Report stage in the Lords
Lords Report stage debate on kinship care: pupil premium plus eligibility, a kinship allowance pilot, kinship leave, and the pace of the Law Commission's regulatory review.
B(opened the debateBaroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)Lab20:46 HansardWe have heard the concerns raised in Committee and in the other House about kinship local offers. Having reflected, we agree that a duty to consult and publish a report of that consultation would strengthen what existing guidance already requires — that local authorities keep their kinship local offer relevant and responsive to the voices of children and families. This duty will also support those local authorities yet to publish their first offer.My Lords, we have heard the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee, and in the other House, about ensuring that kinship local offers meet the needs of kinship families. Having reflected, we agree that a duty to consult and publish a report of consultation would strengthen the expectations already set out in existing guidance and regulatory frameworks that local authorities should ensure that a kinship local offer remains relevant and responds to the voices of children, young people, and families. This duty will support those local authorities which are yet to publish their first kinship local offer and ensure that they understand the needs of the kinship families living in their areas and develop a support offer that meets those needs. I beg to move.
The Bill rightly places virtual school head support on a statutory footing for a wider group of kinship children, but without extending pupil premium plus to match, one of the most useful tools for improving those children's educational attainment is still withheld. The Government say there is limited evidence for extending eligibility — yet they also acknowledge they lack national data on children in informal arrangements. The evidence we do have shows that children in all forms of kinship care have broadly comparable levels of special needs. This amendment would begin to harmonise that patchwork of support.My Lords, this is obviously an important issue to us. Although we welcome the Bill’s placing on a statutory footing the extension of virtual school head support to a wider group of children in kinship care, the positive impact of this will be significantly limited due to a lack of accompanying facilities and funding to support the VSH in discharging this duty. In particular, the continued restriction of pupil premium plus funding to only those kinship children currently or previously looked after, in effect, removes one of the most useful tools available to virtual schools to improve educational attainment and progress for groups of vulnerable learners. In the halcyon days of local government funding and finance, our corporate head of children in care was the director of education, a remarkable man called Colin Hilton. He worked in Knowsley, a borough that neighbours mine, and he came to Liverpool in his role as director. Because money was plentiful, he had a pot of money that he could spend on the children in care as the corporate parent. That was life-changing for those children: they could go on trips and visits, and they could do all sorts of things that they cannot do now because money is still quite tight in local government. In trying to see how to unlock that opportunity for young children, we looked at the pupil premium in schools and how it has, again, given opportunities to children and young people that perhaps would not have been available otherwise—head teachers and other teachers have that money to use. If we have a virtual school, we have to ask: what is the difference between that and a physical school? Responding to similar recommendations made by the Education Committee last year, the Government confirmed that they have no plans to extend the pupil premium plus eligibility, because “there is limited evidence to support such a change and no national data on the number or location of children in informal arrangements” However, they committed to “exp…
We welcome government Amendment 29. But there is a real gap: the Government have extended the virtual school head role without extending pupil premium plus to kinship children. At a minimum, would the Government consider extending it to the kinship children now brought within the VSH's ambit, so they have consistent entitlements? On Amendment 48, employers are already moving towards kinship leave voluntarily — what are the Government's plans? If any of us were caring for a child from our extended family, comparable leave to adoption or fostering leave seems only reasonable.My Lords, on these Benches, we welcome government Amendment 29. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said about his Amendment 44, there is a gap where the Government have extended the role of virtual school heads but not extended pupil premium plus to children in kinship care. As a minimum movement on this, I wonder whether the Government would consider extending it to kinship children brought within the ambit of the virtual school head, so that children in care have consistent entitlements—that is currently not the case. I assume that the noble Lord will not press Amendment 45 in his name, so I will not speak to that. I signed the noble Lord’s Amendment 48, on kinship care leave. As the Minister knows, employers are starting to move in this direction. I would be grateful if she could set out what the Government’s plans are here. If any of us were to care for a child of a member of our extended family, expecting comparable leave to be able to settle that child in, just as if one was adopting or fostering, seems only reasonable. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
As a former kinship carer, I know how incredibly stressful it can be — bereavements, children who have been through trauma, learning difficulties, all at once. If we want more kinship carers to come forward, we need leave like this.My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 48. As an ex-kinship carer, I know that there are times when it is incredibly stressful, such as when you are dealing with bereavements and all sorts of issues. You will be dealing children who have gone through this and might well have issues, all the way through to learning difficulties. It is incredibly difficult. If we want kinship carers, we need this kind of leave.
- On Amendment 44: we are providing over £3 billion of pupil premium funding, and some kinship children already attract it as looked-after or previously looked-after pupils. The pupil premium is not a personal budget — schools direct it where need is greatest, including to pupils not formally qualifying. We are reviewing how we allocate pupil premium over the longer term to ensure it reaches those who need it most. On Amendments 45 and 48: we have launched a new kinship allowance pilot supporting approximately 4,500 children in selected local authorities, evaluating the impact of a weekly allowance for kinship carers. We need that evidence base before national rollout. On kinship leave: following Lords debate on the Employment Rights Bill, the Government committed to include kinship carers in the review of the parental leave and pay system — that is now in the published terms of reference. And from April, kinship carers with a special guardianship or child arrangement order will be eligible for up to four weeks of unpaid parental leave per year for each child, up to 18 weeks until the child turns 18, from day one of employment.
I rise to speak to Amendments 44, 45 and 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I will pick up on some of the other issues, as they flow between the amendments. All these amendments speak to the desire, which the Government share with others in this House, to ensure that children in kinship care and their families get the support they need to thrive. Amendment 44 seeks to extend pupil premium eligibility to pupils in England who are living in kinship care, as the noble Lord outlined. As stated in Committee, we are providing over £3 billion of pupil premium funding to improve the educational outcomes of disadvantaged pupils, including pupils looked after or previously looked after by a local authority. Therefore, while kinship arrangements are not part of the pupil premium eligibility, some children in kinship care will attract the pupil premium. What is more, the pupil premium is not a personal budget for individual pupils who meet the funding criteria. This means that schools can direct spending where the need is greatest, including to pupils with other identified needs. The pupil premium is a discretionary grant, and while there are no plans to place it on a statutory footing, I would like to reassure the noble Lord that we are reviewing how we allocate the pupil premium over the longer term to ensure that it is targeted to those who need it most. On Amendments 45 and 48, relating to the introduction of financial support for kinship carers and kinship leave, this Government recognise the need to support kinship carers with the financial challenges they experience as well as the difficulties they encounter when trying to work alongside raising a child. In Committee, we said that the department would soon launch a new kinship allowance pilot. I am pleased to share that this will support approximately 4,500 children in kinship care in selected local authorities. The pilot will evaluate the impact of paying a weekly allowance to kinship carers and support them wit…
- Our amendments seek first to ease the regulatory framework for kinship carers — specifically where a family group decision-making meeting has already approved the placement. It is not reasonable then to require the full mainstream foster carer assessment process on top. The Minister said in Committee that there is room for improvement in how these assessments are carried out; she also said the authority has an obligation to complete a robust safeguarding assessment — but that assessment has already happened as part of the family group process. The guidance gives small flexibility, but it is rarely used. Now that kinship care is being actively encouraged, the Bill is an opportunity to streamline this. Amendment 32 would put pace on the Law Commission review — we all know that can take many years. Following the October 2024 change to kinship care statutory guidance on national minimum standards, fourteen months on, it would be sensible to review the impact, check whether more family and friends have actually been approved, and consider whether England should follow the Welsh Government's approach of a distinct kinship foster carer category with its own separate requirements. It is genuinely disappointing there has not been more movement here. It would cost nothing and would address issues that children's services leads around the country are raising.
I open by thanking the Minister for those final remarks, particularly in relation to kinship leave and the school census. The Government have acknowledged that the kinship rules need reviewing and updating. The amendments in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who brings real experience as a now ex-kinship carer to this debate, seek to do the following things. First, they aim to recognise the advantages, from the perspective of a child, of being cared for by a member of one’s extended family by easing the regulatory framework. In a world where a kinship carer could be approved by a family group decision-making meeting or the family group decision-making process ultimately leads to the appointment of kinship carers if the original plan with birth parents breaks down, we believe it is not reasonable to then go through the whole mainstream foster carer approval process. That underpins my Amendment 31. I made that point in Committee and the Minister in her response said that “we recognise that there is room for improvement in how these assessments are carried out”. She went on to say that in such cases “the local authority has an obligation to complete a robust safeguarding assessment”.—[Official Report, 9/6/26; col. 1165.] I would have thought that would have already happened when the family group decision-making meeting had been held. We are talking about cases that are about to go into care proceedings, so the risks would be well understood. The Minister rightly pointed out that the guidance gives some small flexibility, but ultimately the kinship carer has to meet the minimum standards and, unless she can tell me otherwise, my understanding is that it is rare that this flexibility is used. Maybe that was acceptable in the past, but we are moving to a time where the use of kinship carers is rightly being actively encouraged by the Government, so numbers should increase and the Bill is an opportunity to streamline the process. Alongside this, as we d…
- One in four children in care — in a survey of over 100,000 — reported considering suicide. That is frightening. Children in kinship care are in a more stable situation, and if that works, we should be getting on with it, not hanging around. How quickly are we going to get there?
My Lords, I preface my remarks by noting how much support the Government have given to the whole area of carers, as indeed did the previous Government. I look at my party and Ed Davey’s experience as a carer. I do not think you can imagine what it must be like for children who are in care. All the figures still suggest that there are real issues and real problems. I think we all get the Local Government Information Unit’s daily briefing. Yesterday, it reported a large survey of 100,000-plus children in care. One in four of them admitted to considering suicide, which is frightening. Children in kinship care have all sorts of issues and problems, but we know that there is probably a much more stable situation and a more stable relationship. If that is successful, then we should be getting on with it. I hope that the Minister will say that in her reply. If this is a way of supporting those children even more and we can increase the numbers, let us not hang around; let us get on with it. I hope the Minister, in her reply, will tell us how quickly we are going to achieve that.
- I welcome the commitment to kinship care — it has not always been like this. Where kinship care rates increase, fewer children go into care, and the money saved can be reinvested in family group conferencing and early intervention. On Amendment 31: removing the fostering regulations' requirements for kinship carers would undermine the safeguarding assessments that ensure children are placed safely, and remove the means for local authorities to identify the right support. That is why we are engaging the Law Commission — a holistic review of the complex legislative landscape is needed, and the concerns raised in Amendments 31 and 32 are all in scope. We cannot risk piecemeal reform with unintended consequences. We also need to improve the experience of being assessed, which can itself be a barrier.
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 31 and 32 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I start by welcoming the commitment to kinship care. It has not always been like this. I remember that, when we started this several years ago, there was a lot of resistance, a lot of suspicion. We had to keep coming back again and again to talk, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, about outcomes for children and young people. This is what it is all about: better outcomes. In those authorities where the rate of kinship care increases, the need for children to go into care is reduced. If it is possible to hold on to the resource that would have been used to pay for children going into care—which can be horrific, as we know—and reinvest that into family group conferencing and early intervention, we will be in a strong position. There is still some way to go in convincing people that this is the right way to move forward. I acknowledge that, and that is why I hope that the noble Baroness, in particular, will understand our approach as we go on. I want to give some reassurance around this. We are speaking about the desire to help more children grow up in safe, stable, loving homes within a family network. As I have said, we recognise that there is much room for improvement to ensure that there are not unnecessary barriers preventing this happening. We need also to improve the experience of being assessed as a kinship carer, which can be another barrier for some people. As the noble Baroness rightly said, we spoke to Amendment 31 in detail in Committee, and followed up by letter explaining our position on Amendment 32. I reassure the noble Baroness that we do understand the concerns. That is informing the work that is happening with the Law Commission kinship review. We believe that this is the best vehicle for identifying the changes that we need to make to the current system. I know that there might be frustration about timing, but we must make sure that we get this absolut…
- Can the Minister give us an estimate — or even a guesstimate — of when the Law Commission review will be completed?
Could the Minister give us an estimate, or guesstimate, of when she thinks the review will be completed?
- I cannot give an exact date, but the consultation is starting now, so it is moving at pace. We all want to get on with this.
I cannot give that exact information, other than to say that the consultation is starting, which means that it is going at pace. I understand the frustration and the need to get on with this. We all want to get on with this: it is an important piece in our overall ambition to make sure that we do the best for children and young people in this country.
- I accept that Amendment 31 does not stand alone without the wider holistic review. But on timing — had the Minister given a specific time period in response, the House would have far more confidence. Local authorities are under massive financial strain; it would take tiny numbers of additional kinship carers in every local authority to tip the balance away from horrifically expensive children's homes. A high-quality review of the kinship regulations in a year is entirely achievable — I would volunteer to help. What we are proposing in Amendment 32 is precisely that: the same review the Government have commissioned from the Law Commission, but with a 12-month timescale. Children and local authorities need that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for asking that question as it was the one I was going to start with, so that was perfect, and I thank the Minister again for her remarks. I absolutely accept her point that we need a holistic review of the kinship care regulatory and legal framework. With that, I accept that, on its own, Amendment 31 does not stand up. However, I am less convinced about the Minister’s pushback on the timing. Had she responded to the noble Lord by saying it would be within a particular time period, that would have given the House much more confidence. The Minister rightly speaks about having a well-rounded, thorough and comprehensive review, but, as she knows far better than I do, local authorities are under massive strain financially and practically in terms of placing children in, as she said, horrifically expensive children’s homes. I think those were her words. It would take tiny numbers of additional kinship and foster carers in every local authority to tip that balance. Set against the pressure of having a rounded and comprehensive review is also the pressure of timing. If we stepped back and thought, “Could we review in a really high-quality way the kinship regulations in a year?”, I think we would have volunteers around the House and we could do a pretty decent job. I would put my hand up to help with that. So I do intend to test the opinion of the House. What we are suggesting in Amendment 32 is a review similar to the one that the Government have commissioned from the Law Commission but with a 12-month timescale. Children and local authorities need that.
- I can now share that we are hoping for completion by summer 2027 — not quite a year, but not far off.
I have received information that we are hoping for completion by summer 2027, which is not quite a year but is not far off.
- "Hoping" is hoping. Even when we were in government, one or two deadlines slipped — and after a review there is still the question of finding legislative time. That is why it matters that the House tests its opinion on Amendment 32.
I appreciate that, but hoping is hoping. I seem to remember that, even when we were in government, one or two deadlines were not met, and even then we still have to find legislative time. It is important, for the reasons that I have set out, that we test the opinion of the House on that issue. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 31.