Report stage in the Lords
Lords Report stage: debates on care-leaver financial literacy, Staying Put extension to 25, sibling contact, the adoption support fund, temporary accommodation notifications, and deprivation of liberty safeguards for looked-after children.
B(My Amendment 35 would have plugged a gap by ensuring Staying Close support covers financial literacy for care leavers — but the Government's Amendments 39 and 40 in Clause 8 achieve the same aim. Can the Minister confirm that those government amendments have exactly the same effect, so I need not press mine to a vote?My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 35 in my name, and I thank my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Mohammed and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for adding their names to it. It seeks to extend the remit of Staying Close to include support in helping care-experienced young people to access services that provide financial support and literacy. I want to say immediately that I was delighted to see the Government’s amendments introduced on Report that will amend the information that local authorities must include within their care leavers’ local offer to cover financial support and services that provide financial literacy. This builds very much on our discussions in Committee, and I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward those government amendments. This change will provide greater transparency and will help young people to understand their rights and entitlements better, as well as encouraging local authorities to think about the support they provide to equip care leavers to manage their finances effectively. In our previous discussions on this topic, we highlighted how young people leaving care are much more likely to be living independently from a young age than other young people with greater financial responsibilities and often without a safety net—the bank of mum and dad that so many parents provide certainly is not there for them to fall back on. These factors, combined with young care leavers often feeling unequipped, unprepared and unsupported to manage the financial responsibilities that come with living independently from a young age, can put care-experienced young people at risk of facing unnecessary financial hardship and insecurity, falling often into rent arrears or debt, all of which can have a long-term impact on their well-being and security. By seeking to expand the remit of Staying Close, my Amendment 35 would have plugged this gap even further, ensuring that young people who are leaving care are supported. I feel that this change would…
Amendment 40 is a welcome step — at least it will force local authorities to be honest about what they do and don't offer. My only regret is that it won't end the postcode lottery for care leavers who move between areas.My Lords, I am very grateful that these amendments have been proposed. They may not go as far as my Private Member’s Bill did a few months ago in terms of seeking a better financial deal for care leavers, but Amendment 40 takes us some considerable way towards that. At least it will make local authorities be honest about what they are and are not doing. My only regret is that it will not completely get rid of the postcode lottery that besets so many young care leavers, particularly if they move from one authority to another. But I am grateful for the amendments the Government have tabled, and I hope that they will be swiftly passed.
This shows the real power of this House: by talking, listening and supporting one another, we bring about real change. Financial literacy is especially critical for young people in care who face independence far earlier and without the family safety net most of us take for granted.I thank my noble friend Lady Tyler for all the work she has done on this important topic. It shows the real power and strength of this House that, by talking to each other, listening and supporting, we can bring about real change, so I thank the Government for putting down these amendments. As my noble friend rightly said, there are so many young people living independently by themselves, and the most important thing is that they have an understanding of how finances work. I do not like the term “financial literacy”, but it is important. The national curriculum is going to bring that in for every young person, but for these young people it is even more important. So, I thank the Minister for getting to a place where we can all support and get behind this important issue.
The Government's amendments to Clause 8 should meet the aims of Amendment 35. I look forward to hearing what additional support the Government will offer to care leavers.My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled to Clause 8. I think they will meet the aims of our Amendment 35, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the additional support that the Government will offer to care leavers.
We are committed to improving support for care leavers through Staying Close, the local offer, corporate parenting and the care-leaver covenant. The November curriculum review commits us to embedding financial literacy in maths and citizenship for all young people. Amendment 39 adds financial-literacy services to the Children and Social Work Act 2017 local-offer list; Amendment 40 requires each local authority to publish what financial support it provides. Care leavers' pathway plans already cover financial capability, and national rollout guidance — developed with local authorities and care-experienced people — will reinforce this before April.My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and Baronesses for their positive comments today; they are a measure of the fact that all of us in this Chamber want to put the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society at the centre of the Bill. I think the Government have clearly put across that we are strongly committed to improving support for care leavers, both through the measures in the Bill on Staying Close, local offer and corporate parenting and through our other programmes of work, such as the care leaver covenant and the care leavers interministerial board, all of which seek to ensure that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong loving relationships and are engaged in education, employment and training. We want to support those in care and preparing to leave care before they reach adulthood, and to ensure that they have the same support as all young people. They will of course benefit from the wider changes that we are making for all young people in this space; we have had some fantastic discussions about the need for financial literacy for all young people in different places over the last few months. I emphasise that in November the independent curriculum assessment review published its report, along with the Government’s response. As part of the review, we are taking forward recommendations that will help to deliver a high-quality curriculum for every young person. One key recommendation is to embed applied knowledge throughout the curriculum, including financial literacy. We have given a clear commitment in our response to the review to strengthen financial education through both the maths and the citizenship curriculum so that all young people and children have the skills they will need in adulthood. These commitments will benefit those children in care and preparing leave care. Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, seeks to ensure that Staying Close support includes…
- Whether the government amendments land in Clause 7 or Clause 8 doesn't matter — what matters is that care-experienced young people will now get the financial support and literacy they need. On that basis, I withdraw Amendment 35.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and comprehensive response. The fact that the government amendments will go into Clause 8 and my amendment was to Clause 7 does not matter to me. What matters is that those government amendments will be there and that the care-experienced young people will now have access to the financial support and financial literacy that they need. I thank the Government again for their extremely constructive and helpful response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The MacAlister report showed that foster-care costs just 35% of residential care — so it's not in the Treasury's financial interest to refuse Staying Put beyond 21. Amendment 37 seeks a full review of Staying Put funding, which hasn't been reviewed since 2014. Amendment 38 would introduce a national minimum allowance for foster carers offering Staying Put — matching what's currently paid for 16 and 17 year-olds. A DfE report two months ago found 62% of 18-year-old care leavers stayed with former foster carers, but that figure halved for those aged 19 and 20: the system is failing them at exactly the wrong moment.My Lords, I am introducing this group as Amendments 37 and 38 are in my name and I have added my name to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I will not steal the thunder of the noble Baroness on Amendment 59 so will merely say that the arguments I advanced when a very similar amendment was discussed in Committee seven months ago still apply. I stressed then that, in the long term, there will be a significant cost benefit to the Treasury of young people being allowed to extend Staying Put from 21 to 25. Four years ago, the MacAlister report quoted figures from 2020 which showed that the average cost of supporting a child in foster care was just 35% of that of a residential care placement. Mr MacAlister is, of course, now the Children’s Minister so he will know that it really is not in the Government’s financial interest to deny support to those between 21 and 25 who want to remain with their foster families. I acknowledge the point made by my noble friend when she replied to my amendment in June that the Government wanted to prioritise filling the gaps in current support, in particular for young people transitioning to independent living. That is admirable but it is exactly what the support of a foster family provides. Amendment 37 seeks a review of Staying Put funding. That would involve the Government conducting a full and comprehensive review into the level of funding allocated to local authorities for Staying Put arrangements to determine whether it is sufficient to allow all eligible young people to benefit and whether it meets the aims as set out in the Staying Put guidance. A review of funding for Staying Put is certainly overdue, given that the arrangement was introduced as long ago as 2014. The case for such a review is bound up with the arguments in support of Amendment 38, which aims to introduce a national minimum allowance for foster carers offering Staying Put arrangements, which does not currently exist, and to ensure that it ma…
- Amendment 59 would extend Staying Put to age 25, aligning it with Staying Close. Remaining with a former foster carer beyond 18 is linked to better mental health, more stability, lower homelessness risk and greater likelihood of staying in education. Strict age cut-offs don't work for everyone; that's as true at 21 as it is at 18. I also support Amendment 95 on a national care offer — I'll leave the Bishop of Manchester to make that case.
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments and I am extremely sympathetic to the case that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has just put forward for his amendments. Amendment 59, in my name, seeks to enable care-experienced young people to remain living with their former foster carers under what are called the Staying Put arrangements to the age of 25. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for adding their names. Staying Put arrangements currently provide an important opportunity for young people to remain with their former foster carers until the age of 21, if they wish to and their foster carer agrees. Evaluation of the programme demonstrates that continuing to live with foster carers beyond the age of 18 can benefit care-experienced young people in a range of ways, including providing a more positive and planned transition from care to independence, a stronger support network and relationships, increased stability, stronger health and well-being, and a reduced risk of homelessness, as well as greater likelihood of remaining in full-time education. While it is welcome that the introduction of the Staying Close support, through Clause 7, will apply to young people whose final placement was in foster care, this does not enable them to continue living with their former foster families. Many young people and foster carers across the country would like the children they are fostering to stay with them past the age of 21, but cannot at the moment because there is currently no provision in law for this or funding to support it. Extending Staying Put arrangements to the age of 25, which is what my amendment is about, would provide more continuity for young people leaving foster care in their transition to independent living at a time that is right for them. We all know that strict age points do not work for everyone—everyone is different. It would provide a more stable home, family environment and support network f…
- Amendment 95 would ensure that care leavers — and young people considering moving to a new area — can find out clearly what any local authority will and won't provide. Too many fall through the gap precisely when they move: the new authority either won't help at all or restricts support to those already in its care. It's not just those already living there who need to know the offer; it's anyone who might move.
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments in this group. We are continuing, as the Bill makes progress, to strengthen the offer that is made to care leavers. In the previous group, we discussed matters that, assuming they are voted on in a little while, will improve conditions and improve what local authorities have to publish. My Amendment 95, which I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for signing, would simply extend that to make sure that care leavers have a clear understanding of what their local authority is willing to offer and what it is not, particularly given that so many care leavers at age 18 or 19 end up leaving. Some, I am delighted to say, go to university and end up in a different town in perhaps a different part of the country entirely; others, for whatever reason, may decide it is appropriate to move and perhaps go back to be closer to friends from former times. It is therefore not just the people who are already in a particular local authority who need to really know what the care leaver offer is; it is young people who might be considering moving to that area. As became clear in discussion of my own Bill a few months ago, that is often where people fall through the gap: they move for good and solid reason from one part of the country to another, and in that new part of the country they find that the services they expected are not there because that local authority either chooses not to provide them to anybody or, as is sometimes the case, chooses to provide them only to young people who have been in its care through the previous years. I hope that we can get some support for Amendment 95. Understanding procedure—I am slowly learning this place, after about six years in—I know we probably will not get to a vote on this tonight, so maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and I can agree between now and Wednesday whether this matter should be put to a Division or not.
The broadest possible political coalition has signed Amendment 59 — that should count for something. The Fostering Network finds three-quarters of foster carers who continue after 18 end up financially worse off. Housing benefit and low wages simply can't fill that gap. And a quarter of all fostering places are now provided by private-equity companies making massive profits — that commodification of care is something we need to confront.My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate. Having signed his amendment in Committee, I did not manage to catch up on Report, and I encourage him to think about putting it to a vote if necessary when it gets to that stage. I support all the amendments in this group, but will speak to Amendment 59, which is about continuing the Staying Put arrangements to the age of 25. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, I have signed this amendment, along with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who is not currently in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson. You could say that that is the broadest possible range of political support imaginable for this amendment. I spoke extensively on a similar amendment in Committee, so I will not go into it at great length here. I cross-reference the horrific tale I told in Committee about Duncan, who was dragged with no notice at all out of his fostering arrangements and dumped into wildly unsuitable accommodation. That is the kind of thing that is happening to young people now. If we are to think of the state as a statutory parent, as it is to children in care, surely we should expect the same kinds of things from it that we expect from other parents, such as the societal expectation that parents will often have their children at home until age 25 or later. That is a reality that the state should be making provision for. To pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, even this amendment would not finally cover the financial issues here. The Fostering Network notes that three-quarters of foster carers who continue caring after 18 end up financially worse off. The idea that housing benefit or wages—we know how low wages are for young people—might be able to top that up does not reflect the reality of our society. I was discussing this morning the intrusion of private equity into the fostering system. A quarter of all places in fostering are now provided by private equity-based companies, which are making mas…
- There are 80,000 children in care — 12,000 more than a decade ago — all with different needs, maturing at different rates. You can't put an arbitrary date on when someone has to leave. I know a foster family where a boy simply said 'I'm not going — I'm staying', and that family made it work because he needed them. On Amendment 95: why can't this information simply be available? Is it cost? Is it that local authorities lack the expertise? I'd like to know what the real objection is.
I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply on this group of amendments. There are 80,000 children in care—12,000 more than a decade ago—all of whom have different needs and requirements, mature at different ages and experience different feelings. I do not think you can put an arbitrary date on when somebody has to leave. Nationally, young people increasingly stay with their family into their 30s and get all the support that a family gives them. A friend of mine and his wife, the Kellys, foster regularly. They had two foster boys; one came to the age to move on and just said, “I am not going—I am staying”. Malcolm, being the sort of person he is, said “Okay”. That child needed that. He needed that support from the family. I hope the Government will consider this carefully. On the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, I do not understand what the problem is. Why can this information not be available? It seems to me good, solid practice for society generally and for people in care and care leavers. I do not understand why we cannot say yes. Will it cost more money? Do we think local authorities do not have the expertise to do this? I would be interested to know why the Minister thinks it cannot be agreed.
- Does the Minister know what the full cost of Staying Put funding would be if extended as Amendment 37 suggests? Proper foster-carer funding might relieve pressures elsewhere in the system. On my modest Amendments 41 and 42: if the local offer already covers accommodation in statute, why resist a statutory minimum commitment on healthcare? Children in care have far more complex health needs; adult specialist services stop at 18; and Amendment 42 asks only that GP contracts make space for an extended first appointment for care leavers — tiny, but potentially transformative.
My Lords, we have had a good debate on this group. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and would be interested to know whether the Minister knows what the cost of this funding would be if it were extended in the way that the noble Lord’s review suggests. One could absolutely imagine a situation where proper funding for foster carers of young people in receipt of Staying Put support might relieve pressures elsewhere in the system. I also look forward to the Minister’s response on Amendment 59, which, as we heard, would extend Staying Put support up to the age of 25. We agree with the principle underlying Amendment 95 that local areas should constantly be learning from one another about the best support for care leavers, but we are not convinced that it would be achieved by this approach. I turn briefly to my modest Amendments 41 and 42. I reread the Minister’s argument in Committee that these amendments were not really necessary—a familiar term—as every care leaver should have a pathway plan that would cover accommodation, health and several other important aspects of their life. As she said, the pathway plan covers accommodation, yet the Government have chosen to put the publication of the local offer in relation to accommodation in the Bill, if I have understood correctly, so I am not quite clear about the resistance to minimum commitments in relation to healthcare. To be absolutely clear, my Amendment 41 would create a statutory duty for the health service to set out arrangements for those leaving care so they can be given additional considerations that they deserve as they enter adulthood. The Minister knows very well that children in care tend, through no fault of their own, to have much more complex health needs than those not in care. A lot of the specialist care available to children stops at 18. Taking the time to make sure they understand what support is available to them as adults is surely the mi…
- We're committed to Staying Put — the provisional local government finance settlement includes continued £100 million funding, the first multiyear settlement in a decade. But we must first fill the gaps for those moving to independent living at 18 who can't stay with foster carers, and for those with the most complex needs — that's why we're introducing statutory Staying Close duties. The noble Baroness asked about cost estimates: several hundred million pounds, requiring proper assessment. Amendments 41 and 42 aren't necessary — local-offer guidance already covers health and well-being, and corporate parenting duties will require the Health Secretary and NHS England to be alert to care leavers' well-being including in GP-contract negotiations. On Amendment 95, a national one-size-fits-all offer risks leaving care leavers in different areas without the support that best fits their needs — local authorities are best placed to understand their young people.
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interest in this area. As he opened the group, I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Watson for his sincere interest, as we heard in Committee, when we had a good exploration of the issues. I will first discuss three amendments together: Amendments 37, 38 and 59. Amendments 37 and 38, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seek a review of current Staying Put funding and the introduction of a national minimal allowance for Staying Put arrangements. Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, proposes extending current Staying Put duties to the age of 25. We know that the existing Staying Put duties, which continue until a young person reaches 21, enable local authorities to support young people to remain longer in the stable and secure foster homes they know. This continuity helps them to step into adulthood with the same opportunities and life chances as their peers. We recognise that additional stability at a crucial age. We remain firmly committed to supporting young people in Staying Put arrangements. The provisional local government finance settlement includes continued funding of £100 million through the first multiyear settlement in a decade for local authorities supporting these arrangements. I am sure that all Members who have had local authority experience will recognise that multiyear settlement as crucial in bringing stability back into local government finance. As I said, this will provide greater certainty and enable effective sufficiency planning for Staying Put arrangements. However—and I emphasise this again—we must also ensure that we prioritise addressing the gaps in current provision with the available resources that we have. That is particularly the case for those moving into independent living at 18 who have not been able to remain with their former foster carers and for those with the most complex needs. This is precisely why we are introducing statutory Staying C…
- I don't question the Government's commitment, but there's a cohort of young people in foster care who, from age 17, lose the national minimum allowance that applies to 16 and 17 year-olds — foster carers have to make up the shortfall themselves, and for many that simply isn't financially possible. The wraparound care and Staying Close are valuable, but some won't be able to use them. My Amendment 37 only asks for a review — there's no cost implicit in a review. I find it difficult to see any harm in reviewing arrangements that have been in place since 2014. I won't pretend I'm not disappointed.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for those remarks. I will just start on the point that she finished on: that the Government are totally committed to ensuring that all young people have the support that they need. I do not question that. It is unfortunate that there seems to be a cohort of young people who are in foster care, and when they reach the age of 17, they may be able to continue with their foster parents, if they want to and the foster parents are happy to keep them, but there will not be the national minimum allowance, which applies to 16 and 17 year-olds. So, it is incumbent on the foster carers themselves to make up that shortfall. In many cases, with the best will in the world, that simply is not financially possible. It then opens up the situation where some young people, having just turned 18, have to find alternative arrangements. I take the point that my noble friend the Minister made about wraparound care, the local authority’s offer and the Staying Close arrangements. All those are valuable, and most young people in that situation will make use of them and take advantage of them. But there are some who will not be able to do so. I stress the fact that, in seeking for the national minimum allowance to be extended beyond 17, it would apply only to those situations where the foster family felt able to keep the child and the child wanted to keep the family, as it were. It would not apply to every child of that age. I am not quite sure about the answer my noble friend gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on her question about cost. In my Amendment 37 on a review, there is no cost implicit. My noble friend the Minister gave a ballpark figure of several hundred million. I do not know whether that would be the case or not: it would depend on the outcome of the review. I had hoped that she might say—although obviously it was never my intention that this should go in the Bill—that the Government would undertake that review. I cannot see any harm in…
- My four amendments in this group are about relationships and placement for children in care. Amendments 43 and 49 address sibling contact — children in care are too often separated from siblings and then not supported to maintain those relationships. Amendment 49 closes a specific loophole: the regulations cover contact between siblings both in care, but not between a child in care and a sibling who isn't — Become reports many children feeling unsupported precisely in this situation. Amendment 61 strengthens the sufficiency duty: 22% of children in care in England live more than 20 miles from home — up 40% over the decade. The duty should require 'all reasonable steps', not merely steps 'so far as reasonably practicable'. Amendment 62 is simple: mental health assessments for children entering care must involve a qualified mental health practitioner. The Education Committee found mental health was often treated superficially or ignored in health assessments — that must change.
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments regarding family relationships and the appropriate placement of children in care. I have four amendments in my name in this group and will move through them as quickly as I can. Amendments 43 and 49 are linked. They are about promoting children in care’s family relationships and particularly improving sibling contact, an issue that we discussed at some length in Committee. We know and previously debated that children in care are too often separated from siblings when in the care system. Unfortunately, we have also heard that, for too many children in care, they are not supported to have either consistent, appropriate or high-quality contact with their siblings when they are separated so that they can maintain these most vital relationships and stay connected. The evidence shows that there is real variability in the type and frequency of contact between siblings. It can be affected by things such as workforce issues, instability and geographical factors—including where children are moved to. As we discussed in Committee, there is a real disconnect between policy and practice here. Amendment 43 seeks, in general terms, to strengthen the duties on local authorities to promote children’s family and social relationships, including with siblings. This would make a real difference to overall family relationships and to a sense of identity for these children. Amendment 49 seeks to close a specific loophole in the current regulations. Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 includes provision for arrangements to promote contact between siblings who are in care but who are not placed together to be set out in children’s care plans. The key point and the purpose of this amendment, however, is that this does not cover the promotion of contact between a child who is in care and a sibling who is not in care. While there is currently limited data about how many childr…
Why rely on good will when you can put it in the Bill? Integrated care boards already have a pivotal role under NHS reform; regional care co-operatives should be built on a statutory relationship with them. The National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals puts it plainly: not naming ICBs as RCC partners is 'a strategic omission of significant importance' that 'runs counter to the inclusion of health as a statutory, and strategic, issue in safeguarding partnerships'. Amendment 51 is simple — don't miss this opportunity.My Lords, my Amendment 51 seeks to highlight the need to include health agencies in the RCC arrangement. As I mentioned in my speech in Committee back in June, integrated care boards now have a pivotal role to play in the NHS. The main argument advanced when they were proposed that they should replace the clinical care commissioning groups was that they could unite health, social care and all the voluntary partners that are involved. A lot of discussion took place about health inequalities, delivering holistic care and co-ordinating GP services. The regional care co-operatives are at the heart of the MacAlister proposals and have received widespread welcome and endorsement. Indeed, across parties, the view is that they are a pragmatic initiative and absolutely deserve all-party support. I will not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee—we have been urged not to go over ground that has been trodden on already—and I certainly will not talk for very long, but I feel that it would be unusual and, indeed, illogical for the new RCCs not to be built on a strong and proactive relationship with the existing integrated care boards. This would indeed be the professional outcome that most people would desire. I say to the Minister: why rely on good will when what I am suggesting could be put in the Bill? In her response to my amendment in Committee, the Minister fully agreed that it was vital that the sort of co-operation and collaboration I am talking about, between the two bodies, does indeed take place. However, she said that “Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 specifies that local authorities must make arrangements to promote co-operation with relevant partners, including local integrated care boards, to improve the well-being of children”.—[Official Report, 17/6/25; col. 1925.] in care. She went on to say that the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, provides the necessary clarity. In other words, the Minister said that my amendment was not n…
I support Amendments 43 and 49 on sibling relationships. The Minister confirmed in Committee that the family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme is ongoing — but I understand funding runs out in March this year with no decision on continuation yet. Will the good work done so far be wasted? Can she give us encouraging news on that today?My Lords, I rise in support of Amendments 43 and 49 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, to which I have added my name. In Committee, the Minister clearly understood the basic principle of this group was to ensure that young people leave care with supportive and, hopefully, lifelong loving relationships. She assured the Committee that the Government “are funding a number of family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes. These help looked-after children and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives and create safe, stable, loving relationships”, which last. She said: “The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme is being evaluated, and this will help to inform decisions about the future of the programme”.—[Official Report, 12/6/25; col. 1607.] However, I understand funding runs out in March this year for these family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes, and there is no decision yet on continuation. I am concerned that the good work to date will be wasted, but perhaps she has encouraging news on funding and the results of the evaluation. I particularly want to flag again lifelong links and how this picks up the vital relationships identified by family group conferencing, which is in the Bill.
Where a child has to be separated from parents, the most important remaining relationship is often with siblings — they share experience of the same parenting, and it's a relationship that can long outlast the one with parents. Amendment 49 helpfully does not assume that all siblings are in care, thereby sensibly extending local-authority duties to the full picture.My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 49, specifically relating to sibling contact, to which I have added my name. In doing so, I do not want to repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, other than to stress, as she did, the importance of maintaining and developing sibling contact. Where a child has to be separated from his or her parents, temporarily or permanently, the most important viable relationship remaining is often with that child’s siblings or half-siblings. Typically, siblings have shared experience of the parenting they have received, and they have, of course, a relationship which can long outlive the relationship that they have or have had with their parents. The Children Act created a presumption that children should be placed together, but that is not always possible to arrange or to achieve. Contact between separated siblings, particularly if no longer in the same school or placed at some distance apart, can require commitment not only by their respective carers but by the responsible local authorities. Properly arranged sibling contact typically requires a concrete plan by the local authority and an underlying framework of support. It may, it has to be said, sometimes influence what happens at the next stage after the care proceedings and determine what happens if the children are to be placed for adoption. Amendment 49 would help, because it would not require or assume that both or all of the children will be in the care of the local authority, and it would thereby sensibly extend the scope of local authority duties towards siblings.
Care leavers are 1–3% of the youth population but account for a quarter of the homeless population and are twice as likely to die prematurely — with suicide the single biggest cause. That is a direct causal chain from fragile mental health in the care system going undetected. Amendment 62 simply asks that the practitioners doing mental health assessments are actually qualified in mental health — only that way do we catch vulnerable young people early enough.My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support of Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. The case for this is, really, fairly straightforward. Children in care often have quite strong mental health needs and are not in the best of mental health. Care leavers comprise about 1% to 3% of the general youth population, but that translates into them being responsible for one quarter of the homeless population. That group are twice as likely to die prematurely than the general population, and in many cases suicide is the largest reason for that high death rate. That is a fairly strong causal link between children in the care system, or those going into the care system, having fragile mental health, and that not being picked up as early as it should be. This amendment simply asks that we please ensure that, when children have an assessment of the quality of their mental health, the practitioners who are doing that are qualified in mental health. Only in that way can we be sure that we catch those vulnerable young people at that early stage and that they do not become one of the depressing statistics that I have just mentioned.
Children don't come into care because they've won the lottery of life — trauma is rarely far away. Yet assessments still rely on professionals with little or no mental health or trauma-informed training. One care-experienced young person told the Education Select Committee: 'I feel a lot could be explained if they understood the experience of trauma … No one talks about that. You will not be okay if you are going into care; there is a reason why you are there, and so it is important that the minute you go into care every child should have a mandatory assessment, physical and mental.' Bringing qualified mental health practitioners into mandatory health assessments is simple, practical and overdue.My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and to which I have added my name. I declare, as ever, that I am a teacher and I thank the National Children’s Bureau for its help on this. Children do not come into care because they have won the lottery of life; trauma is unlikely to be far from their lives. Yet our assessment processes still rely on professionals who may have little or no training in mental health or trauma-informed practice. Care-experienced young people told the Education Select Committee, as part of its inquiry into children’s social care, that local authorities are not always fulfilling their obligations to include emotional and mental health in their health assessments of children in care. One young person told the committee: “I feel a lot could be explained if they understood the experience of trauma. It will take time. It will not go away at night, and sometimes before it gets better it could get worse. No one talks about that. You will not be okay if you are going into care; there is a reason why you are there, and so it is important that the minute you go into care every child should have a mandatory assessment, physical and mental, and there should be that on-call support for them”. Bringing qualified mental health practitioners into the mandatory health assessment of children in care is simple, practical and overdue. I hope that the Government will use this amendment as an opportunity to do more for children in care and to make their lives and, as importantly, their futures better.
Where a child is under a deprivation of liberty order and then moved far from home, parents and foster carers find it very hard to stay in touch. The Children Act 1989 already requires steps 'reasonably practicable' — but 'all reasonable steps', as Amendment 61 proposes, is a far higher bar that demands local authorities catalogue what they have actually done. These are our children — would any of us be content if they were placed hundreds of miles away?My Lords, I feel a strong need to speak on Amendment 61, this wonderful amendment, on “Amending the sufficiency duty to prevent children being moved far away from home”. Especially where a child has been put under a deprivation of liberty order, if you then move them a long way away, it means that parents or even foster carers have quite a difficulty in keeping in touch with the child. So the sufficiency duty on local authorities should be amended from requiring them to take “steps that secure, so far as reasonably practicable” to requiring them to take “all reasonable steps to secure”, which is a far better phrase that gives some assurance. As somebody who fostered children and was in touch with other foster carers, I know that children were put a long way away when, under the expression of the Children Act 1989, steps had been taken that were “reasonably practicable”. But, actually, you could scratch under the surface and see the pressure in an area such as Tulse Hill near Brixton, where I was a vicar and where a lot of children were placed in care. The council had a big job to do, and your Lordships and I know that it was extremely busy. It is easy to say, “Yes, I’ve taken reasonable steps and done what is practicable”, whereas “all reasonable steps” should be taken, and you need to catalogue them in case somebody asks questions. I suggest to the Committee that Amendment 61 would remove a lot of anxiety from parents whose children find themselves deprived of their liberty. Moving them a long way away is almost suggesting that parents will, or maybe will not, find a way of going to where these children have been placed. In the place where I ministered for 13 years, they were always living in a time of financial crisis. Buses were needed, taking a long time, to get to where these children had been put, which was such a huge burden. I hope the Minister will see that this amendment would actually help our children. They are not someone else’s children; they are our c…
- Unregistered alternative provision is a scandal — children expelled from school become the local authority's responsibility, yet the most vulnerable end up in unsafe, low-quality settings with no clear route back to mainstream education. Amendment 71 addresses this. I'm grateful for the Minister's movement, but I'd like answers: the same Ofsted criteria applied to mainstream schools are unsuitable for this very different population — flexible timetables, therapeutic approaches, incremental attendance. Without adapting the framework, the new regulatory regime risks pushing provision into semi-regulated spaces or penalising good alternative providers for not behaving like mainstream schools.
I will speak on Amendment 71 in my name. I am grateful to the Minister for her movement on this issue. In her letter to me of 7 October 2025, which was some time ago, she said: “When used effectively, non-school alternative provision offers tailored support that meets individual needs and helps re-engage children in education, supporting future regular attendance in school. However, in some areas, inadequate oversight is putting already vulnerable children’s safety and the quality of their education at risk. Too often, children whose needs could be met in school are instead placed in unsafe, low-quality settings with no clear plan for returning to mainstream education”. I do not understand why anything in our society is unregistered—whether a school, a care home or alternative provision. We should not allow that to happen, because we put the lives of people at risk. Let us understand what alternative provision means. It means that a child or young person who has been permanently expelled or removed from school becomes the responsibility of the local authority. The local authority has to make provision for them. However, in many cases, schools have their own units on site, which is the best model by far. Where that provision is not available, local authorities have to find providers. Remember that these children and young people are the most vulnerable. They often have special educational needs, are from difficult circumstances or suffer trauma or mental health problems. The Minister realises the issue and has come forward with some suggestions of how we might develop this. I am genuinely grateful for that. I hope that this will be another way that we can deal with this issue. I will raise a number of issues with the Minister on which I hope she might be prepared either to write to me or to respond in her reply. Unregistered provision cannot be inspected by Ofsted, but we use the same criteria for registered provision that we use with maintained schools, academies an…
- This group covers children in care — sibling relationships, sufficiency, and mental health. For children who can't safely sustain relationships with parents, siblings may be the most important relationships in their lives. Not being moved far from home, wherever possible, matters enormously — as does ensuring mental health assessments are carried out by people who actually understand trauma.
My Lords, this group of amendments focuses again on children in the care system. As we have heard expertly and eloquently expressed across the House, the focus on relationships is so important for those children, as is allowing them to sustain relationships with siblings and families where it is safe to do so, and not being moved too far from their home and network wherever possible. Obviously, this is most sensitive where siblings do not live together, either because they are not all in care or because they are in different care placements.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)Lab18:00 HansardAmendments 43 and 49 aren't necessary — the Children Act 1989 already places a legal duty to promote contact between looked-after children and relatives; Amendment 49 would only require that arrangements be recorded in the care plan, which is already required. But we hear the concern: we commit to identifying and sharing best practice on sibling relationships. On Amendment 61: paradoxically, it would weaken the sufficiency duty — 'near to' the area allows more out-of-area placements, not fewer. Over £130 million is being invested in fostering hubs, kinship care and children's homes. On Amendment 62: existing regulations already require a health assessment covering emotional and mental health and mandate referrals where needed — but I hear the concern. We will strengthen statutory guidance on this and welcome a meeting with the APPG for Children. We're also trialling a three-year pilot to give children in care faster access to mental health support. On Amendment 71: a second local-authority registration system alongside Ofsted would create confusion and duplication — these reforms will instead come through the schools White Paper, ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny.My Lords, on Amendments 43 and 49, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, everybody who has contributed to the debate today, and certainly the Government, are fully committed to every care-experienced child having loving, life-long relationships with those they care about—particularly with siblings, as several noble Lords have focused on. We recognise that relationships are fundamental to identity, well-being and long-term outcomes. Although I absolutely support their intent, neither of these amendments is necessary and would duplicate existing legislation. As stated in Committee and referenced today, there is already a legal duty on local authorities, in paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, to “endeavour to promote contact” between looked-after children and their relatives, friends and other connected people, “unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with” the child’s welfare. Additionally, Amendment 49 would not serve to strengthen the duty placed on local authorities to make contact arrangements between siblings; it requires only that where contact arrangements are made, they are recorded in the care plan—a duty that already exists in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the regulations. Existing statutory guidance, such as the Children’s Social Care National Framework, which sets the outcomes that local authorities should achieve for children, young people and families, already emphasises the importance of family networks. This, alongside other guidance, builds on the legislative duty to emphasise the importance of family networks and listening to children’s voices about who and what is important to them. It is absolutely right that the care system and professionals involved in the care of looked-after children should help them to maintain relationships, including staying connected to siblings, family, carers and wider community networks. That is why the Government have been taking practical action to unlock any barriers to this and…
- I welcome the commitment on best practice for sibling contact and the strengthening of statutory guidance on mental health — and thank the Minister for offering to consult the APPG for Children. But I'm disappointed she couldn't go further on Amendment 49: I give notice that when it's reached I am minded to seek the opinion of the House.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive and helpful response to a large number of amendments. I listened very carefully indeed to what she had to say on family relationships and sibling contact, an issue that is very dear to my heart. I welcome that she talked about sharing best practice on sibling contact, which will certainly be helpful, but I must admit I was disappointed that she was not able to go further, particularly on my Amendment 49. I give notice that, when it is reached, I am minded to seek the opinion of the House. Finally, I thank her for her response on Amendment 62, in particular her commitment to make changes to statutory guidance on mental health and to consult with the APPG for Children. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 43.
- The adoption and special guardianship support fund has supported over 4,000 families since 2015: 67% used counselling or play therapy, 34% accessed therapeutic parenting support. Minister MacAlister himself has written that 'government has a responsibility to these children which I am determined to meet'. So why has the therapy element of the fund been cut? I know a family near me who adopted two traumatised children — counselling funded by the support fund transformed their lives. Because the fund has been cut, that support has stopped. Those who can afford to make up the difference will; those who can't — the very people who most need help — will simply go without.
My Lords, the adoption and special guardianship support fund was established in 2015 to provide therapeutic support to families caring for children through adoption and guardianship. Since its inception, the fund has supported over 4,000 families and played a transformative role in so many families’ lives, offering interventions that have helped children manage emotions, process early trauma and build trusting relationships, while equipping parents and guardians with the tools they need to care effectively. In fact, over the past 12 months, the Home for Good charity talked to a large number of families who had used the fund: 67% accessed therapy, such as counselling, play therapy and family therapy; 34% accessed therapeutic parenting support or training; and 33% accessed specialist assessments. I am grateful to Minister MacAlister for his letter following a meeting with a number of us, in which he said: “Many children who become adopted or are in kinship care have faced difficulties in early life that mean that they cannot live with their birth parents. These experiences place them at greater risk of mental health challenges, often made more complex by increased SEND prevalence compared to their peers. I am clear that government has a responsibility to these children which I am determined to meet it both now and in the future”. He also said: “The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund has helped children and their families access a wide range of interventions, including play therapy and therapeutic parenting courses”. Imagine the dismay among those parents that this element of the fund has been reduced. In Committee, I gave the example of a family living close to me that had adopted two children at a very young age who were absolutely traumatised. Counselling, paid for by the support fund, has created a huge change in those children. Because the fund has been cut, they are not able to continue with that provision. Interestingly, that has been mirrored by a n…
- As co-chair of the APPG on Adoption and Permanence, and a governor of Coram — which is celebrating the centenary of adoption today — I can say this fund is literally transformative. The APPG's 2019 recommendation was clear: remove the annual application requirement so support can orient around the child's needs, not the department's budget cycle. Stop-start funding is the worst possible approach for therapeutic work. Adoption breakdown is rising — and I know from experience that the fund, at its best, prevents exactly that.
My Lords, in speaking to these amendments, I declare that I am a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Adoption and Permanence, alongside Rachael Maskell, the MP for York. In 2019, the APPG carried out an inquiry into the fund. I will simply read its recommendation 6, which is headed “Continuity”: “The department should ensure a continuity of therapeutic support by removing the current annual application requirement, enabling agencies and authorities to apply for support that orients around the needs of children and their families”— not necessarily the budgeting needs of the department in question. I know, from carrying out that inquiry and subsequent work that I have been involved in—I am a governor of Coram, the children’s charity, which has a large say in adoption—that the experience of families that have been fortunate enough to access the support given by the fund is that it is literally transformative, albeit in many cases, when the therapeutic support is accessed, there is already a situation within the family where adoption breakdown is potentially a reality. Unfortunately, over the past couple of years, there has been an increase in the level of adoption breakdown. If one looks at the amount of effort, time and emotional expense involved in going through an adoption, one will find it difficult to imagine having, in the end, to admit that it has not worked but has failed—which is devastating both for the adoptive family and for the child or the children. This fund genuinely does make a difference. One of the achievements of His Majesty’s occasionally loyal Opposition when they were in government was getting it on to the statute book. One of the problems with it is that continuity of support is fundamental; this is not the sort of support that responds well to being stop-start. Unfortunately, because the flow of funding has not been consistent and because, for whatever reason—perhaps through negotiations with the Treasury—the department has been un…
- We are sitting here on the centenary of the Adoption of Children Act 1926 — the Act that first created the legal process for transferring parental responsibility. Yet in 137 pages, this Bill mentions the word 'adoption' only four times, three of which are just references to other Acts. A Bill with children's well-being in its title must not ignore adoptive families. The people celebrating on the Terrace tonight feel undervalued and under-supported, and they're right to.
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell. As he said, he has played a major role within Coram, the organisation which, as we sit here now, is celebrating the centenary of the Adoption of Children Act 1926. For noble Lords who do not know about this, the celebration is on the Terrace between now and 8 pm. If you get the opportunity, please go along and meet the many people who make such a large contribution to adoption within the UK. It is appropriate to mark the centenary appropriately. That landmark legislation introduced, for the first time in England and Wales, a legal process by which the rights and responsibilities for a child could be transferred from birth parents to adoptive parents. Because of that, I find it unfortunate to say the least that on the centenary of that Act, the Bill we are discussing this evening features the word “adoption” only four times in 137 pages. I do not understand that. Three of those mentions are just mentions of adoption in other Acts of Parliament. Why that should be the case, I simply do not understand. A Bill with children’s well-being in its title surely should not ignore the key role played by adoptive parents in their children’s well-being. I made this point in Committee and I am not going to repeat what I said then, but those working with adoptive families who have suffered the cut in the adoption support fund to which the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell, have referred feel undervalued, despite the important job they do in keeping children out of care and residential homes. We need to think again about how we approach adoption and give it the respect and resources it deserves. If any noble Lords choose to go down to the Terrace this evening, they will meet people who are very active and hardworking in that sector, who will tell you that they feel undervalued and under-supported. I hope that before long, that will change.
- Amendment 46 gives the Government an opportunity to review how best to use the adoption support fund before the grant period in March 2027. I'm not aware of any compelling evidence supporting the decision to cut the grant size and reduce specialist assessment funding — if it exists, please share it. We're also concerned about the total lack of visibility on what will happen next year. And on Amendment 100: foster carers have been clear they want clear delegated authority for day-to-day decisions — it's one of the main reasons too many are leaving the profession. I hope the Minister can be more encouraging on that today.
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. In Committee and again this evening, we covered in detail the distress caused to parents and children by the very late timing of the announcement in relation to the support fund and by the cut in the size of the grant. In particular, Amendment 46 gives the Government an opportunity to review how best to use this funding ahead of the grant period in March 2027. I am not aware of any compelling evidence that supports the earlier decision to cut the grant size and to reduce the funding for specialist assessments, but if that exists perhaps the Minister can share it today. Of course, we on these Benches are open to improving the way funds are distributed, but we are genuinely concerned by the lack of visibility on what will happen next year. I hope very much that the Government will address this tonight. I have also retabled my Amendment 100, which would give foster carers clear delegated authority for the children in their care on practical day-to-day matters. Foster carers have been clear that they would value this and, crucially, it is one of the reasons why we see too many leaving the profession. I hope the Minister can be more encouraging today than she was in Committee on this important point.
- Almost 57,000 children have benefited from the adoption and special guardianship support fund since 2015, with nearly 16,000 approved since April 2025. But this is not the only source — the Families First Partnership programme will total £2.4 billion over three years, available to adoptive and kinship families alike. Adoption and special guardianship funding is confirmed for 2026–27; we will say more in due course. And we will shortly engage widely on the longer-term future of adoption support — as we promised Parliament in September — to think about what comes next. On Amendment 100: foster carers absolutely should be able to make day-to-day decisions, and our guidance already says so. Too often that doesn't happen in practice, and I agree with the spirit of the amendment — but the Bill is not the right place: guidance and the forthcoming fostering measures through regional care co-operatives are.
As I reply to this group of amendments, I assure noble Lords that I will try not to drench anybody during the course of my response—although I have now decided to set myself an ambition of juggling three bottles of water by the time we get to the end of Report. Important issues are covered in this group. Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concern funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund and provide a further opportunity to debate these important issues. Around 3,000 children are adopted each year and more than 3,800 enter special guardianship. I salute all those who welcome these vulnerable, often traumatised children into their homes and hope that the centenary celebrations noble Lords have alluded to, taking place here this evening, enable a celebration of that contribution and, rightly, as we have heard in this debate, a challenge about how we can do our best to support those who undertake adoption and special guardianship in future. Almost 57,000 children have received adoption and special guardianship support since 2015, and many of them more than once. Since April 2025, we have approved applications for nearly 16,000 children. However, it is important to remember that this is not the only source of funding. The Families First Partnership programme will total £2.4 billion over the next three years. That funding is available to both adoptive and kinship families and to the services that support them. We have already confirmed that adoption and special guardianship funding will be continued for 2026-27. Further details will be shared in due course through the usual funding announcements. As several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Watson, have made clear, we need to think longer term about the future of adoption support, as we promised to Parliament in September that we would—and perhaps even more so as we celebrate the centenary of adoption. We will shortly set out plans to engage widely on this with the…
- It's perverse that therapeutic counselling stops for traumatised children simply because the money isn't there — and that those who can dip into their own pockets will get it while those who can't go without. That cannot be right in 21st-century Britain. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister agrees with the spirit of this amendment. She highlights that some parents have made up the difference and found the money themselves to carry on with this. I find it perverse that, for children with all sorts of problems who need therapeutic counselling, it is suddenly going to stop because the money is not there. Some parents have made up the difference, but those who cannot afford it are not able to do so. Those who come from a poor background and do not have the money are probably the ones who most need it. Those who have got the money can dip their hand in their pocket and pay the difference. That cannot be right in 21st-century UK. For those reasons, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
- In the spirit of co-operation following the vote, I will not move the amendment.
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will want to carry out the wishes of the House and ensure that those parents—all parents—have the support that they need. In the spirit of co-operation, I will not move the amendment.
- As I indicated during the debate on sibling contact, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 49.
My Lords, as I indicated during the debate on this vital issue of sibling contact, including siblings both in care and not in care, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
- Government Amendment 50 introduces a new duty on local housing authorities to notify schools, GP practices and health visitors when a child is placed in temporary accommodation — with consent. Children in temporary accommodation are particularly vulnerable; this notification lets health and education providers respond — proactive contact, pastoral support, breakfast clubs, homework help. Guidance will follow. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and Dame Siobhain McDonagh for raising this issue and engaging constructively with us.
My Lords, government Amendment 50 regards notifications where children are placed in temporary accommodation. All noble Lords who spoke to this in Committee saw this as a clearly sensible change to make sure such children can receive the right support when they need it. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that, following extensive cross-government work, the Government have tabled an amendment to introduce a new duty on local housing authorities to notify educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation, if consent is provided. This underscores this Government’s commitment to break down barriers to opportunity and support all children to have the best life chances. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my honourable and very good friend Dame Siobhain McDonagh for raising what the House in Committee agreed is a very important issue and for engaging the Government constructively on it. This government amendment builds on the previous amendments, achieving their intent. Children in temporary accommodation are particularly vulnerable and may need additional support. This notification will alert health and education providers, enabling them to respond appropriately in accordance with existing duties and responsibilities and help to mitigate the harmful impacts of living in temporary accommodation. For example, schools and colleges may wish to consider interventions such as providing pastoral support or practical assistance such as breakfast clubs, after-school activities and homework support. Health services may consider making proactive contact with families in temporary accommodation to ensure they do not experience gaps in healthcare provision. Guidance will follow for local authority housing officers and the public bodies receiving the notifications to ensure that we effectively implement this very important measure. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment.
This is an improved version of the amendment we tabled in Committee. Some 26,640 households with children are placed out of area in temporary accommodation — a huge number of children will benefit. Three questions: have the technical and operational issues the Minister mentioned in Committee been resolved? For families placed across the border into Wales, is there a duty to notify Welsh authorities? And when will this come into force?My Lords, this is an improved version of Amendment 165, tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and me. We are all very grateful for this very positive response. Some 41,000 households in temporary accommodation have been placed out of area and 26,640 of them are households with children, so a large number of children will benefit from this. I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, when she wound up the debate in Committee, she said some technical issues needed to be resolved. I think she said there were some operational issues to see how it can work. I assume those have been resolved. I hope there can be some IT solutions that mean we do not have to do this manually and it will be done automatically. Secondly, under proposed new subsections (6)(a) and (6)(b), the bodies that have to be notified that there is a child in their area in temporary accommodation out of area are medical practices and schools in England. Those living in Shropshire, for example, may be placed out of area in Wales—is there any duty to notify the Welsh authorities that they have children in temporary accommodation living in their area? Thirdly and finally, when will this very helpful amendment come into operation? What is the commencement date? Having said that, I warmly welcome this initiative.
- On cross-border notifications — there is no current duty to notify Welsh authorities, but we'll look at how to address that in regulations. I'll write to noble Lords on the implementation timetable. And our homelessness strategy commits us to eliminating bed and breakfast for families (except very short-term emergencies) by the end of this Parliament, cutting school days lost, preventing deaths through proactive health outreach, and a clinical code to improve data.
I thank noble Lords for their thanks and contributions. Tabling and discussing this amendment has been an important first step. We are clear that, if it is agreed, as it appears it will be—this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Young, raised about some of the technical areas where we need to ensure that this works effectively—we will continue to work across departments so that it has the impact that the Government desire: to strengthen information sharing so that educational institutions and health providers are aware where children living in temporary accommodation may require additional or different support. As I said, alongside the legislation we will provide guidance for local authority housing officers and relevant education and health bodies to ensure that the duty is well understood by all relevant bodies. Where possible, we will update existing guidance to minimise burdens and support accessibility. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, it is worth saying that this is one part of the action that the Government are taking with respect to temporary accommodation. Through our homelessness strategy, published in December, we have set out a range of measures to support families with children in temporary accommodation, including protecting record levels of investment in tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, and eliminating the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families, other than very short-term use in emergencies, by the end of this Parliament. We have set an ambition to cut school days lost for children in temporary accommodation, with a stronger role for pastoral teams to work closely with families in that situation, including preventing unlawful removal from a school’s roll. We have made a clear pledge to prevent deaths caused by gaps in healthcare. To achieve that, there will be proactive health outreach to families in temporary accommodation, and a clinical code to improve data and prevent incidents. We will end the practi…
- It was always about the children, not the government's operational problems. Thank you.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, I tabled this amendment in Committee. I also pay tribute to Siobhain McDonagh for having pursued this for many years and the way in which she has worked with different parts of government to try to work through the issues. It was always really about the children and not about the problems that government has in doing this. I will now make a very lengthy peroration and simply say thank you.
- From 2023 to 2025, 80 children died while in temporary accommodation — 3% of all child deaths. From 2019 to 2024 it was cited in 74 child deaths. This amendment could save a life. Please implement it as soon as possible, and keep working toward a world where children aren't living in temporary accommodation for months at a time.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, I supported and spoke to a similar amendment in Committee. Again, I will not be very long. I want to celebrate this great example of when campaigning works. I pay tribute to Justlife, which worked alongside the Shared Health Foundation for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Households in Temporary Accommodation. I want to stress the importance of this, and will not apologise for repeating what are such horrific figures. From 2023 to 2025, 80 children died while in temporary accommodation; that was 3% of total child deaths. From 2019 to 2024, temporary accommodation was cited as a factor in the deaths of 74 children. Having said that, I want to stress, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, was hinting at, that it is crucial that this comes into effect as soon as possible. We could potentially save a life if GP surgeries and schools know the situation that children are in. Much more broadly, we need to get to a situation where we do not have children in temporary accommodation for the long periods of time they are now. Please let this be done as soon as possible.
- The Minister went some way toward satisfying those who support Amendment 51, but not far enough. I'd like to test the opinion of the House.
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. Although she went some way to satisfying me and others who support this amendment, I do not think she went far enough. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
- The number of children deprived of their liberty has risen eleven-fold in seven years to almost 1,300 in 2024. Children under 12 deprived of liberty grew by more than 50% in the last quarter alone; 97% are already in care; restraint is permitted in two-thirds of cases. Amendment 56 would make health and local authorities jointly responsible for funding care for these children. Amendment 58 would require an annual parliamentary report with transparent data on how many children are deprived of liberty, their characteristics and outcomes. Amendment 55 would require comprehensive guidance on placement, care planning, and — crucially — a recovery plan so that children spend the shortest possible time with their liberty removed. They are currently stuck in limbo for many months.
My Lords, we come to this important group, which covers children who are deprived of their liberty. Noble Lords will remember from our debate in Committee that the number of such children has risen by 11 times in only seven years to almost 1,300 in 2024. Most troublingly, the number of children under the age of 12 deprived of their liberty grew by more than 50% in the last quarter, and 97% of these children are already in care. They are deprived of their liberty, typically for an average of six months, and restraint of those children is permitted in two-thirds of cases. The amendments in my name, and those of the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Meston, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, offer a practical route to turning this tide. They would create greater integration of services, stronger accountability and a focus on recovery rather than containment. Amendment 56 would place an explicit responsibility on local authorities and health partners to be jointly responsible for the funding of care for children who are deprived of their liberty or at risk of being so. The amendment would make clear, through government guidance, the expectation that agencies work together not only at the point of crisis but at an earlier stage. Amendment 58 would require the Secretaries of State for Education and Health to lay a report before Parliament annually with transparent data showing how many children are deprived of their liberty, as well as their characteristics, circumstances and outcomes. This would bring crucial transparency to the system and show whether the Government’s initiatives are working. Amendment 55 would ensure there is comprehensive guidance for placement and care planning in relation to the specific aims when applying for a deprivation of liberty order and, crucially, to how a child’s plan will support their recovery so that they spend the shortest possible time with their liberty removed. Currently, children are stuck in limbo for many m…
- Any child who has experienced four or more adverse childhood experiences is effectively traumatised for life. Depriving a child of liberty is a major thing — whatever we can do to ensure it happens as rarely, as briefly and with as much scrutiny as possible is vital. I urge noble Lords to support these amendments if they go to a Division.
My Lords, I have promoted a number of amendments in this group and signed others, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has so elegantly given. I will not waste your Lordships’ time by repeating them. I simply say that, over these last few years, I have become all too familiar with the acronym ACE—adverse childhood experience. We know that any child who has had four or more of those experiences is effectively traumatised, in one way or another, for life. It is a major thing to deprive them of their liberty, so whatever we can do to support these children and ensure it happens as little, for as short a time and with as careful scrutiny as possible will be vital. I therefore urge noble Lords, if these matters are put to a Division, to support them.
- These orders typically arise when parents cannot provide good-enough care and the child needs protection from outside pressures and their own risk-taking behaviour. Problems after the initial order include unstable and repeated changes of placement. I read of a child who said it was pointless to build any relationship in her placement because she knew she'd be moved again. Amendment 54 would require review by the director of children's services — proper monitoring and adherence to the objectives of the original authorisation — and would comply with the child's right to regular reviews under Article 25 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
My Lords, I too support these amendments. The debate in Committee threw a light on the working of the deprivation of liberty jurisdiction, which, one could not help noting, was not altogether familiar to many. Typically, these orders are made when parents cannot provide good enough care and the child concerned needs protection from outside pressures and their own risk-taking behaviour. Before they come to court, the local authority, the guardian and the court have to do their best to provide placement in appropriate settings and to enable the child to maintain significant relationships, both of which are easier said than done. Problems that follow the initial order can include unstable placement and repeated changes of placement. These are not easy to manage. I have read of a child saying that it was pointless to try to build up any relationship in the setting in which she was placed because she knew that she would be moved again or the staff would leave. That is a very unhappy state of affairs. There can be review hearings by the court, but they are not always satisfactory in my experience. Therefore, sensibly, Amendment 54 would require review by the director of children’s services to ensure proper monitoring and adherence to the objectives of the original authorisation to deprive liberty. Therefore, among this package before us, I strongly support this amendment, which would also comply with the child’s right to regular reviews in accordance with Article 25 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
- Amendment 53 is about the right to education. One child told the Children's Commissioner: 'I don't think it's fair that they're making us miss out on our education because they don't know where to put us.' All but two children the Commissioner spoke to were receiving less education under deprivation of liberty than in their otherwise chaotic circumstances. These children must not be denied an education.
My Lords, I will briefly focus on Amendment 53, on the right to education. I want to bring in the voice of one child who spoke to the Children’s Commissioner in her report on this issue. Talking about the lack of education they were receiving, this child said: “I don’t think it’s fair that they’re making us miss out on our education because they don’t know where to put us”. That child understands the situation they are in, and it is just unacceptable. All but two of the children whom the Children’s Commissioner spoke to said they were receiving less education when subjected to deprivation of liberty than they received in their otherwise often very chaotic circumstances. We have to make sure that these children continue with an education.
- These are valid and important concerns — Clause 11 is a sensitive area of law. The Government have been working hard on it. I hope the Minister can give further assurances so that the House can be satisfied there is a clear plan.
My Lords, this is a very important and sensitive area of law, and valid issues and concerns are raised in the amendments spoken to so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I also pay tribute, as she did, to the work of the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory in this area. I know the Government have been working hard to see what can be done and to give various assurances. I hope the Minister can provide further assurances today so that we can all be satisfied that they are taking this issue very seriously and have a clear plan to tackle it.
- The Children's Commissioner put it plainly: 'For the very small number of children where controls on their freedom are necessary … we have a moral obligation to ensure that children at risk of harm are not simply contained and kept out of the community, but are seen, heard, and given the care and support they need to thrive … conditions should include a plan for meeting the child's specific needs through intensive intervention.' Adding one word to the Bill — ensuring there is a recovery plan — could change many futures.
I have added my name to Amendment 53. It is vital that children who are deprived of liberty can access quality education. Otherwise, we really are depriving them of hope and a future. I too quote the Children’s Commissioner: “For the very small number of children where controls on their freedom are necessary in order to keep them or others safe, we must make sure they have not only excellent, individualised care, but also full protection under the law … we have a moral obligation to ensure that children at risk of harm are not simply contained and kept out of the community, but are seen, heard, and given the care and support they need to thrive”. She continues later: “Where a deprivation of liberty is authorised, the conditions should include a plan for meeting the child’s specific needs through intensive intervention and work aimed at helping them to be safe in the long-term. This plan should be co-produced by health and social care if appropriate, and could include mental health support, mood and behaviour management, work on addressing risks of exploitation, educational support, and any other specialist therapeutic intervention that is required”. Once again, adding one word to the Bill could change many futures.
- Clause 11 already moves more children from the inherent High Court jurisdiction into a statutory scheme with enhanced safeguards — that's the direction of travel. We've accepted the Delegated Powers Committee's recommendation in Amendment 57: regulations under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 will now require affirmative procedure in both Houses. On Amendment 56: we wholly agree that care must be jointly funded across social care, health, education and youth justice — but tying pooled funding to the existence of a Section 25 order would restrict it too narrowly; we want pooled funding to benefit a wider cohort, including those recently released or at risk. We're testing this with West Sussex and an ICB through the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory collaborative, and will expand to funded pilots next year. On Amendment 55: recovery plans are already embedded in the court process — local authorities submit the child's full care plan, which must include how restrictions will be de-escalated. The court scrutinises this. On Amendment 58: we'll say more on data and transparency shortly.
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for raising important points regarding Clause 11, which, as noble Lords have identified, relates to some of the most vulnerable children in the country. I know that noble Lords rightly feel particularly strongly about this measure. I thank the noble Baroness for her engagement with my officials ahead of this debate, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. It is important to remember that Clause 11 will already make an important change from some of the situations identified by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, correctly and graphically identified some of the challenges with the current operation of the system, which is why this measure seeks to bring more children who would otherwise be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court within a statutory scheme where they will benefit from enhanced safeguards and protections, which many of the amendments in this group are seeking. Turning to these amendments, I reiterate that this measure is intended not to encourage the practice of depriving children of their liberty but to ensure that there are appropriate rights and safeguards in place to prevent children being deprived of liberty inappropriately or for longer than is absolutely necessary. We are committed to reducing the number of children in complex situations as part of reforms to rebalance the system away from crisis intervention towards earlier help and to prevent children’s needs escalating to the point where they need to be deprived of their liberty, and to ensuring that when they are, it can happen in more appropriate accommodation than has been the case up to this point. We are grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its scrutiny and have, in government Amendment 57, accepted its recommendation that regulations developed using the powers unde…
- The Minister's response on Amendment 56 didn't meet its aims — she said it could restrict pooled funding, but the Government can come back with a better version. For now, I withdraw Amendment 53.
I thank the Minister for her very full reply and recognise the commitment of the Government and some of the initiatives that she raised. I do not feel that her response to my Amendment 56 met its aims. She said that it could restrict pooled funding for the group of children to whom it might apply. She knows better than me that the Government can come back with a better version. Until we come to that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 53.
- I'd like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 58.
I would like to test the opinion of the House.
- Good progress was made this evening — but an annual report laid before Parliament would bring all the information on children deprived of liberty together in a coherent form, allowing proper scrutiny by this House and the Commons. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 58.
My Lords, we made good progress this evening. None the less, having an annual report laid before Parliament would bring together the information that we need in a coherent form, which would allow this House and the other place to properly scrutinise what is going on. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.