguarding partners in all areas have a consistent approach nationally. Where we have seen this working well in practice, we will build on that. This clause will ensure that is delivered in every local authority and for every child.
- For clarity: could there be a local authority in which both a MASH and a multi-agency child protection team exist simultaneously?
For clarity, could there be a local authority in which there is both a multi-agency safeguarding hub and a multi-agency child protection team?
- I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, but I still do not understand. Is the new team making existing MASHs more consistent and giving them a new name? Or is it something that will exist in parallel — or will it replace a MASH, or be subsumed into it?
I am really sorry. I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, but I do not quite understand. I think we all agree, and absolutely support the hon. Lady in what she says, that of course this should build on the existing best practice in a MASH and everything that has been learnt from supporting troubled families. I am trying to understand whether it will make existing MASHs—although they do not happen everywhere and work differently sometimes—a bit more consistent and give them a new name? Alternatively, is it taking whatever the MASH does—which might be looking out for safeguarding review cases for a broader group of children—perhaps at a slightly lower level, and then adding something new called a multi-agency child protection team, which will exist in parallel? Will it replace an existing MASH or become subsumed into it?
- The multi-agency child protection teams will be in addition to the MASH teams. We recognise that additional resource is required — hence the £500 million from April 2025 for the family first partnership programme. These new teams add additional safeguards and ensure a consistent approach to child protection at national scale.
I think what the right hon. Gentleman is potentially getting at is how the multi-agency child protection teams will work alongside the MASH teams. To some extent, this is moving existing resource around. This will be in addition to the MASH teams. We recognise that it will require some additional resource, so there will be £500 million coming from April 2025 for the family first partnership programme. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly raised, we need to ensure we have good, qualified, people working in these roles, which is really important to get right. As I said, building on the good work, we are putting in additional safeguards for children through these provisions. We are making sure that, while we have the good work of MASHs happening, we can have a consistent approach to child protection on a national scale by ensuring that we have multi-agency child protection teams working together.
- Two quick questions: if a large local authority such as Birmingham wants more than one of these teams, can it? And on substitutes — if a nominated person is sick, can a substitute attend so the meeting can still go ahead?
I have two specific questions, although there may be no answer to the first—it may be for regulations, and there may be no decision yet. If a large local authority such as Birmingham wants to have more than one of these things, can it do so? My other question —which Iaised before the break—is about substitutes. What happens if one of the nominated people is sick? The meeting obviously still needs to go ahead, so can substitutes be used?
- These are exactly the operational details we are exploring through the 10 pathfinder programmes. The approach must be tailored to local need — different areas will bring the right expertise and add capacity wherever it is needed to keep children safe. The detail will be set out to ensure a consistent national approach.
The hon. Gentleman is really getting into the detail of how these will work operationally and in practice. We are exploring through 10 pathfinder programmes how this will work most effectively, to ensure that no child falls through the cracks. This will be set out in greater detail to ensure that we have a consistent approach nationally. Obviously, the point is to ensure that it can be tailored to local need; indeed, different areas will ensure that they are bringing the expertise and adding to the capacity already in the system, wherever it is needed, to keep children safe. I implore members of the Committee to support the passing of this clause. Question put, That the amendment be made.
- Clause 4 is a very good and important idea — we were working to deliver a consistent identifier when we were in Government. Our amendments are tweaks to make it work as well as possible. On Amendment 20: the safety valve in subsection (3) worries me — how can a single agency decide not to share information without knowing what partner agencies already hold? A conscious decision not to disclose should be clearly recorded so there is no confusion later about whether it was a deliberate choice or just inaction. Amendment 21 goes further: when deciding whether to share, practitioners should consider the welfare not just of the child whose information is being shared but of others to whom it may relate.
The first thing to say about clause 4 is that we are extremely supportive of the principle of consistent identifiers. This is something we were working to deliver when I was in Government. I remember being in meetings about it when I was at the Department of Health and Social Care, discussing for example whether it would be possible to use the NHS number as the identifier. We are really keen that this happens. We have seen far too many young people fall through the cracks because of inconsistent identification, which means that problems are not connected and dots are not joined up. Government Members will not always hear me say this, but this is a very good and important idea, and one of which we are completely supportive. Our amendments are therefore tweaks to ensure the idea works as well as it can. I will also ask some questions that do not have an amendment with them, but which I hope the Government will take away and think about so that this can work as well as possible. To start with our amendment 20, I understand the reason for the safety valve in clause 4(3); however, I am wary. In practice, how can a single agency take the decision not to share information until it knows what other information its partner agencies hold about the same case and person? Surely there needs to be a level of trust and strong information-sharing protocols to allow sharing to happen. For example, there might be concerns about a child who has delayed speech at school, but without knowing that the mother has suffered years of abuse, been to A&E and never called the police, it is difficult to judge the situation accurately. What is the Minister’s answer to that concern about the safety valve? I hope one part of the answer can be our amendment. That is what it is there for. Where information disclosure is not carried out because of a risk of detriment, something pretty serious is obviously happening. That information itself—that there has been deliberate, conscious non-disclosure—is ve…
The amendment appears to have two parts. The requirement to consider the welfare of others to whom the information may relate seems reasonable — but the requirement to take steps to promote the welfare of potentially anybody to whom the information may relate seems very broad.The amendment appears to have two parts. The first is the requirement to consider the welfare of others to whom the information may relate. That seems quite reasonable; however, the requirement to take steps to promote the welfare of potentially anybody to whom the information may relate seems to me very broad.
- It is a general point: practitioners should not just think about the welfare of others affected, but act on it. We are not asking for miracles — just that they take it into account and take steps.
I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful question. It is a very general point to say that people should take steps to think about their welfare. We are not asking people to move mountains or work miracles or anything like that—I cannot think of a clearer way of putting it. We want them not just to think about it, but to act on it, and there are two different amendments here.
- Practitioners should absolutely record the reasons for their information-sharing decisions — but that should happen irrespective of the reason, not only when information is withheld as detrimental. The existing non-statutory DfE guidance already covers this and we will ensure it is in the statutory guidance. So rather than legislate on Amendment 20 specifically, we will cover it in guidance that relevant persons must have regard to.
I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has set out his questions. To clarify, amendment 20 would require the relevant person to record their decision to withhold information if they considered disclosing it to be more detrimental to the child than not disclosing it. We absolutely agree that practitioners should record the reasons for their information-sharing decisions. However, that should happen irrespective of the reason for sharing or not sharing particular information. The current, non-statutory information sharing guidance for practitioners and managers issued by the Department for Education covers this point, making it clear that practitioners should keep a record of their decisions, including their rationale. Rather than legislating on this issue, it is our intention to cover it in statutory guidance, which relevant persons would be required to have regard to in relation to these matters. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman raised a range of other issues and questions about clause 4 more generally, and I will respond to those in the clause stand debate.
These are probing amendments — we are not pressing them to a vote. There is widespread agreement that Clause 4 is absolutely necessary and long overdue; failure to share information has been one of the key barriers to keeping children safe. Amendment 44 would add 'wellbeing' alongside 'welfare' so the consistent identifier is used for a child's broader needs, not only acute safeguarding risk. Amendment 43 would clarify that every child should be assigned an identifier regardless of whether any concern has yet been identified — that is what I understand the Bill intends, but I want confirmation. Amendment 45 questions why the Bill explicitly excludes use of anonymised cohort data for research and commissioning — de-identified data shared safely could reveal gaps in provision and save lives. And none of this works without investment in the underlying systems: the technology must actually be able to talk to each other.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward. For clarity—after some mix-ups this morning, for which I apologise—these are probing amendments that we are not seeking to press to a vote today. We have tabled them to get on record some responses from Ministers about how the single unique identifier will be used. As the shadow Minister has pointed out, there is widespread agreement that clause 4 is absolutely necessary and long overdue. Failure to share information effectively has been identified, over many years, as one of the key barriers to keeping children safe, to providing joined-up support to meet their needs and to conducting research across the children’s system. Professor Jay’s report on child sexual abuse brought that, and the failure of agencies across the system to share data, into stark relief. In the Committee’s evidence session on Tuesday, the Children’s Commissioner cited the same example as Professor Jay gave me when I met her last week: teenagers in a particular area had a very high prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases and that data was not shared with relevant agencies, although it clearly should have put up a red flag. I strongly welcome the clause and pay tribute to the Children’s Charities Coalition, which has done a lot of work and research in this space. Amendment 44, in my name, would expand the criteria that require a designated person to use the consistent identifier in the information that they process. As the Bill stands, it requires consideration of “safeguarding or promoting the welfare of” the child. As we have all said, those criteria are vital, but they could be interpreted as relating only to acute risk. We want to insert the word “wellbeing” into the Bill to seek to ensure that the broader needs of the child would be taken into account when considering the provision of joined-up support across the children’s system. Will the Minister explain why the Bill limits the use of the consistent identif…
- Clause 4 gives professionals a clear legal basis to request and share information for the purposes of safeguarding or promoting a child's welfare, and enables the Secretary of State to specify a consistent identifier by regulations. Pilot activity starts from April 2025, subject to passage of the Bill. A disabled child would likely be a child in need and benefit from both the information-sharing duty and the identifier. We are committed to implementing the identifier as soon as possible — but we have to work through information governance, privacy, technology choices and costs first, and the pilot findings will determine further timings.
To improve the safeguarding and welfare of children and to stop families and children from falling through the cracks of public services, clause 4 seeks to address long-standing issues that hinder information sharing. Current legislation permits information sharing to safeguard and protect the wellbeing of children, but user research has identified that practitioners often feel confident only where there are serious child protection concerns. As a result, information is often held by different agencies, and practitioners are left unaware of crucial data that could provide evidence for the whole picture of a child’s wellbeing, health and safety. That gap in knowledge can make it difficult for professionals to support families, and make it harder for families to be aware of their entitlements and to access the support that they need. The clause gives professionals a clear legal basis to request and share information with other relevant professionals for the purposes of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of a child. It also enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to specify a consistent identifier for children. Agencies specified in regulations will be required to use the number when recording or sharing information about a child for the purposes of safeguarding or the promotion of welfare. The measures aim to ensure that practitioners share relevant information confidently and consistently. As I mentioned, the Department will pilot the implementation of the consistent identifier and introduce it nationally at a later point. We will test its ability to facilitate the linking of data across datasets. The changes made by the clause aim to ensure that information about a child and their family is shared effectively and that risk is correctly identified and understood. In response to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, I should say that information sharing is a two-way duty. The duty, along with the consistent identifier, will help to bring togeth…
- The unique identifier addresses a problem at the heart of too many tragedies: two agencies didn't realise they were talking about the same child. A semantic point, but important because this is primary legislation: the Bill uses the word 'share' in the title of the new section — does that mean disclosure to another party, or holding information in common? The two are different and precision matters. What is the relationship between this duty and mandatory reporting? The clause creates a duty to share, but mandatory reporting of sexual abuse is separate and not in this Bill — could the Minister say a little more on that distinction? And the data-protection carve-out in lines 11–15 on page 7 is a real risk: too often agencies say 'data protection' as the reason for not sharing. The Bill goes some way to addressing that, but it would help if the Government could create as much clarity as possible on that balance.
I rise in support of the clause, for all the compelling reasons that the Minister gave in her rationale. We talked earlier about the value of multi-agency working, and the sharing of information is fundamental to that. As she outlined, there have been too many cases in which the heart of the problem was the lack of a way of identifying that two agencies were talking about the same child. The unique identifier will help to address that. These are never things that we are likely to disagree about on party political lines. However, the clause raises some big questions, which I hope the Minister will take in the spirit in which I mean them. The first may sound like a semantic question, but I think it is important. It relates to the phrase “Duty to share” on page 6, line 19. The word “share” can mean different things, and its common English usage has probably changed somewhat over the past 20 years or so. “Share” used commonly to mean something held in common between two parties, but more recently—this has a lot to do with social media and the internet—it has come to mean “pass something on to a wider group”. Those are different things. I think that we are using the word “share” in the title of the proposed new section more in the sense of disclosure than of holding in common, but I would be grateful for some clarification. Although it is a semantic question, this will be primary legislation created by Parliament and precision is therefore important. What is the link or overlap with mandatory reporting? Is what we are talking about today exactly the same as mandatory reporting or something different? The existing statutory guidance on safeguarding says: “Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should consider whether a referral needs to be made to Children’s Social Care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.” It is not a legislative requirement, therefore, to report abuse, but there i…
- Three simple additions: first, is the system intended for children up to age 18? Second, what are the Government's initial thoughts on children without NHS numbers? Third — and this is the nub — proposed new section 16LB has quite a few carve-outs: subsection (5) requires the designated person to 'consider' whether inclusion is 'likely to facilitate' a safeguarding function; subsection (6) allows non-inclusion if deemed detrimental; subsection (7) allows non-inclusion if the identifier isn't known and it would slow things down. That is a lot of outs. Victoria Climbié had eight different identifiers, each time her name spelled differently. I am not suggesting we remove the outs — some are perfectly sensible — but the DfE should design things so that local-level decisions aggregate into a national picture of what is actually happening.
I have already asked most of my questions, but I want to add some simple ones to those. First, I may have missed this in the conversation, but is the intent that the system will be for people up to the age of 18? Secondly, what are the Government’s initial thoughts about people who do not have NHS numbers? Thirdly, I wish to sharpen and bring out the point I was making in my questions about all the different get-outs from the system. The case of Victoria Climbié is the ultimate example: she had eight different identifiers with her name spelled differently every single time. The worry is that the system needs not to have too many holes in it—although it needs some, otherwise everything would grind to a halt. At the bottom of page 7 of the Bill, proposed new section 16LB(5) of the Children Act 2004 says: “Subsection (4) applies only so far as the designated person considers that the inclusion of the consistent identifier is likely to facilitate the exercise…of a function…that relates to safeguarding”. That is one out. Proposed new subsection (6) says: “Subsection (4) does not apply if the designated person considers that” it would be “detrimental” to include it, which is another out—and perfectly sensible in a way. Proposed new subsection (7) says that the person does not need to comply if they do not know the consistent identifier and it would slow things down. So there are quite a lot of outs. We will not press our amendment to a vote, and the Minister is right to say that the statutory guidance requires a record of why decisions have been made at the local level, but I am sure that the Department and officials would want to set things up in such a way that a national report can be built out of that data, to figure out what is going on at a local level. Finally, let me explain what I was going on about with the complexity of parsing proposed new subsection (9), which says: “A duty under this section does not operate to require or authorise the processing of informat…
- On mandatory reporting: the information-sharing duty and mandatory reporting address different problems. The duty in Clause 4 is about how existing partners — including schools and early years providers — build a full picture of a child to assess risk and arrange support. Mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse will be introduced in Home Office legislation with criminal sanctions for those who prevent reporting — a different legislative framework entirely. On 'share': in this context it means the exchange of knowledge, data or insights — it covers disclosure. On the NHS number: it will apply up to age 18; what happens for children without one will be addressed as part of the pilot. The wide-ranging questions from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire will feed into how we design and test the pilot.
I totally accept that Members’ comments have all been made with a view to making sure that the legislation can be as effective as it needs to be, and that we all share the desire to ensure that it serves to safeguard children. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked whether the information-sharing duty is the same as mandatory reporting. The duty in the clause and the mandatory reporting are intended to address different problems. The information-sharing duty underpins how existing multi-agency partners, along with schools and early years providers, can share—I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s philosophical reflection on the word “share”—and request information among themselves so that they can build a full picture of a child. They can then use that to assess risk and put in place appropriate support and intervention. The mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse is due to be introduced in Home Office legislation. It will impose a duty on professionals to report instances of child sexual abuse, and will also impose criminal sanctions on those who prevent others from reporting abuse. The duty in the clause and mandatory reporting have different purposes and different legislative frameworks. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked about the terminology and the meaning of the word “share”. In this context, the sharing of information covers the exchange of knowledge, data or insights with others, and it can happen in a number of ways. On the specific question of whether information about an individual child or dataset is relevant, we intend the duty to be about supporting individual children day to day, to ensure their safeguarding and to make sure that they and their families get the support they need. The right hon. Gentleman thoughtfully raised a range of important questions and kindly acknowledged that I would not be able to respond to them all in this debate. We will take them away and work them through, and that will feed into how we pilot this…
- On Amendment 43: we are piloting the NHS number, which is assigned to all UK-born children at birth and is effectively universal. Regulations will stipulate the agencies that must use it. On Amendment 44: statutory guidance will outline that 'welfare' covers the child's wellbeing, including information relevant to it — the legislation is framed to co-exist with other children's social care legislation. On Amendment 45: research use is not excluded — it can still happen if authorised in accordance with UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act; we are simply prioritising the safeguarding and welfare link first and will test further benefits through the pilot.
I appreciate the spirit in which the probing amendments have been proposed. Amendment 43 would provide the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations, providing that each designated person must attach a consistent identifier to the records of every child without being limited by a particular purpose. I absolutely share the desire of the hon. Member for Twickenham to ensure that as many children as possible are able to benefit from a consistent identifier. We are very conscious of the need to ensure that the identifier has complete coverage, from birth to 18. On timelines, I appreciate the urgency with which Members wish to see the consistent identifier come into play. Obviously, it is not yet legislated for—we very much hope it will be. But we are piloting the use of the NHS number, which is assigned to all UK-born children at birth or, for children born outside the UK, when contacting the NHS, so we deem it to be universal. The exact services, systems and data shares that store and move the number will have to be developed during the piloting. Regulations will stipulate the agencies that must use the number when recording and sharing information for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. I will give a little more information about the timeline of the pilot and intentions on implementation when I move the clause stand part, because I am conscious that the Opposition spokesperson also raised those concerns. I turn to amendment 44, which seeks to amend the scope of the duty by including a reference to promoting the wellbeing of children. The legislation will enable statutory guidance to be issued, which relevant agencies must then have regard to. That will outline the type of information that may be relevant to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, including information that relates to their wellbeing, so that practitioners are able to more easily apply the legislation in practice. The legislation has very much bee…
- Clause 5 finally puts a definition of kinship care in statute and requires every local authority to publish its kinship offer — long overdue, and a testament to tireless campaigning by the Family Rights Group and the kinship carer community. Amendment 38 would add financial support, legal support and family group decision making to the list of services the local offer must include. Financial support is variable across the country and kinship carers — around half of whom are grandparents relying on pension savings — need to know what is available. Legal support and family group decision making are already in statutory guidance; I cannot see why they were left off the face of the Bill.
I strongly welcome clause 5. I am delighted that we are finally putting a definition of kinship in statute and that we are requiring all local authorities to publish their kinship offer. That is long overdue and an absolute testament to the tireless campaigning of many groups—not least the Family Rights Group—the kinship carer community and young people. The Minister may remember that in 2022 I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill that sought to put a definition of kinship into law. It also had a number of other provisions, which we will come to in the new clauses later in Committee. Amendment 38 seeks to add to the list of services that local authorities must publish and offer to assist children and their kinship carers. It would add financial support, legal support and family group decision making to the list of items that should be included in the local offer. Ministers are aware that kinship carers turn their lives upside down to take children in, even though their own financial situation may be unstable. Around half of kinship carers are grandparents who rely on their pension savings. We know that financial support is variable throughout the country, which is why I will seek to address that variability through a new clause to ensure parity of allowances across the country. As that is not included in the Bill—I suspect Ministers will not accept my new clause because of Treasury constraints—at the very least it should include information on whatever financial support is available in the local offer. We are concerned about the omission from the list of information about legal support and family group decision making. Those categories already appear in statutory guidance but are not mentioned in clause 5. We have considered clause 1, on family group decision making, so I am not sure why it was left off the list. I look forward to the Minister’s comments as to why it was.
- The list in Clause 5 is deliberately broad — it is not exhaustive, and local authorities can reasonably be expected to publish information on legal support under one of the categories already there. Clause 1 already sets out the requirement to offer family group decision making at pre-proceedings, and new section 22H(1)(b) to the Children Act 1989 already requires information about financial support. On consultation: the existing kinship care statutory guidance, the children's social care national framework, and article 12 of the UN convention on the rights of the child already require children's wishes and feelings to be taken into account. New section 22H(7) requires local authorities to review and update the kinship offer from time to time, providing further opportunities to take views into account.
I rise to speak to the amendments and to clause 5 stand part. On amendment 38, which the hon. Member for Twickenham tabled, I appreciate her engagement and great interest in the kinship local offer, and I will explain how we see it working. We expect that local authorities would include information on legal support when setting out their general approach to supporting children living in kinship care and to kinship carers under the newly inserted section 22H(1)(a) to the Children Act 1989, as set out in clause 5. To be clear, the listed categories of information about services have been kept very broad by design, in order to cover as many different kinds of services as possible. That means that local authorities could reasonably be expected to provide information about legal support under one of the categories that we have included. Clause 1 already sets out the requirement to offer family group decision making at pre-proceedings and new section 22H(1)(b) to the 1989 Act will require local authorities to publish information about financial support that may be available to children living in kinship care and their carers. Therefore, I would like to reassure Members that the list of categories of information about services in the Bill is deliberately not exhaustive. It also remains our intention that further detail about what we expect to be included in the kinship local offer will be made in statutory guidance, so we will take on board the points made in this debate. We believe that amending clause 5 as has been suggested would not achieve that effect. We believe that we have the measures in place that will deliver what the hon. Lady is looking for, so we kindly ask her to withdraw her amendment. On amendments 22 and 39, tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and the hon. Member for Twickenham respectively, I appreciate the concern that exists about consulting children and carers on the kinship local offer and making sure that their feedback is co…
- The Family Rights Group wants to add 'legal support' to the list on page 9, line 17 — alongside health, relationships, education and accommodation. Will the Minister go away and look at that specifically?
The Family Rights Group raised a specific point. It would effectively like to add another item to the list on page 9, line 17 of the Bill, which currently states that the list of support services should include “health…relationships…education and training…accommodation”. The Family Rights Group would like to add legal support to that list. Will the Minister go away and have a look at that?
- The broad headings are clearly not exhaustive — local authorities can include legal support under them already. But I will take away the hon. Gentleman's specific consideration.
I appreciate the request; I have dealt with that in my response, in that we feel that we have included broad headings that are clearly not exhaustive and leave room for local authorities to publish the whole range of services that they feel will support kinship carers. Fundamentally, we know that having a good kinship care offer is in the best interests of a local authority, because it is the one supporting the children who it knows need that care, but I will certainly take away the hon. Gentleman’s specific consideration.
I fully agree the list in subsection (2) is not exhaustive, and many local authorities will set out the full variety of services as a matter of good practice. I would also invite the Minister to consider the guidance and any other means of encouraging local authorities to publish their approach specifically on legal support, and to keep these provisions under review.I fully agree that the list in subsection (2) is clearly not an exhaustive list, and many local authorities, as a matter of good practice, will set out the variety of services available to children who live in kinship care and to kinship carers. However, I also invite the Minister to consider the guidance already available and any other means of encouraging local authorities to publish their approach in relation to legal support and ensure that these provisions remain under review.
- Around 140,000 children live in kinship care, with a further 24,000 with kinship carers to whom they are not related — family friends who often don't think of themselves as kinship carers at all. The Family Rights Group has raised a specific concern: the definition of kinship care in Clause 5 risks providing less clarity, not more, and does not adequately address the different types of arrangements. Amendment 22 is about a self-improving system: collect feedback from children in kinship care, record it, publish it — so that when personnel change, the knowledge doesn't disappear and local authorities can learn from each other nationally.
I rise to speak to clause 5 and amendment 22. The previous Government were promoting kinship care and there is no great disagreement about it; in fact, there is great agreement, including with the hon. Member for Twickenham. I pay tribute to her work on the issue, and she is right that her amendment 39 is similar to our amendment 22. Creating a duty for a local authority to publish a local kinship care offer seems sensible to provide clarity and to ensure that kinship families are aware of what support is available. The statutory guidance on kinship care, which exists already, states that every local authority must publish information about the services they offer in their area to children in kinship care and their approach towards meeting the needs of those children. That has been there since 2011, but too many still have no up-to-date offer, so we are supportive of clause 5. This is an example of the current Government building on the direction of travel under the previous Government. The kinship care strategy we published in December 2023 set out a definition of kinship care that has been used in the updated statutory guidance on kinship care published by this Government in October. One important reason for having something that is public and visible to everyone is that when many people hear mention of kinship care they think of uncles, aunts and grannies, but of course a lot of kinship carers are not related to the child. Some 140,000 children live in kinship care, but a further 24,000 live with kinship carers to whom they are not related, such as family friends. The Minister will be aware of the concerns expressed by kinship carers and the organisations that represent them, such as the Family Rights Group, that the definition of kinship care in this clause of the Bill—on pages 9 and 10, in proposed new section 22I of the Children Act 1989—risks providing less clarity and potentially greater confusion for children, families, practitioners and agencies. They argu…
- The Government are building on what we started. About one in five children in need and looked-after children achieve grade 4+ in English and Maths GCSEs, compared with 65% of all children — a huge gap that successive Governments have failed to close. Does Clause 6 give us an opportunity to escalate monitoring where a kinship child is falling behind or attendance drops sharply? Have the Government considered extending priority school admissions and pupil premium plus to children in kinship care? And how can a single virtual school head discharge this duty in a large authority like Birmingham or Leeds?
We have not tabled an amendment to clause 6, as this is another area where the Government are building on the direction of travel set under the last Government. The role of the virtual school head was already extended on a non-statutory basis from September 2021 to include strategic oversight of the educational outcomes of children with a social worker in a local authority’s area; through this Bill, it is now being extended again to champion the education of children, including children in kinship care. Educational outcomes for children in need and children in care are still far too low, despite the efforts of successive Governments over the last 40 years to improve them. About one in five children in need and looked-after children achieve grade 4 and above in English and Maths GCSEs, compared with 65% of all children. That is a huge gap. As the Minister knows, local authorities have an existing duty to monitor child in need or section 17 plans, which I believe is about twice a year. Will the Minister clarify whether the Bill gives us an opportunity to escalate that monitoring? Does it extend to children in kinship care, where a child is falling behind or where their attendance drops sharply? Have the Government considered extending priority school admissions for children in kinship care and making them eligible for pupil premium plus? I have a question about how a single person can discharge this duty in any local authority, let alone a large one—thinking of dried Birmingham, Kent, Leeds or somewhere like that. What is the Government’s expectation of what the person responsible for delivering this work will be able to do?
- Clause 6 is a policy area where there is no difference between us and we welcome it. But there is a real risk of dilution: there are roughly 80–85,000 looked-after children but 400,000 children in need — a fivefold increase in the cohort. The duty in proposed new section 23ZZA(4) of the Children Act 1989 is a strategic one, not individual casework — but even so, what resource will be behind this to ensure the virtual school heads programme keeps delivering? And what work will there be to propagate best and most effective practice across the country?
The clause extends the role in legislation of virtual school heads to children in need, previously looked-after children and children in kinship care. The virtual school and virtual school heads concepts are not new. The concept was first piloted in 2006 in Liverpool. It was the Children and Families Act 2014, which we both remember well, Sir Edward, that required all local authorities to administer pupil premium plus. The Oxford University report on the virtual school heads concept noted that there had been improvements in outcomes at key stage 2 and key stage 4 for looked-after children and a marked decrease in permanent exclusions. However, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, rightly said, there is still a yawning gap in attainment and all manner of life outcomes for this group of children. Previously, looked-after children were added to the virtual school head cohort in 2018. There was a pilot to include children in need in 2021. From 2023-24 onwards, pupil premium plus was extended to age 16-plus. Once again, this is a policy area where there is no difference between us; the current Government’s work builds on previous Governments’ work, and we welcome that. We also note the successes of the virtual school heads concept. My question is about the danger of dilution. In terms of orders of magnitude, there are 80,000 or 85,000 children in care—looked-after children, but there are 400,000 children in need, so that is a big increase in number. I note that paragraph 4 of proposed section 23ZZA(4) of the 1989 ACT introduced by clause 6 puts a strategic duty on to virtual school heads; it is not about individual children. The bigger number of children there is, with that dilution effect, there is a risk that some of the benefits of the virtual school heads program reduce. We can counter that, to a degree, by upping the resource. My real question is therefore about what resource will be behind this measure, to make sure t…
- Clause 6 extends virtual school head oversight only to children subject to a special guardianship or child arrangement order — a subcategory of the kinship definition we just agreed in Clause 5. Why are we immediately undermining the value of that definition by restricting educational support to a subset of it? Children in kinship care have higher rates of special educational needs than the wider population; the group eligible for this support should be drawn as widely as possible. And I hope the shadow Minister's support for pupil premium plus and priority admissions for kinship children means he will back New Clauses 28 and 29 when we reach them.
I very much welcome clause 6 and the extension of the virtual school head oversight role to children in kinship care. However, I was perplexed to see that the category of children this clause applies to is a subcategory of the definition we have just looked at in the previous clause. I am not quite sure why virtual school heads are not available to all children in kinship care, but only to those subject to a special guardianship or child arrangement order, as set out in proposed new section 23ZZZA(4)(d), on page 11, lines 29 to 35. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that. Having just passed a definition of kinship care, it seems that we are immediately undermining it by extending provision of educational support only to a subset of the group that we have just agreed qualify as children in kinship care. We see the same with allowances in the roll-out of the pilot; again, it is very much a subset, and I think that undermines the value of having just agreed in law a definition of children in kinship care. We know that there are higher levels of special educational needs among children in kinship care compared with the wider population. It is really important that the group of children eligible for this support is drawn as widely as possible. I also very much welcome the shadow Minister’s comment that he would like to see pupil premium plus and priority admissions extended to children in kinship care. I hope that means he will support new clause 28 and 29, when we get to them towards the end of Committee.
- Would the Minister consider using Clause 6 to give attention to recently bereaved children — those who have lost a parent or sibling? One in 29 school-age children has experienced such a bereavement and there is clear evidence of its impact on GCSE results. The clause could be an opportunity to improve the network of support around schools for that group, through grief education for teachers and virtual school head attention on that subset.
I, too, welcome the extension of the role of virtual school heads outlined in this provision. I would like to ask the Minister whether she has, or will consider, the opportunity in clause 6 to consider children who have been recently bereaved or are facing bereavement, particularly of a parent or sibling, as a group that has particular educational support needs. That is a surprisingly large group of people. Best estimates are that one in 29 children of school age have lost either a parent or a sibling, and there is clear evidence that those bereavements have impacts on educational achievement, as measured by GCSE results. Would the Minister consider the opportunity to use the Bill to improve support specifically for bereaved pupils? I would welcome the Minister’s comments.
- Clause 6 places a statutory duty on all local authorities to promote the educational achievement of children with a social worker and — through an extension to virtual school heads — children subject to formal kinship orders, regardless of whether they have spent time in care. Evaluations of the non-statutory extension have already shown improved school attendance and reduced permanent exclusions. Virtual school heads will have a duty to provide information and advice, on request, to kinship carers with special guardianship or child arrangement orders — the statutory footing gives them the same legal standing as for looked-after children.
As we have discussed, clause 6 places a statutory duty on all local authorities in England to promote the educational achievement of children with a social worker living in their area. It also places a statutory duty on all local authorities in England to promote the educational achievement of children who are subject to formal kinship orders in their area, regardless of whether they have spent time in local authority care. Children with a social worker, as hon. Members have recognised, often face significant barriers to achieving their potential in education due to experiences of instability, abuse and neglect, or indeed bereavement, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned. Similarly, while children in kinship care benefit from familial care, they can encounter challenges stemming from trauma, disrupted school or limited access to educational resources, which can impact their educational outcomes. Placing a statutory duty on local authorities to promote the educational achievement of these children acknowledges their specific vulnerabilities and barriers to attainment, and ensures that resources and support are available to meet their educational needs. Clause 6 places a duty on local authorities to appoint an officer to ensure that these duties are properly discharged. In practice, the officer is known as a virtual school head and currently discharges these duties on a non-statutory basis. Virtual school heads will be the lead officers responsible for overseeing the educational progress of children in care and previously in care, and it includes children who have left care because they were made the subject of a special guardianship or a child arrangement order. Extending the remit of virtual school heads on a statutory basis to include children with a social worker and those in kinship care will give them the same legal footing as looked-after and previously looked-after children. This clause places a duty on local authorities to take appropriate ste…
- The point I would particularly like the Minister to take away is the support network around the school for children facing close bereavement — grief education for teachers and the opportunity for somebody in the local authority to look at that subset of children with the same level of attention that virtual school heads already give to other vulnerable groups.
I fully appreciate what the Minister is saying regarding the way that the curriculum and so forth can be shaped to offer more support to children, a large number of whom will face some form of bereavement at some point. The point I would particularly like the Minister to take away and consider is how the network of support around the school can support children facing bereavement, particularly of a very close relative. That is both in terms of the opportunity for grief education for teachers, and the opportunity for somebody in the local authority to look at that subset of children with the same level of attention, given that, as a group, they are particularly subject to the challenges that this clause of the Bill is specifically about—hence the point about virtual school head responsibility in this area.
- I take the hon. Lady's point on board — virtual school heads have a range of responsibilities to support educational attainment, including dealing with the challenging experiences that bring children into their remit. On the hon. Member for Twickenham's question: the statutory duty covers children in kinship care with legal guardianship arrangements — SGOs and child arrangement orders — because those formal legal orders bring the child under the direction and supervision of the virtual school head. That concern has been noted.
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I fear we are getting into quite broad territory here, which may well be considered not in order when discussing the role of the virtual school head, but I absolutely take the point on board. The virtual school head comes with a range of responsibilities to support the educational attainment of children who come under that authority. Included within that is the responsibility to ensure that the measures taken do support children in dealing with a whole range of challenging experiences that may have resulted in them being within their remit. I take on board the hon. Lady’s particular concerns. I will respond to the hon. Member for Twickenham on the statutory duties on the local authority to promote the educational achievement of children who live in kinship care, regardless of whether they have spent time in local authority care. That is how the entitlement is worded. Virtual school heads will have a duty to provide information and advice, on request, to kinship carers with special guardianship or child arrangement orders, regardless of whether their child was in care. That is how the legislation has been framed. Obviously they are legal arrangements that have been made with the local authority, which brings them under the direction, supervision and responsibility of the virtual school head. I appreciate that the hon. Lady has concerns about that, and they have been noted. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 Provision of advice and other support
- Amendment 12 to Clause 7 would extend Staying Put to the age of 25, matching the Staying Close provision in the Bill. The independent review on children's social care recommended extending both to 23; the Bill responds by extending Staying Close to 25 but leaves Staying Put at 21 — a two-tier system. The ONS shows the average age at which young people move out of the family home is 24. Evaluations show Staying Put significantly reduces homelessness risk and would save £84 million over five years. A foster carer told the Fostering Network: at 21 many young people who went to university are only just qualifying and then have to face the job market — potentially homeless because they must leave their placement. Give them the choice — not the insistence — to stay.
I am pleased to move amendment 12 to clause 7, on extending Staying Put for children in foster care to the age of 25. This group of amendments seeks to address the potential two-tier system that the Bill will create by extending provisions for Staying Close but not Staying Put. Many care leavers face a cliff edge in care at the age of 18. Staying Put is a scheme that has been introduced to enable young people in foster care to stay with their foster carers until the age of 21 to support them into adulthood, whereas Staying Close is for young people in residential care. In the UK, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to reach independence at the age of 21. In fact, the Office for National Statistics published a report last year showing that the average age at which young people move out of the family home is 24. The independent review on children’s social care recognised the disparity between young people in care and their non-care experienced peers, and it recommended that both Staying Close and Staying Put be extended to the age of 23. It appears that the Bill has responded to that recommendation by putting in place provision to extend Staying Close to age 25, but it does not do the same for those in Staying Put arrangements. I tabled this probing amendment to ask the Minister to explain the justification for that disparity and for the effective creation of a two-tier system for young people in those situations. Evaluations of Staying Put have found that it significantly reduces the risk of homelessness for care leavers. The care review found that it would contribute towards savings of £84 million over five years, mostly due to reduced homelessness. Of course, the financial savings are not the primary motivation; it is about what is best for young people and ensuring that they have the best possible opportunity to successfully transition into adulthood. Foster carers and young people consistently report that the extension of Staying Put would resu…
- In a borough like Richmond, where housing costs are astronomical and social housing is barely available, Staying Put is used a great deal. Extending it would keep young people with established family connections — and for many local authorities it would actually be cheaper than trying to find them housing. Please seriously consider these amendments.
I wish to speak briefly in support of the amendments. I was talking to the director of children’s services for the London borough of Richmond upon Thames earlier this week, and he told me that we use Staying Put quite a lot in a borough like Richmond, where housing costs are astronomically high and social housing is barely available. We all know that there is a housing crisis across the country, but it is particularly acute in London. Extending this provision would allow young people who are already in care, where there is a strong family relationship, to stay with those family connections. I appreciate that there is a cost attached to this, but actually for many local authorities it is cheaper than trying to find housing for these young people, who will almost always struggle to find housing on their own. I urge the Minister to seriously consider the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.
- We want to prioritise the young people — often with the most complex needs — who are leaving residential or similar care placements at 18, where there is currently no Staying Close duty. The existing Staying Put duty already covers fostered young people to age 21, and any former relevant child up to 25 — including those in Staying Put or who have left it — will be eligible for the Staying Close wraparound support package. We are committed to the Staying Put programme, and to further reforms in future spending reviews.
On amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, and the comments by the hon. Member for Twickenham, I recognise the case that has been made, but we want to prioritise the young people, often with the most complex needs, who are leaving residential or similar care placements at 18. The existing Staying Put duty requires local authorities to monitor and support Staying Put arrangements, where former children stay with their former foster parent after leaving care. The duty lasts until the young person reaches the age of 21. This allows them to leave stable and secure homes when they are ready and helps them to enter adult life with the same opportunities and life prospects as their peers. We remain committed to the Staying Put programme, but it is essential that we prioritise filling the gaps in current support, in particular for young people, often with the most complex needs, who are leaving residential or similar care placements at 18. That is why we have prioritised the introduction of statutory Staying Close duties. Former relevant children, as defined by the Bill, under the age of 25, including those Staying Put or who have left the Staying Put arrangement, will be eligible for Staying Close support. Any eligible young person up to the age of 25 will be able to access the wraparound practical and emotional support package provided as part of the Staying Close duty. To be clear, we are aware of the financial pressures for young people, carers and families and local authorities at the moment. We are committed to further reforms to children’s social care in future spending reviews to make sure that every child, irrespective of their background, has the best start in life.