Committee stage in the Lords
Lords Committee opened its first sitting on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill with a contested purpose clause debate before turning to the mandatory offer of family group decision-making meetings and the voice of the child in care proceedings.
B(There is an unbridgeable gap between the Bill's stated aims and several of its provisions. Professor Eileen Munro — author of the 2011 child-protection review — warned yesterday in *The Times* that the reforms risk dismantling a system that has steadily improved, without clear evidence that the replacement will work. The £290 million allocated for one year falls dramatically short of the £2 billion-plus estimated as necessary for early help to be effective. The pathfinder evaluations should be published before wider rollout, not after. Without that evidence and without proper funding, we risk creating a system that cannot deliver — and children will be harmed.My Lords, Amendment 1 in my name seeks to clarify the purposes of the Bill. While the Government’s intentions, to improve children’s safety, well-being and education, have widespread support, I tabled this amendment because I believe there is currently an unbridgeable gap between these aims and several of the provisions within the Bill. I must express profound concerns regarding both parts of the Bill. There is a troubling pattern throughout it of an unclear definition of the problem it seeks to solve, insufficient evidence for the proposed solutions, a lack of successful piloting to give us confidence these changes will achieve their intended outcomes, no clear implementation plan, insufficient resources to implement and important gaps in areas including children’s well-being, special educational needs and disabilities, smartphones, social media and more. So, our job across this House, as the scrutinising Chamber, is to do just that, and to ensure that the Bill leaves this House stronger and in a state where we can all feel confident that it will work in practice and not just on paper. In recent weeks, I have spoken to a number of directors of children’s services and practitioners, who have all, unprompted, raised serious concerns about Part 1, particularly around the reforms to family help, children in need and child protection. The most alarming concerns came yesterday from Professor Eileen Munro, author of the 2011 review into child protection, who stated in a letter in the Times: “The government's proposed reforms of children’s social care risk dismantling a system that has steadily improved, without clear evidence that the replacement will work. While the ambition to expand early help is welcome — indeed, my own review called for this — the plan lacks realism, rigour and a clear safety framework”. She continued: “These reforms radically restructure a complex system of professionals and safeguarding arrangements. Yet the Department for Education is altering or…
The Bill imposes sweeping new responsibilities on local authorities, children's services and schools at exactly the moment when many councils are on the brink of section 114 notices, teacher recruitment is collapsing in key subjects, and major local government reorganisation is under way. Is there actually the headroom in the system to deliver any of this?My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Marlow Education Trust, which is a multi-academy trust. This amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend, is necessary to confirm and clarify the objectives of the Bill, but also to stop the Government doing anything that is outside those objectives. I recall a similar purpose amendment being moved at the beginning of the Renters’ Rights Bill by my noble friends; a similar amendment was tabled at the beginning of the then Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Fox, from the Lib Dem Benches, proposed an identical purposes amendment to the then Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. It therefore seems that such so-called purpose amendments are becoming a feature of the process of legislative scrutiny, made more necessary when the time for Second Reading, which also deals with the purpose of the Bill, was so short. The amendment sets out the ambitions of the Bill, and the only point I want to make in a brief intervention is that these ambitions do not seem to take account of the many challenges facing the education sector. The Bill is in a sort of vacuum, detached from the real world. The provisions of the Bill, as my noble friend just said, will impose new responsibilities on local authorities, children’s services, adult services, schools and teachers, but this is expected at a time when there are already enormous pressures on the sector, raising the question as to whether there will simply be the capacity to deliver, however much good will there may be and however well intentioned the measures. Let us take finance. Non-protected departments such as the DfE have been told by the Treasury to model reductions of 11% in their expenditure. We do not know the outcome of that round, which is designed to keep the Government within their fiscal rules, but I would expect the department to have to make some uncomfortable decisions, and that will affect the capacity of offic…
Part 2 must be first and foremost about parental choice — only parents really know what education is best for their children, not the state. Imposing a one-size-fits-all national curriculum on academies and granting sweeping powers to monitor faith schools is an agenda of uniformity over choice that threatens the diverse landscape of education this country is rightly admired for.My Lords, I strongly support the purpose clause, particularly where it describes the purpose of the Bill as being to “improve … standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales”. I will be very brief and focus on Part 2, dealing with schools. For me, Part 2 should be first and foremost about promoting parental choice, because only parents really know what sort of education is best for their children: not the state, but parents. There should be choice—as much as possible—since children are all different, and what can be better than an education which enhances the unique talents and personalities of each child? This also chimes with Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which states in terms: “In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”. So choice should be enshrined in any Bill purporting to promote children’s well-being. Is this the Bill’s aim? Looking at Part 2, I rather fear that the opposite is the case. To take just two examples, academies are important, since their heads have shown by their excellent records of achievement that they know how to run schools better than government. But Part 2 would impose a one-size-fits-all national curriculum on academies, with the worst probably to follow in sweeping Henry VIII powers. Then there are faith schools. What could be more important than a child being educated in an environment rooted in discipline, dignity and duty, which are the hallmarks of our faith schools, such as Haredi schools and other faith schools? But Part 2 would grant sweeping powers to local authorities to monitor, register and regulate faith-based settings. It seems to be an agenda seeking uniformity over choice and threatening our diverse landscape, so much admired across the world. As it stands…
This amendment is unnecessary. The Bill already has a perfectly sensible, comprehensive description of what it seeks to do — we do not need another list.My Lords, here we go in Committee and here we have had, probably, our first Second Reading speech from a colleague. I will not make a Second Reading speech; I will address this amendment, which I think is unnecessary. We have a perfectly sensible, comprehensive description of what this Bill seeks to do. We do not need another list in the Bill.
Part 1 needs strengthening and greater specificity — family hubs, for example, are not even mentioned. A complex system of professionals and safeguarding arrangements is being restructured and key processes changed, without it being clear what functions they already perform or their place in the bigger picture. Does the Minister agree with the DfE spokeswoman who said that Professor Munro's criticisms 'demonstrate a lack of understanding of the proposed reforms'? Can she name current directors of children's services who are enthusiastic about this restructure?My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the purpose clause from my noble friend Lady Barran has given us to range far more freely than the tightly timed Second Reading allowed. I could only comment on what was in the Bill and pay scant attention to what I sensed was lacking. Part 1, and therefore the first half of the purpose clause, is where my sights are set in this Bill: improving the safety and well-being of children and improving the regulation of children’s homes, fostering agencies and other settings where looked-after children are accommodated. We heard from my noble friend about Professor Eileen Munro’s letter to the Times yesterday. She robustly supports the expansion of early help. It is in the provision of this where the Bill needs strengthening and greater specificity: for example, about the role of family hubs, which are not even mentioned. A complex system of professionals and safeguarding arrangements is being restructured and key processes changed or removed, without it being clear what functions they are already performing or their place in the bigger picture. I was on the design group of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care—I mentioned that at Second Reading—and my most detailed offline discussions with the review team were on this restructuring, which I can see might be perceived to be finicky and potentially unnecessary. I am hearing concerns from directors of children’s services, and now from Professor Munro, that these reforms could weaken child protection, at a time when we are trying to batten down the hatches with, for example, the single unique identifier. As I will keep saying during Committee, I am concerned, as I was during the independent care review, that we are trying to do by process what we should be doing through relationships between professionals. Does the Minister agree with the Department for Education spokeswoman, also quoted in the Times, who said that Munro’s criticisms “demonstrate a lack of understanding of t…
There is real wisdom and experience in this House that can improve the Bill, but only if we concentrate on the amendments rather than repeating Second Reading. If 80 peers each speak for nine minutes across the whole Bill in Committee, we lose the very purpose of the stage. The role of this House is to listen, to take well-meant amendments and to make the legislation better — let us do that.My Lords, we have heard some highly respected voices this afternoon, and I want to put two or three things on the record. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly draws attention to the fact that this kind of clause is now becoming commonplace at the beginning of Committees on Bills. I understand why people might want to raise specific issues, or even flag the amendments that they want to move in Committee, but if we prolong this stage to the point where our debates lose their purpose or we go on into the night—when, frankly, it is impossible to have rational and sensible debate—we will lose the purpose of the Committee itself. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who I respect as a friend, said about Second Reading. I was frustrated to have only four minutes, and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was deeply frustrated because she was trying to get back to Britain and could not. But we cannot have Second Reading debates at the beginning of every Committee. I make an appeal. I have amendments down, and I understand that we need to listen and learn. On Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister did just that, and listened to what I and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others from outside this House, were saying. There is a willingness to listen and reflect and to believe that we do not get things right the first time. There is real wisdom and experience in this House and beyond that can be brought to bear, and we can change the Bill and have a better result at the end of it. But, to pick up what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, we will do so only if we respect each other, with no calling out of people due to ill will, and if Ministers are committed to working with us. That is the role of our House. Over the 10 years I have been here, I have understood, in a very clear way, how different it is from the House of Commons. If we are able to listen to each other, take well-meant amendments and see how we can provide a better outc…
Can the mover clarify whether proposed new paragraph (c) — improving 'standards … in schools in … Wales' — is meant to apply to the generality of education in Wales? Education in Wales is a devolved subject; the Senedd has responsibility for it, and we need clarity that this clause is not claiming Westminster jurisdiction over that.My Lords, I sat through almost all the Second Reading but deliberately did not intervene in it because I was trying to ascertain how much of the Bill was to do with Wales and how much was not. In the context of her amendment, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to clarify subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause, where it says, and I select the words deliberately, “improve … standards … in schools in … Wales”. Education in Wales is a totally devolved subject. I know that the Welsh Government and the Senedd have asked for certain provisions to be made via the Bill for application to Wales. I am sure the Minister can confirm that. Those are specific provisions that have been asked for and not a matter of generality. As I read the proposed new clause, there is a suggestion that it applies to the generality of standards in schools in Wales. The noble Baroness spoke of autonomy and accountability. That goes to the heart of the administration and provision of education in Wales, which is a devolved matter, and we must be clear in our minds why we are choosing those words. Clearly, the term “England and Wales” can arise quite rightly when we are talking about the jurisdiction or the legal aspects of it. But here we are talking about the administration of education. Specifically, we are talking about schools and schools in Wales, and the Senedd has the right to know to what extent amendments such as this are meant to apply to them.
On devolution: the Bill's paragraph (c) talks about improvement in schools in England and Wales, and that improvement is for England and Wales — it is not solely a Welsh question. No man — and no country — is an island entire of itself.I was not going to speak, but I sat through the Second Reading and it was long. We have had some of the same speeches again—not put in the same way, but the phraseology is going in that direction. The mover of proposed new Clause 1 was actually very good at making sure that she was using active verbs. I do not like passive ones—I go for the active ones. What are they? “Improve”, “improve”, “improve” and “make provision”. If you are dealing with children, the legislation needs to tell us that there are some things that we want to do—and of course, with them, not alone. For that reason, I want to support the Bill. I say to my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that I love his way of speaking and he is very persuasive, but I do not understand why he thinks that paragraph (c) applies simply to Wales. The improvement will be in England and Wales, because the legislation will apply to England and Wales. Of course, there will be questions in the Parliament there and they will be talking about it, but the Bill as it stands is for schools in England and Wales.
- All I am looking for is clarity. If an introductory clause like this brings the whole gamut of Westminster governance over education in Wales — a devolved matter — that undermines devolution. We need the Senedd to know exactly what applies to them.
I am very grateful. The point I was making was about the application of this legislation to a subject that is devolved. We need clarity in the Senedd in Cardiff, which nominally has responsibility—and factually has had responsibility up to now—for education in schools in Wales. If an introductory clause like this brings in the whole gamut of being governed from Westminster, there is a lack of clarity which must undermine devolution. All I am looking for is clarity, and I think the noble and right reverend Lord will understand that.
Nothing we could do to further children's well-being would be greater than restricting social-media access to those aged over 16. The evidence is overwhelming — from UCL's link to eating disorders to Samaritans research on self-harm content — and Australia has already acted. On the care-placement market: exercise the powers to restrict profits and impose penalties with caution, because further restricting financial flexibility will only reduce capacity at a time when the public sector has no money to fill the gap.My Lords, I will not repeat my Second Reading speech. I draw attention to my interests on the register, particularly the fact that I am chair of a multi-academy trust. Regarding subsection (1)(a) of this proposed new “Purpose” clause, the Long Title states that it is to make “provision about the safeguarding and welfare of children”. Nothing that we could do to further that endeavour could be greater than to restrict access to social media to those aged over 16. That is why I have tabled Amendment 177 to that effect. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, said, this is so central to the overriding purpose of the Bill that I will take a few moments to elaborate. I think we all know naturally that social media is very harmful to our children, but there is now an overwhelming body of evidence to support this. I recommend that anybody who has not done so reads the excellent book The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt. We want our children to be brought up confident, able to engage in deep thought, reflective and able to concentrate, to exercise judgment, to see the other side’s point of view, to be compassionate et cetera. We also want them to get a good night’s sleep. Smartphones and social media set up exactly the opposite behaviours. In the 2022 PISA assessment, our children were in the bottom 10 of 31 countries in areas such as curiosity, perseverance, emotional control, stress resistance or grit, empathy and co-operation. There is now a strong body of clinical evidence on the harm that excessive use of smartphones and social media is doing to our children’s brains and eyesight. Adolescence is a period of life in which our sense of self undergoes a profound transition. As teenagers become more conscious of how others see them, they often experience increased self-consciousness and self-criticism. Social media and the algorithms attached to them serve only to amplify this. We also know that the adolescent brain is part…
- Does the noble Lord accept that the charitable sector and social enterprises have an important role in residential care, and that flexibility on finances helps them because they are not in the business of making excess profits?
This is a Second Reading speech, but it is very interesting. Does the noble Lord accept that the charitable sector and social enterprises probably have quite an important role to play in the delivery of residential care for children and that flexibility will help with the finances of that because they are not in the business of making excess profits?
- Many charities are professional, but not all. I also draw attention to the Royal National Children's SpringBoard Foundation: its boarding-school programme achieves a 100% placement stability rate for children in kinship care and 98% for those in foster care, with University of Nottingham research showing they are four times more likely to achieve good GCSEs — and the cost is less than half that of foster or residential care. Will the Minister agree to meet their representatives?
There are many in the charity sector that are professional, but there are many others. I do not think we disagree about this. Turning to other settings, I am an adviser to the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which works with more than 200 independent and state boarding schools across the country to support care-experienced and vulnerable children into often fully funded school bursary places. A significant proportion of the almost 300 children supported since 2021 are either with foster carers or in kinship care arrangements. Those in kinship care arrangements have achieved a 100% stability rate, which means that they have not needed to change carers, and those in foster care a 98% stability rate. Independent research by the University of Nottingham shows that they are four times more likely to achieve good GCSEs when compared with a matched control group, and 75% of them are going to university versus just 13% of care-experienced young people nationally. RNCSF is working hard to expand this provision, and I would be grateful if the Government could consider meeting its representatives to discuss how they can help it to do this further. Perhaps the Minister could indicate that she or one of her colleagues is prepared to meet them. They are good people.
If all 80 of us who spoke at Second Reading make nine-minute speeches ranging across the whole Bill at Committee, it makes a nonsense of this House's work.I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, whom I respect and enjoy debating with, but does he accept that if all 80 of us who made Second Reading speeches—and I enjoyed his four minutes—speak for nine minutes, as he has done, ranging across the whole of the Bill, it will make a nonsense of the work of this House?
- I have great respect for the noble Lord and I will wrap up now.
I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I do not think all of us are going to make a nine or 10-minute speech, but I will wrap up now and hope that keeps him happy.
The scope of the Bill is clear enough without a purpose clause. But there is limited value in this amendment's repeated use of the word 'improve' — it does at least signal that the Bill should achieve improvement, not merely maintain the status quo.My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading and I will resist the temptation to make a Second Reading speech now. Rather, I wish to concentrate on Amendment 1. Any consideration of a proposed purpose clause should take us all back to the Renton report, in which it was said that sometimes such clauses can be useful and sometimes they can be unnecessary, and that they should be used selectively and with caution. On one view, the scope and effects of this Bill are clear enough and there does not appear to me, at least, to be any complexity for which a purpose clause would help interpretation. However, there is perhaps some value in this amendment, which uses the word “improve” three times, emphasising the intention of the Bill—and the Bill as amended in due course—to achieve improvement in the areas specifically mentioned, and not to maintain or simply tweak the status quo. For that limited reason, I would support Amendment 1.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be the golden spine running through the Bill — every clause, and every group of children, should be readable against it. Can the Minister confirm that principle?My Lords, in responding I hope the Minister will be able to point out that the purpose of the Bill has a golden spine running through it, and that is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The different clauses should be able to read across to the convention, and wherever the child is and whatever group they are in—and we have lots of groups in this Bill—fate can be extremely cruel, and we know that every day around 127 children lose a parent. Bereavement is a major issue and hits different groups in different places at different times and affects their outcomes. I hope that we will have a statement from the Minister in responding to this which is about the principle of what we are really trying to do for children across the whole nation, everywhere.
The Bill deals with administration; it does not deal with children. You cannot privatise compassion. What I took from being in a children's home in Sheffield was that the people who made a difference were the ones who listened — who were prepared to hear a 13-year-old, explain why something could not happen, and then half help it happen. That does not come through in the Bill, and I am willing to work with anyone who thinks they can bring it through.My Lords, I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech, but I am probably fairly unique in this House in that I was brought up in a children’s home. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who is not in his place, and I have a joke that he got to prison and I ended up in a children’s home but we both somehow ended up here. What I find lacking in the Bill is that I have never felt that it is dealing with children; it is dealing with administration, with very worthy things. I do not feel that, when I was in a children’s home, I would have benefited from the feelings in the Bill. It just does not seem to take me anywhere. One of the problems we have to face is the attitude of society to children. I am not going to tell a long sob story, but I was extremely badly treated by my parents. A lot of people tried to help—teachers, social workers, neighbours—but there was an air of embarrassed indifference. People wanted to help but did not feel they could; they did not know how to. One of the things we have to get away from is the idea that it is someone else’s job. For about five years I was chair of an outfit called the association of Labour social workers. That was when I was in the Labour Party, incidentally, I say to friends on this side. One thing that struck me was how difficult their job is. One false move and you are condemned. You often look at a child as a social worker and think, “This child should be in care. I should be going to a magistrate”. But as you work your way up the food chain, caution comes in. It is not cruelty; it is caution. People say “Are you sure? We don’t want to be all over the Daily Mail. We have to be careful. We have to respect the rights of the parents”. This is legitimate, but I do not think we should imagine that there is some golden, secret, easy way of dealing with this. I have said in this House before that you cannot privatise compassion. Whatever you do and however much you say, “Let the private sector deal with this”, you cannot deal…
The next two groups of amendments give us the opportunity — right now — to debate the child at the very heart of improved engagement with children's social care. It would be welcome if the Minister wound up and we moved on to those.The noble Lord has made an important and timely intervention about the focus of the Bill, which is indeed on children. It is the first Bill of its kind that has the phrase “well-being” in its Title. He reminded us why we are here. In the context of the debate we have been having across the House about the nature of this debate, and about Second Reading interventions that would more appropriately be presented as amendments, I say to the noble Lord that there is a series of amendments that we could get on to quite quickly and which would give us the opportunity to discuss the child at the very heart of improved systems of engagement and communication about the future of children, in the context of childcare services and the family. The next two groups of amendments give opportunities for the whole family, in a new way, to be engaged in determining the future of the child in the extended family, rather than in institutions or by way of administration. These are very important debates. They require and invite a long and a proper discussion in the Committee, and many people would want to contribute. It would be welcome if we could now hear the Minister wind up in response to this general debate and could get on to these amendments, where the noble Lord’s concerns would be properly displayed.
Why is the Government prepared to centralise decisions on some areas affecting family life but not on the areas that really go to the core well-being of children — nutrition, mobile phones, cyberattacks? Banning phones in schools in the way France, Spain, Italy and Greece have done improves behaviour and results, especially for disadvantaged pupils, and more than 80% of parents support it.My Lords, I, too, would like to speak to Amendment 1. I realise that it is a broad amendment, so I shall concentrate on proposed new Clause 1(1)(a), and the “safety and wellbeing of children”. Last week, I asked why His Majesty’s Government had not followed France in banning mobile phones in schools, a policy introduced seven years ago and linked to better academic results and reduced bullying. The Minister rightly pointed out that France has a more directive education system, something my party would surely not want to replicate. She is quite right: we oppose excessive central control, especially when it threatens school autonomy or family life. But this is about the well-being, safety and health of children, just as school meals and physical activity are. As my noble friend Lord Nash pointed out, phones disrupt learning, harm mental health and hinder social development, especially for young children. This brings constant pressure on schools to manage distraction, cyberbullying and the emotional toll of social media. Schools that ban phones see calmer classrooms, better behaviour and stronger results. This advantages particularly children who are disadvantaged pupils. In primary schools, the case is even stronger. Young children do not need phones during the day, as nearly 80% of parents agree. France, Spain, Italy and Greece have all acted, and the Department for Education now encourages schools to limit phones throughout the day. The guidance is welcome, but it is not enough. As proposed new Clause 1 calls for, we need more clarity about those specific points. Similarly, healthy food in schools is also vital. A balanced diet supports learning, concentration and behaviour. Italy and France offer a powerful contrast; pupils sit down for a proper meal, with vegetables, protein, cheese, yoghurt and fruit. Meals are unhurried and part of the school day, free from sugary snacks and drinks. The results speak for themselves: childhood obesity in France is significantly l…
We are being asked to consider this legislation somewhat blind: the Becky Francis review of curriculum and qualifications has not yet reported, yet the Bill addresses exactly what removes barriers to opportunity. And the Government's own defunding of applied general qualifications such as BTECs after 2027 will increase the number of young people who feel there is no place for them in our system — with T-levels enrolling just 2% of the cohort versus nearly 20% on BTECs.My Lords, proposed new paragraph (c) in this amendment touches on the Bill’s purpose of removing barriers to opportunity. It raises my concern about the Bill in general that, as my noble friend Lord Young said in his excellent remarks, we are being encouraged to consider this legislation somewhat blind and flying in the dark. That is because we have not yet had either the full final report of the Becky Francis review into curriculum and qualifications or the Government’s response to it. This is essential for a fair and full consideration of this legislation. This review is not just another consultation or call for evidence but the Government’s flagship review of curriculum and qualifications which is examining exactly this matter of how we remove barriers to opportunity in our system. We already know, however, that the relentless narrowing of options at age 16 is clearly not helping learners in this transition to level 3 study. Some 5% of 16 to 17 year-olds are NEET, up from 3.9% in 2015. This is an exceptionally worrying trend, and the Department for Education’s relentless quest to further narrow options through the defunding of applied general qualifications such as BTECs will not help matters at all. T-levels, while well intentioned, are not proving suitable for most learners. Just 2% of the cohort are enrolled on T-levels, compared to almost 20% pursuing applied general qualifications such as BTECs. By pressing ahead with the further defunding of those remaining BTECs after 2027, the Government will increase the number of young people who feel that there is no place for them in our system. For us to do our job properly, this Bill and the curriculum review running alongside it must be seen together. We need to ensure that they work in concert so that all young people, not just the most academic, have an ambitious and achievable path forward at 16.
Without purpose there is no focus, and we can get very lost in complexity. As we go through Committee, do not lose sight of health — without healthy children there is no learning or well-being. Infant mortality has risen among children born to poor families while falling among the wealthy; that is the canary in the coal mine. We must think carefully about how changes in the Bill will pull on the public health workforce — school nurses and designated doctors — whose roles are already at best stretched.My Lords, as we have discussed at length, this is a multifaceted Bill, so I would welcome our achieving greater clarity of purpose. Without purpose, there is no focus, and we can get very lost in complexity. As we progress through Committee, I ask noble Lords to consider the opportunities offered in this Bill to improve well-being through healthier young lives. Let us not lose sight of health, because without good, healthy young people there is no opportunity for learning or well-being. I am talking about both physical and mental health. When I was president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health between 2012 and 2015, we had slipped over the preceding 15 years to being one of the worst-performing countries in Europe for infant and child mortality. Mortality, in particular infant mortality, is used globally as a sensitive indicator of the health of a nation. It is the canary in the coal mine for how we are looking after children and young people; it signals alarm if that is not going well. Since then, we have seen infant mortality rise among infants born to poor families while it continues to fall among the wealthy. We are looking at a variety of public health issues that should give us pause for thought, including poorer vaccine uptake and worsening health inequalities more generally, in particular obesity. Between 2014 and 2019, teenage mortality edged up rather than down, and noble Lords are well aware that teen mental health is deteriorating. In relation to the Bill, it is important that we think carefully about how we are using the public health workforce, such as school nurses and others, and give careful consideration to the multiple pulls on their time and how different parts of the Bill differentially pull on those resources. Equally, we must consider how significant system change is going to impact designated doctors and nurses, whose carefully worked out roles are, at best, stretched, so that those do not become further stretched by the chan…
A purpose clause gives us the strategy; the other clauses are the tactics. Without it, you cannot tell why a clause is there or test it against the overall plan. It also gives the public — that regrettably small portion who reads Bills — clarity on what these hundreds of pages are actually trying to do.I support this amendment, and I hope to illustrate to the Government that this proposed purpose clause will help them and will be of benefit to the debate in reaching an effective and clear Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I do not have a Second Reading speech; I am focusing only on this amendment. The noble Baroness on the Government Back Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have the greatest respect, and other noble Lords seemed to be saying, “We don’t need no education Bill purpose clause”. I suggest that many Bills, including this one, would benefit from a purpose clause. It provides clarity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, said, and the ability to check each clause against it to ensure that they would indeed meet the purpose of the Bill. It also provides needed clarity to the debate. The principle can be seen in any organisation that is trying to think through a change in direction and how to implement it. It starts with the strategy, which is the purpose. Having decided the strategy, it moves on to the tactics—the other clauses are the tactics that fulfil the purpose. Otherwise, you are not quite sure why a whole range of clauses are there. You cannot fit them into the overall plan; there is no strategy, there are only tactics, with the ability for people to cram all sorts of things into a Bill that do not actually meet whatever that strategy was. The purpose clause, as written, is not controversial. If a further clause in the Bill does not meet purposes (a), (b), (c) and (d), then it can be more swiftly disposed of or amended so as to meet whatever the Bill’s purpose is—which is of course for the Government to decide and accept. However, a purpose clause goes beyond that. Such a clause on the front of the Bill will, for that regrettably small part of the electorate who will read this Bill, provide clarity as to what on earth those hundreds of pages are up to. As we all know, any Bill is quite difficult to read. As the noble Baroness, Lady…
Boarding-school partnerships for care-experienced children are both far more effective and far cheaper than foster or residential care — the sample showed £3.6 million versus £8 million for a comparable cohort — and they take pressure off kinship carers. On the national curriculum: every school in England is already legally required to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum; imposing the DfE's curriculum on academies tears up work that trusts have painstakingly built over a decade. A far more sensible approach would be to require only those failing an Ofsted inspection on curriculum to follow the DfE model.My Lords, I speak in support of the purpose clause, in particular, subsection (1)(a) and (c), improving “the safety and wellbeing of children”, and improving “standards”, to “remove barriers to opportunity”. I also refer to my interests in the register. As the Minister will have gathered from some 188 pages of amendments, there are serious concerns with the Bill. I am sure she will dismiss many of these as distractions, but I want to assure her that having spent nearly 15 years trying to improve the education of young people, mostly from areas of deprivation, and therefore the opportunities for them, that is not my purpose. I first give credit to the Government for tackling the issue of kinship care. The educational outcomes for children in care are shockingly bad. If there is any cohort of children in our society that has been dealt a cruel hand, it is those children. Kinship care is often an obvious and decent solution; however, many of these children have been traumatised by several years in severely dysfunctional families, and the task facing the new carer is formidable. That is why I have always been such a strong advocate for offering boarding school places for those children. Not only does this provide a safe and stable environment but it has shown a dramatic improvement in their outcomes when the data has been analysed. In December 2017, when I was the Minister responsible for this, we launched the boarding school partnerships service. The aim was to link local authorities with the relevant children’s charities and boarding schools themselves. I will not repeat the data cited by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, on the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard’s Care-Experienced and Vulnerable Children programme, or indeed the comments from the Nottingham University report. However, there is one statistic that he did not mention. Not only are the outcomes for children in boarding care compared to those for a similar cohort extraordinarily higher but the costs are of a…
We are not speaking to the amendment. Please limit speeches and speak to the text before us.My Lords, as a non-contributor to the Bill so far, it seems to me that the amendment is not being spoken to. I wonder whether I could support those who have enjoined contributors, on this day 1 of Committee, to speak to the amendment and to limit the length of their speeches. I also ask the Government Front Bench whether they would monitor this.
What is the problem the Government are actually trying to solve with Part 2? On music: the dreaded EBacc has already seen numbers studying music in schools plummet. The guidance encouraging schools to limit phone use throughout the day is welcome — but it is not enough.My Lords, I speak to the intended purpose of the Bill, which includes improving the well-being of children, as given in subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause, and removing barriers to opportunity, as given in subsection (2)(c) of the proposed new clause. I declare my interests as governor of Shoreditch Park Academy, former chair of the national plan for music education and co-founder and chair of the London Music Fund. We are debating the future of our schools and children, and the well-being of our children. What could be more important than that? This Government were elected on a mandate of change, but on so many issues Ministers cannot explain the reason, in this Bill particularly, for the change. What is the problem the Government are trying to solve? On this Bill, the bewilderment about the reason for change is now greater than ever. As my noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone said, we will be voting on a Bill that includes a curriculum that all schools will be obliged to follow—a curriculum about whose content neither we nor, it seems, the Government have any idea. This is absurd. This is not change to benefit children and improve their well-being but simply ideological change to satisfy trade union leaders and their followers. If they get their way, children’s education will certainly be damaged, just for the sake of change. At Second Reading, I focused on the importance of academy trust independence. Today, I narrow my focus to follow the procedure to one subject which I believe is missing from the Bill that could have a hugely positive effect on the well-being and academic outcomes of every child. That subject is music. Do noble Lords recall that, on the day of the magnificent VE celebration concert in Westminster Hall, the composer and conductor Keith Burstein said of music that it unites, consoles and galvanises? The evidence is there: music helps listening, concentration, reading and memory. Music boosts self- esteem and helps young people under…
In Bexley we achieved two consecutive outstanding ILACS Ofsted inspections while running a school system that includes four grammar schools and a genuine diversity of provision. The biggest threat to children's well-being in Part 1 is the removal of the two-year rule — that keeps children longer in failing placements — and the risk that the family help reforms hollow out effective early intervention already working in councils like mine.My Lords, as your Lordships will know from my register of interests, I am currently the leader of the London Borough of Bexley. That means I have an involvement with both the Local Government Association and London Councils. What my entry does not say that I am now the longest-serving leader of the London Borough of Bexley and that, before I was leader, I was the first cabinet member for children’s services in our borough. Your Lordships might ask why that is important. Over that period, during which we were the first authority in London and only the second to Leeds in the country—as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, will attest—to achieve two outstanding ILACS Ofsted inspections. We also have a very good reputation for our local schools, which include four grammar schools, and we take in many young people from neighbouring Labour boroughs whose parents aspire to a better education for their young people. In this contribution, I will focus my comments on the children’s social care aspects of the proposed Bill. Over the years, I have had the absolute pleasure to work with some fantastic local authority officers, including some superb directors of children’s services, or deputy directors who have gone on to become directors. I will not name them, to save their blushes, but they will know who they are. These are the people we all trust to make the right decisions, on a daily basis, to keep our young people safe and keep families together, if possible—but, if that is not possible, to ensure that the children who come into our care are prepared for the future. They are statutorily responsible and, if anything goes wrong, they are often held to account for the decisions taken. Over the last few weeks, I have had exchanges with a number of senior practitioners whom I respect, and they are really concerned about the consequences of some aspects of the Bill. I know my noble friend Lady Barran has had similar conversations. So, my contribution to this debate will probably be ve…
The key word in this clause is 'improve'. One of the purposes of a purpose clause is to set out clearly for the courts how legislation should be applied. If my noble friend presses this on Report, every Member will have to ask their conscience: does this provision actually improve outcomes for children?My Lords, I rise to speak to the proposed new clause and to support, in particular, subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c). As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, it contains the key word “improve”. One of the purposes of a purpose clause is to set out very clearly for the courts how legislation should be applied and to what end it is achieved. It will be a matter of debate—I am sure the debate already happened at Second Reading—whether measures in here will improve things: that is a matter for debate. But if we have this, I hope that my noble friend Lady Barran will put it to a vote on Report, so that all the House in its conscience, when it is determining what parts of the legislation we retain, change or drop entirely, comes back to the central purpose: what is this doing to improve the outcomes for children? I say to my noble friend Lord Balfe that the Title of the Bill should really be “Some Children’s Wellbeing”, because clearly it does address well-being for some children. I suppose I am sharing my frustration—not that I am challenging the guidance of the clerks, although we can have a debate about it—that the scope of the Bill is actually pretty narrow in considering how to improve the well-being of children. I would hope that proposed new subsection (1)(a) would allow us to consider further matters which are not addressed in this Bill about the well-being of all children, which we are here to consider. I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech—far from it—but there are undoubtedly omissions in the Bill about things such as child maintenance, which would certainly contribute to powers that have already been passed by Parliament but have not yet been commenced by Governments. I say “Governments” deliberately because I am conscious that applies not just to this Government. Those powers could be commenced by adding a clause to this Bill, but it is not within its scope at the moment.
A purpose clause that puts the child at the front of the Bill would give local authorities clear guidance on how to conduct themselves towards the home-education community — a diverse group of families who need to see, in straightforward public-facing language, what the Government are actually trying to do.My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Balfe made a very good case for a purpose clause that puts children at the front of the Bill. I will make a rather more restricted case to use a purpose clause to support the home education clauses in the Bill. The first virtue of a purpose clause, when it comes to home education, is that we are trying to give local authorities guidance on how they conduct themselves towards the home education community. To have something clear at the beginning of the Bill would make that much easier for them. Secondly, we are dealing with a diverse community in home educators; for them clearly to see the effect on them, in a complicated Bill, and the Government’s underlying purpose would be a great help in moderating and steering their interaction with the Bill after it is introduced. So I strongly urge the Government to consider a purpose clause when it comes to home education. It does not need to be much longer than “to support children not in school, and their parents”. Something like that would make a substantial difference to the way the Bill is read. I will pick up on some difficulties that I have with the Bill and the way it is drafted, and in understanding its purposes. In English law, parents are responsible for their children’s education. In the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, said, the Government make substantial moves towards transferring that responsibility to the state. New Section 434A(6)(b)(i), in Clause 30, strikes at the heart of the relationship between parents and the Government. It will have enormous ramifications for the whole of the education system if we go down this track. The way that personal data collection and use systems in the Bill are expressed, and the control of education providers, leaves me at a loss as to the Government’s intended purpose for the relationship between home-educating parents and the state. Understanding that better—having it clearly set out—would inform our whole consid…
Adoption does not feature in the Bill at all, despite the proportion of adoptive families facing severe challenges rising from 30% in 2022 to 38% in 2023 — the highest in six years of reporting. Some 4,000 children per annum are adopted, and there are significant gaps in contact support and transition to adulthood.My Lords, I too speak in support of the purpose clause tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran. I declare my interests as a member of Beckfoot multi-academy trust and of the Leeds Diocesan Learning Trust. It surprises me greatly that adoption does not form part of the Bill. Despite improvements in the adoption system, evidence highlights significant gaps in support. Last year’s Adoption Barometer showed that the proportion of adoptive families facing severe challenges increased from 30% in 2022 to 38% in 2023, which is the highest over the six years of reporting. Also, the number of prospective adopters has declined. There are particular issues with support for contact between adoptees and members of their birth family, and with transition to adulthood. Some 4,000 children per annum are adopted—of those, 80% have suffered abuse, neglect or violence, and 11% come from dysfunctional families. Many spend up to 15 months in care with several foster families before being adopted. Adopted children are more than twice as likely as other children to have special educational needs. The virtual school has different remits for different cohorts. Adoption UK evidence shows that where virtual schools go above their statutory duty, which is limited to previously looked-after children, there are positive results. The Bill potentially produces an inequality in the wording around the remit of virtual schools for different cohorts of looked-after children. One in 10 adopters home-educated their children in 2023. In the majority of cases, that is because the school system is not set up to support their child’s needs. Adopted children have lower attainment, higher rates of SEND and higher evidence of autism and ADHD. The Bill presents the opportunity to consider the barriers that lead parents to home-educate in the first place, and to review the support that local authorities offer to adopters. Parents of adopted children are not the only group who feel that state education is inadequate…
The Long Title does not even mention well-being — despite it being in the Bill's name. I support all four proposed paragraphs and share the concern that the starting point must be the child's experience in the round.My Lords, I will speak very briefly and will save most of what I want to say for the specific amendments. I listened to the entire Second Reading debate below the Bar, but at that point I was not able to speak in this House. I support my noble friend Lady Barran, who has rightly drawn attention to the need to have express purposes linking through to the improvement of provision for children. I support all four proposed new paragraphs and I share some of the concerns that have been expressed, especially by my noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, for example, about conceiving this from the starting point of children and thinking about their experience in the round. When I read the Bill I was struck that the Long Title does not mention the word “well-being”, despite the title, and I could find no thread through to explain what it meant. For me, it is the likely outcome of loving a child, caring for them, looking after their health, educating them and making sure they have peers, good relations with the adults around them and the opportunities to discover where their strengths lie. Many such things contribute ultimately to well-being. We need this test around improvement because there are—I will not go into this now—a number of clauses where it seems to me that there is clear, direct and sometimes quite recent experience to make us believe that it is more likely that the clauses will do harm than good. I want to make sure that in debating the amendments there is enough space for us properly to consider the true likely impact and that that will be recognised and taken into account by the Minister.
This is an enormous Bill — it could be two enormous Bills. A purpose clause gives us a sustainable anchor, so that when organisations try to hang Christmas-tree-bauble amendments onto it, we can test whether those amendments actually serve the children the Bill is supposed to be about, including those with special educational needs.My Lords, I rise very briefly in support of the proposed new purpose clause from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. This is an enormous Bill on children’s well-being and schools. It could be two enormous Bills. What we have seen in this House with many other Bills is that, when we have an enormous Bill, all sorts of people and organisations want to hang things on it like Christmas tree baubles and it becomes unworkable, so I welcome this proposed new purpose clause to give us some sort of sustainable and impactful legislation, hopefully, at the end. Nobody has mentioned children with special educational needs, which, as the noble Baroness knows, is my special interest in this. I support the proposed new purpose clause because it brings us back to the interests of all children, including those with profound needs and disabilities, who are very difficult to accommodate in the usual school system. We are not alone in that. I can point to studies from Sweden, Denmark and all across the world about the difficulty of grappling with this challenge. Profound disability remains strongly associated with poor educational outcomes. We know from experience—although sadly not from data, because we do not collect it—that these children achieve lower overall grades than children without profound disabilities. This cannot be put down just to people having a learning disability. For example, only one in two children with CP has a learning disability. I know that there are children with high-functioning cognitive abilities who have been accommodated in mainstream schools throughout their entire lives, but when it comes to choosing GCSE subjects they are offered only a very restricted choice. Why is that deemed acceptable? Studies have shown that parents of children with profound disabilities lack confidence in their local authority’s ability to make suitable arrangements for their children. The two sides look at it from very different perspectives. Parents view the system as being obstr…
The last comparable Bill — the Conservative Government's Schools Bill — was abandoned. Had it had a purpose clause, perhaps the Government would have thought through what they were trying to achieve before it was hijacked. On the pathfinder evaluation: publish the results; if they show the reforms work, do them; if not, modify. That is not shameful — it is sensible.Nobody has spoken from these Benches because we did not expect to be talking in generalities. We welcome this very important Bill. As I listened to some important contributions, I found that those people who spoke about a particular issue, were short in their comments and stuck to the point made an incredibly valuable contribution. The more I listened, the more I thought that maybe there is a case for having a purpose clause where you set out where you are going. This is a large Bill, and the amendment paper is bigger than the Bill itself. That does not happen often. The last Bill was the famous Schools Bill from the previous Conservative Government. Had they had a purpose clause in that Schools Bill, maybe it would not have been abandoned in the way it was. Maybe they would have thought that they were going to be hijacked by the academy lobby, with the few minor changes that were suggested in that Bill, and the purpose would have been thought through. Had it not been abandoned, we would have already sorted and carried through many of the issues that we have grappled with over the past couple of years, such as unregistered schools, hundreds of thousands of children missing, home education et cetera. I was particularly taken by the comments about music from the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. I remind her that we have to thank a Conservative Government and Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who introduced the national curriculum, because before the national curriculum, schools could do whatever they liked. The only subject they had to teach was religious education. By having a national curriculum, we said nationally that we wanted our children to learn these subjects. My view now is that we should have a national curriculum, but that the national curriculum must leave space to do other things as well, and I think that is a common view. Going back to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, in which she talked about music, it is about not only the…
Amendment 1 is unnecessary and has been used to delay the detailed Committee work this stage is for. The Bill's purpose is already clear in its Explanatory Notes. The ambition running through the whole Bill is to make up for 14 lost years — to strengthen child safeguarding, ensure no young person slips out of sight of the agencies designed to advance their opportunities, and set a minimum floor on standards in every school. We will legislate for a single unique identifier, registers of children not in school, and new information-sharing duties — because keeping children safe requires that no child falls through the cracks.My Lords, I thank noble Lords, not only those who have contributed today but those who have already contributed to the discussions on this important Bill at Second Reading. In fact, people enjoyed Second Reading so much that they decided they would have another go today. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, accused me of wanting to dismiss any amendments. That is wholly wrong; I want to get on to discuss the detail of those amendments in this Committee, as is the function of this stage. On this occasion, I fear that Amendment 1 not only is unnecessary but has been tabled to delay our detailed consideration of the significant legislation before us. First, from a legal perspective, the proposed new clause would not have meaningful, practical effect. Secondly, on the point that many noble Lords have referred to about being clear about the purpose, intent and the outcome of this Bill, Ministers in the other place and at the Bill’s Second Reading in this place have been clear about the purpose of this critical legislation. I will use this as an opportunity to remind the Committee of what the Bill will achieve. This is a landmark Bill that will reform both children’s social care and education to ensure that, for all our children, background does not mean destiny and that at every stage of life, young people are supported to achieve and thrive. As is already outlined in the Bill’s policy summary notes, the Bill has seven key ambitions. Its Explanatory Notes set out what each measure in the Bill aims to achieve and how it will do so. There will rightly be ample time in Committee to discuss these in the detail they deserve, and to listen to concerns and issues that have been raised by noble Lords and others. I hope to provide assurance on those or, where necessary, change them. An ambition running through the whole Bill is to make up for lost time—14 years in fact—when action could have been taken to strengthen child safeguarding, to ensure that no young person slips out of sight of…
- It is curious that the Minister opened by questioning my integrity and calling this a delaying tactic. I raised extremely serious concerns — she does not have to believe me, but she should listen to those with the greatest expertise. The evaluation of the pathfinders was apparently due in spring 2025; it is now May and we are on special government time. I commit again to approaching this Bill in absolute good faith, and I hope the Government will adopt the constructive tone they have promised as we move into individual amendments.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this amendment. It feels curious that the Minister started her remarks by questioning my integrity in tabling the amendment, suggesting that it is a delaying tactic. I think I raised extremely serious concerns that are being put forward. She does not need to believe me, but I respectfully suggest that she should listen to those with the greatest expertise in this area. I said, and I commit to this again, that I will approach this Bill in absolute good faith and, particularly regarding Part 1, there should be nothing political in it. I hope we can build a bridge to make positive change in the Bill. I would also just like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that we did not in any sense intend to overturn any of the powers held by the Senedd. I am sure, if the purpose clause had intended to remove the devolution of education powers in Wales, that would have deserved at least one bullet point in the amendment. This debate was also a reminder of the expertise in this House. I would like to mention a few of the points that were made and invite the Government to think about drafting their own purpose clause if they do not like my drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, made a very important point about the need to focus on outcomes. If we do not know where we are going, we definitely will not get there. I know the Minister set out the aims, but very valid concerns were raised. My noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, echoed my concerns about the capacity to implement these changes at a time of significant other restructuring across local authorities—health and others. There were practical solutions with a real call for focus from the noble Lady, Baroness Cass, and she spoke of the important inclusion of public health in children’s well-being. There were also calls on where not to focus, including from my noble friend Lord Agnew. My noble friend Lord Lucas and others made the point about the helpfu…
- The Children Act 1989 statutory guidance already requires local authorities to consider a family group conference at pre-proceedings stage. Why does the Government think making it mandatory adds something, rather than, say, mandating other approaches? And why not extend the offer earlier — before the pre-proceedings letter — when the evidence suggests it is most effective?
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 2, 15, and 16, which concern the mandatory implementation of family group decision-making processes. While I broadly support the intention behind these provisions, there are several important issues which need to be considered carefully if we are to achieve the best outcomes for vulnerable children. First, I will place this proposal in context. As the Minister knows, most local authorities already implement some form of family group conferencing—in old language—or “decision-making” processes in the Bill. That is set out in the statutory guidance to the Children Act 1989, which says that, where there are court orders and in pre-proceedings, children’s services should consider making a referral for a family group conference “if they believe there is a possibility the child may not be able to remain with their parents … unless this would be a risk to the child”. I want to understand why the Government think this needs to be mandatory, perhaps rather than other approaches. Is there a specific problem that the Government want to solve by doing that?
By the time a local authority issues a pre-proceedings letter, concerns are already serious — the Family Rights Group, the British Association of Social Workers, and Coram all warn that intervention at that stage may already be too late. Some local authorities are successfully offering family group conferences earlier; the Bill should not foreclose that.My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. As we have just heard, it has a simple purpose: to allow families access to a family group decision-making meeting at the earliest possible opportunity in the child protection process. As I am sure noble Lords have seen, the Family Rights Group briefing, for instance, noted that, when a local authority issues parents with a pre-proceedings letter, concerns around a child’s welfare will already be serious and could mean that an intervention at this stage through a family group decision-making meeting is, unfortunately, already too late. The British Association of Social Workers and Coram have expressed similar worries that waiting could mean that opportunities to bring families together are lost, with difficulties having escalated too far to be addressed. I believe that research on the ground shows that family group conferences can be effective whenever the time is right for the family—in most cases, that may well be the sooner the better. Indeed, some local authorities are already successfully offering family group conferences earlier on in the child protection process. As my noble friend outlined in her opening remarks, having a family group decision meeting earlier on would allow the wider family to more fully understand the local authority’s initial concerns, and it could— I am not saying it would—allow them to demonstrate that they were able to protect the child concerned. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this proposal, which aims simply to ensure that families have the best possible chance of staying together if— I stress “if”—issues around a child’s welfare can be properly addressed at the earliest opportunity, or at the very least to ensure that the measures put into the Bill do not force this option to be totally closed off.
Hold the meeting as soon as possible — the sooner discussions are had and wider family identified, the better, and it may make a care application unnecessary altogether. But there must also be power to exclude a parent from the meeting where, for example, one party to a bitter divorce is using the child as an arena for attacks. And above all, the local authority must be able to proceed without the meeting if a participant is using it simply to cause delay — that protection is absolutely crucial.My Lords, I was a family judge for about 35 years, and I tried mostly care cases. I very much support this amendment and will make three points. First, I entirely agree with the previous speakers: hold the meeting as soon as possible, because it is unlikely that the decision to make a make an application for a care order or an interim care order comes at a very early stage. One hopes that the social workers would have been working with the family before this becomes inevitable. Consequently, the sooner the discussions can be had—and the other members of the family identified where possible—the better it will be, and it may not be necessary to have the care application before the magistrates’ court in any case. Secondly, not only is it important to have the meeting early but there must be a degree of ability for the local authority to deal with members of the family—because, not in every case but in some cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has said, there will be very unhappy divorce proceedings pending, whereby the parties will use the children as the arena for their attacks on each other. That is the typical sort of unhappy divorce case—fortunately not frequent, but one that occurs in care proceedings. Consequently, you may find that one or both of the parents should not at some stage be at the meeting. It is crucial that local authorities are warned, if they do not know already, and given at least, under statutory guidance, some help on how to deal with that issue—not in this Bill, of course, but in statutory guidance. The third absolutely crucial point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, made is not to let a particular parent or someone with parental responsibility have the opportunity to use the meeting to delay the proceedings that are necessary. Again, it is absolutely crucial that, if a member of the family is trying to delay the proceedings, the local authority can go ahead without having the meeting. That is the one point that worries me about sayi…
- We are all aiming in the same direction, but the drafting matters. The amendment says 'when a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings', which reads as after an application has been issued — by which point it may be too late. The Bill as drafted is clearer: it places the offer in the letter before proceedings. Family group conferences have three real benefits: they inform the wider family (who often do not know what is happening), they enable the social worker to assess the family's strengths and weaknesses, and they allow the court to consider relatives' ability to provide a secure environment if adoption ultimately looms.
My Lords, I, too, have laboured long in the family courts. I think that we are all basically aiming in the same direction, but the detail is important. Family group conferences or meetings, as described in this Bill and in the amendments, are a valuable process, often best used as the pre-proceeding stage rather than after a formal application has been issued. I cannot help wondering whether there is not some lack of clarity in the drafting, at least of the amendment. The Bill as I read it is clear enough; it says that the local authority must include the offer of such a meeting in a letter before proceedings. That is entirely desirable in my view, whereas the amendment says: “When a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings”, which to my mind reads as if it means “Once it has actually issued the formal application”. In some cases, that may be too late. I think that there is a mistake, possibly unintended, in the drafting of the amendment. The general thrust of what the noble Baroness said—that the meetings should be initiated as soon as possible—is clearly right. These meetings are valuable for three main reasons. First, they enable family members to be informed of what has happened and why the local authority has intervened, as well as to learn what is planned or may be planned for the child or children concerned. Quite often one finds in practice that the parents have not told the wider family what is happening, sometimes out of shame or pride, so that the first the wider family learns of the proceedings comes from the social worker—and that can come as a surprise or, indeed, a shock. Even if the family knows what is happening, a formal meeting enables it to get an accurate first-hand account that is not filtered by the parents. Secondly, conferences enable the social worker and guardian, if one has by then been appointed, to form an initial assessment of the strengths, weaknesses and attitudes of the wider family and the possible realistic optio…
- Please focus on the intent of what the opposition amendments are trying to do rather than the specific wording — we were not trying to change the spirit of the pre-proceedings timing in the Bill.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. It is a privilege to have the experience of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others around the House on this. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on our drafting, I feel I need to make a general plea for noble Lords to listen to the intent of what we are trying to do rather than focus on the specific wording. We were not intending to change the spirit of the Bill on pre- proceedings.
What happens where a court has previously made a special guardianship order that leaves biological parents with only the most limited parental responsibility — say, to be notified of a name change or departure from the jurisdiction? If the special guardian falls ill and care proceedings restart, would those parents suddenly be pulled back in under the mandatory duty and given an opportunity to cause the very delays the Bill is trying to prevent?I speak in support of this amendment and wish the Government to explore whether it is possible at an earlier stage for these meetings to be considered. My noble friend referred to the delay, with parents saying that there was going to be a meeting and not turning up to it. As I read the amendment, it includes “parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child”, who must be offered the meeting. There may be circumstances in which the court has previously made a special guardianship order that leaves the parents with only aspects of parental responsibility, which are to be told of a name change or to be told that the child will be leaving the jurisdiction. That is a very limited amount of parental responsibility. If for whatever reason—often due to illness of the special guardian—the risks rematerialise and you are back into care proceedings, is it envisaged that such parents, who may not have heard anything for a number of years because the child has not left the jurisdiction and not had their name changed, will be included in the mandatory duty to be offered to be part of this decision-making process? If that is the case, if the logic is correct, you are stacking the cards for the situation that my noble friend has mentioned where parents are suddenly back involved and then delay the meeting. How would this provision sit with an existing special guardianship order that has that effect on parental responsibility?
- The duty is deliberately placed at the pre-proceedings stage because that is where robust evidence shows it prevents children entering the care system. The £45 million Families First for Children pathfinder and the Family Network pilot aim to use family networks earlier and more widely, but the statutory duty sits here because it works. Local authorities may withdraw the offer if it is being used to cause delay — that is already in Clause 1. On under-twos: if the meeting is not in the child's best interests, the offer should not be made. On the 26-week limit: the duty applies before proceedings are issued, so it does not touch that limit at all. I will write to noble Lords on the special guardianship question.
Good. I mean that it is good that we are now into the detail of what it is that we are here to consider. I am very pleased at the support and welcome for the process of family group decision-making, which I know is behind all the amendments and contributions that have been made today. This measure places a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents, or any other person with parental responsibility for the child, before an application for a care or supervision order is made. This Government want to help more families to stay together by mandating the offer of a family group decision-making meeting for every family at the point before it is necessary to initiate care proceedings for a child. I very much appreciate the intentions of the amendments that have been tabled, which tally with the Government’s aim to maximise the impact of family group decision-making. But I hope, therefore, that I can reassure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary to achieve that. I know that the amendments seek to balance the provision of family group decision-making with the need to avoid delay to child arrangements proceedings or permanent arrangements. I think we have been supported in this consideration today by the considerable expertise of noble, and noble and learned, Lords, but we believe that this balance is already provided by the existing statutory frameworks and guidance. I agree very much with the noble Baroness that all family networks should have the chance to benefit from the transformative family group decision-making process at multiple points in their journeys with children’s services. I think the argument being used is that if this is as effective as it is, should families not have the opportunity to benefit at different stages? The Government wholeheartedly agree with that. Indeed, in relation to Amendment 2, the Working Together statutory safeguarding guidance makes this clear and sets out the activiti…
- Will the Minister write to me specifically on the special guardianship order scenario I raised — where parents retain only minimal parental responsibility — and how that interacts with the mandatory duty in Clause 1?
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I would be grateful if she would outline the response—maybe she needs to write to me—on the specific situation that I raised in relation to special guardianship orders. I recognise that there is a best-interest test, but, as the main clause of the Bill reads at the moment, parents with that limited parental responsibility are covered by the duty and it would be good to have some clarification.
- I cannot answer that today, but I undertake to write to noble Lords on that point.
I cannot answer that today, but I certainly undertake to write to noble Lords on that important point and that juxtaposition in relationship.
Extend the right to family group conferences to children, young people and young adults — most importantly so that 16 and 17 year-olds can contribute to and ultimately agree their own care plan. County Councils research projects nearly 100,000 children in care by the end of the decade, a 36% rise. The Family Rights Group is right: the Bill currently leaves it to the local authority's discretion whether to invite the child — that is unsatisfactory and not child-centred.My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in my name, which is cosigned by my noble friend Lord Effingham. The Bill states that “the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child”. In moving this amendment, I seek to extend the right to family group conferences to children, young people and young adults so that, most importantly, they can contribute to and ultimately agree their own care plan. The purpose is as simple as that. Why should they not be able to do this? I thank all the organisations that work tirelessly to support families, children and young people every day, including for their briefings on this important subject. I am only sorry that I cannot refer to them all. Research commissioned by County Councils stated that there would be nearly 100,000 children in care, representing a 36% rise in a decade. By including 16 and 17 year-olds in the family group conferencing, we may be able to reduce the number going into care —where it is safe to do so—and staying, with the support of their family or those with parental responsibility, reducing the trauma they may face and ensuring that their futures are not impaired. That is a laudable aim that I hope all noble Lords will support. I am grateful to the Family Rights Group for its briefing on the Bill, in particular on this issue. It said: “The Bill gives the local authority the discretion to decide if the child is invited to be involved in the FGDM process or not. This is unsatisfactory and does not make for a child-centred process. This approach differs to elsewhere in the child welfare system, for example looked-after children reviews, where there is a presumption in favour of the child taking part. The Bill should ensure children are invited to take part in their family-group decision-making meeting, if safe and consistent with their welfare to do so”. The British Association of Social Workers welcomes and supports…
All five of my amendments come from the evidence. The Foundations randomised control trial — the largest in the world, involving over 2,500 children across 21 local authorities — found that children referred to a family group conference at pre-proceedings stage were 36% likely to be in care 12 months later, versus 45% of those not referred. Only 59% of referred children had care proceedings issued, compared with 72% of non-referred children. Foundations estimates 2,293 fewer children would enter care each year if FGCs were rolled out nationally, saving taxpayers over £150 million within two years. Be brave: go all the way to mandating the full family group conference process, not merely a meeting.My Lords, I have five amendments in this group, all of which come from my knowledge and understanding of evidence-based work. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Foundations What Works Centre for Children and Families. I have been involved in this even longer than the noble Baroness opposite. My first job in this country was in 1970 in Newcastle, at what was then the first of the children’s departments after the Seebohm report. I had just qualified as a social worker specialising in family casework. You do not get anything like that these days. I was keenly aware that this country, in its legislation on children, responds to tragedies, and I have seen this all my working life. We do not start by asking what we need to give children the very best. We start from: “This child died in dire circumstances and we must make sure that it never happens again”. Of course, we have to do that, but we need legislation that starts by asking: what are the best ways to support families to enable their children to have the very best in life? We get things the wrong way round, so I am pleased that the Government are trying to start by asking what we mean by the well-being and best interests of children, and how we can start there, rather than just asking how we protect children. Protection is very important, but if we think about well-being first, many of them will not need a level of protection. My amendments all come from the work that Foundations has done on family group conferencing. I am delighted that the Government talk about family group decision-making in the Bill, but I want them to be brave and go to the next stage: the family group conference, which is now a well-established and researched evidence-based model. In 2023, Foundations completed a randomised control trial of family group conferences—the first in the UK and the largest in the world—which involved over 2,500 children and their families across 21 local authorities in England. The evaluation found that the c…
Family group decision-making is not a one-off meeting — it involves careful preparation, typically going well beyond a single sitting. The Bill currently provides only for the offer of a meeting; Amendment 7 would require the full process. Children who are supported to be involved may flag key people who are missing, or raise issues that need resolving before decisions are made about their future. Safety planning is delicate and must not be rushed.My Lords, as one of the many qualified teachers in your Lordships’ House, I will speak to Amendment 14 in the names of my noble friend Lady Tyler—who cannot be with us today—me and others. Before I do so, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, to this Committee. I know that as the Children’s Commissioner she was so very committed to all these issues, and I know she is supporting the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, today. I was involved with the legislation that set up the UK Children’s Commissioner in the first place and was involved in making sure that the commissioner “must” have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, not “may”, as was in the original version. That is relevant to what I will say about Amendment 14. The intention of Amendment 14 is very simple: to ensure that those making decisions affecting children and young people seek and take into account their wishes and feelings, if they wish to give them, and to support them to do so. I welcome the Government’s ambition to be a child-centred Government and support the important steps taken in the Bill to strengthen the systems intended to keep children safe, yet there is more that the Bill could do to be truly child-centred. Specifically, it currently fails to embed meaningful consideration of the child’s wishes and feelings. I would like to strengthen it, hence this amendment. As noble Lords will be aware, more than 30 years ago, in 1991, the UK ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In doing so, we recognised that children have a distinct set of rights that uniquely value all that it means to be a child. Article 12 of that convention sets out the right of every child to express their views freely and to have those views given due weight in all matters affecting them, including the family conferences we are talking about. They must be afforded that chance to express their views, wishes and feelings. The word “should” in Amendment 13 is not qu…
The risk is that a 'meeting' becomes box-ticking. What is needed is a process with experienced leadership, trained co-ordinators and a wider network beyond the immediate family — because our support networks extend beyond blood relations. The Leeds Relational Practice Centre estimates 90% of children are in care because of family adversity, not because families are inherently incapable. Make this a genuine process that families understand as part of the local authority system, not a whim of the director of children's services.I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong. I appreciate having this opportunity to discuss in more detail family group decision-making. I welcome the measures in the Bill that seek to offer families the chance to build solutions together that can secure their children’s welfare and give them agency. I am pleased that we are seeing support across the House for family group decision-making; that is a very positive start. My interest in supporting these amendments is about ensuring that the process is strong enough to drive and deliver the outcomes that we all want to see, so that children have better outcomes and more can safely stay with families. We have heard about that at length because of the evidence surrounding it. I declare an interest as the executive chair of the Centre for Young Lives; I also share an office building with foundations of which my noble friend Lady Armstrong is a trustee. My experience with this, and my relationship with those organisations, goes back decades. Over that time, I have been convinced of the benefits of family group conferencing, having spoken to and worked with professionals, families and children who have gone through that process. When I first found out about it, I did not approach it as a professional who knew about that area of practice. Instead, I spoke to family members who found themselves in a situation that was spiralling out of control; they did not feel that they had any agency to provide support for family members. They had come across family group conferencing as something that their local authority had already been testing, and through it they found themselves at the centre of shaping an outcome that was much more favourable to them and their siblings. With the amendments, we are looking at moving from a decision-making meeting that might fall foul of box-ticking tendencies, to a process that has strength and an understanding of the need for experienced leadership, trained co-ordinators and…
The Green Party strongly supports Amendment 14. Unlike the amendment limited to 16 and 17 year-olds, this is more expansive: it requires every effort to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings and give due weight to them — which is the right approach for any age.My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 14, already very ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I want to widen the political breadth of support for the family group decision-making process by strongly offering the Green Party’s support. Amendment 14 differs from the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which refers just to 16 and 17 year-olds. It is more expansive than the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, in that it stresses the need to make every effort to ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings and give due consideration to them. However, it is worth noting that all the amendments in this group and the associated amendments reflect, as others have said, briefings from the Children’s Charities Coalition and the Family Rights Group, which are saying, as other noble Lords have said, that the Government are going in the right direction but the Bill needs to be strengthened and made clearer, which is what this amendment and others seek to do. In backing this amendment, I am reflecting statements I have been making in your Lordships’ House and amendments I have been tabling and signing, going back a considerable distance to the Health and Social Care Act and the Mental Health Bill. They are about listening to children and ensuring they have agency. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the survey showing that almost three-quarters of children—some 73%—feel that they are not listened to by politicians. We know there is a mental health crisis, particularly among our young people. Psychologists tell us that, as is clear to us from a common-sense perspective, not having a sense of agency or feeling as if you have control or are being listened to is damaging to your mental health. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s report from 2023 raised concerns about the significant barriers to the meaningful engagement of children in decision-making in the UK, part…
- In 1988, I wrote that children should be listened to and that children are people, not objects of concern. Last year I spoke to a young person who had no idea what was happening to him until he was moved. Nobody took any notice. Support Amendments 3, 13, 14 and 18 — because every framework, every inquiry since the Cleveland Report has said the same thing: listen to the child.
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and to have the former Children’s Commissioner in this House. This is a good Bill but, like all Bills, it could be better. I support Amendments 3, 13, 14 and 18. In 1988, I wrote a report, having been chairman of the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. In my report, I said that children should be listened to. I also said that children were people and not objects of concern. I remember talking as recently as last year to a young person whom nobody had told what was happening to him. He had no idea until he was moved. This is very serious. It is not just that nobody took any notice of what I said; the fact is, everybody else has been saying it. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the voice of the child. The voice of the child is crucial at all stages of what happens to children.
Children's rights as the 'golden spine' running through the Bill — as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, put it during the first group — is not explicit anywhere in the Bill. Amendment 14 is a very good example of how we could embed that principle properly.My Lords, I will be very brief indeed. I just remind noble Lords that in considering the first amendment, which went on rather a long time, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is not in her place, talked about children’s rights being the “golden spine running through” the Bill, but that is not explicit in the Bill. Amendment 14, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is a very good example of how we could be promoting children’s rights much more explicitly in the Bill. I very much support the amendments. I will be introducing amendments myself at the very end—if anyone is still standing at that point. I had hoped to do it at the beginning. The more we can come back to this thread of children’s rights throughout the Bill, the better. I hope noble Lords will realise the importance of the amendments on children’s rights, which will be introduced at the end of the Bill.
As a kinship carer of twin 13-year-olds, I know that a badly handled family decision-making meeting can do more harm than good. The wrong timing, participants who do not understand the aims, or poor chairing can be damaging. Amendment 8 would require proper preparation and skilled facilitation — without that, the duty risks becoming a dangerous box-tick.My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 8, to which I have added my name. In this, I declare that I am one of the school of qualified teachers in this Chamber. I am also a kinship carer of twin 13-year-olds. This is a very small but important amendment. As we have heard, the Bill attaches great importance to family decision-making. I recently had a cup of tea with my noble friend Lord Laming to ask his advice about the Bill. Sadly, he is unable to take part, but if there is one person in the House who is an absolute expert in this field, it is he. His concern—which I share, having been in decision meetings that have gone wrong—is that a badly handled meeting can do more harm than good. The wrong timing of a meeting, the participants not realising the aims or bad chairing can lead to a breakdown of trust and irreparable harm being done to a child’s future. This amendment goes a long way to making sure that the importance of an FGDM meeting is acknowledged, with the fact that it can be facilitated only by an independent, suitably trained person, and I urge the Government to accept it.
Family group conferencing was born in New Zealand's Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 and is now used in 30 countries worldwide. Research shows children whose families were referred to an FGC at pre-proceedings stage were significantly less likely to be in care 12 months later. Families become key participants in decision-making rather than subjects of it.My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have co-signed. Family group conferencing was born out of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 in New Zealand, whereby families became key participants in a process of decision-making. Family group conferences are now used in approximately 30 countries worldwide and in at least 22 countries in Europe. Indeed, research has shown that children whose families were referred to a family group conferencing at the pre-proceedings stage were significantly less likely to be in care 12 months later than those whose families were not so referred. This should not be a surprise to your Lordships, as such preparation and discussions offer a compelling opportunity for families to come together and unite around important decisions for their child, which has the benefit of making that child feel loved and wanted, as well as the ability to address with professionals any glaring gaps in the child’s well-being. Amendment 3 is a simple amendment that seeks to extend the right to family group decision-making meetings to children aged 16 and 17. It is surely important that we allow children who are on the brink of adulthood to take part in decisions that could materially affect their lives. That would appear to be eminently sensible. At the age of 16, a child can agree to their own care plan, so by that very same logic it is fair and reasonable that they are involved in the family group decision-making process. This is a family-led process and is absolutely essential in keeping children with their families where possible. We should be avoiding at all costs children going into care; that should be the absolute last resort. So, allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to share their voice and their opinions would ensure that this process is as child-focused and effective as it can be. It is essential that family group decision-making is done right, and ensuring that older children ar…
- The voice and rights of the child must be at the heart of the Bill and of how it is implemented throughout children's social care. The Bill already requires local authorities to seek the child's views; I will consider whether the statutory guidance can go further. On the amendments seeking to extend the process to earlier stages: I want to be clear that the duty in Clause 1 is not a ceiling — local authorities are already encouraged to use family group decision-making at multiple points, and the Families First pathfinder develops that. The statutory duty sits at pre-proceedings because that is where the evidence shows it prevents the most children from entering care.
My Lords, perhaps I might say how both interesting and informative I found the contributions on this group of amendments. It is something to be in this House and be able to hear the experiences of those, like my noble friend Lady Armstrong, who has experience as a social worker and a long history of campaigning and policy-making in this area, my noble friend Lady Longfield, who, of course, was an important and impactful Children’s Commissioner, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who just gave us a small exposition of the enormous experience that she has in this area—and many others, as well, who have made important points.
- The Minister recognised the importance of the child's voice — but she did not mention children's rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Will she put on the record that the UNCRC is an important thread running through the Bill?
I very much welcome my noble friend’s recognition of the importance of the voice of the child, but the point was made from around the Committee that the principle derives from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. She did not mention children’s rights in the UN convention, so it would be reassuring if she put on the record that she acknowledges that this is an important thread that runs through many of the provisions in the Bill.
- The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is an important thread — but that does not make it a trump card on every future occasion. The rights and voice of the child must be at the heart of the Bill and of how it is implemented.
We recognise that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is an important thread, but that does not necessarily mean that it can be used as a trump card on every future occasion, which I am sure my noble friend would not choose to do. I think I clearly said that the rights and voice of the child have to be absolutely at the heart not only of the Bill but of the way in which it is implemented throughout children’s social care.
- Was the Minister responding to Amendment 17 rather than Amendment 19? Amendment 19 is about not dropping a child protection plan for a child under five who is already on one when they go into care proceedings — not about assumptions on kinship care.
I just wonder whether the Minister was referring to my Amendment 17, rather than my Amendment 19, in her response. She talked about not making an assumption that a child would need a child protection plan if they were going into kinship care, which is linked more to Amendment 17. Amendment 19 is about the plan not being dropped for a child under five who is already on a child protection plan and goes into care proceedings. I am very happy for her to pick that up in another group, if we are allowed, but I wonder whether there has been some confusion.
- I did address Amendment 19 — on discharging a child protection plan — and I am confident the current system and the strengthened multiagency child protection framework are robust. If that has not sufficiently reassured you, I am willing to write.
It may be that in part of my response I pre-empted the point that the noble Baroness is making in Amendment 17, but I did recognise the point about Amendment 19, which I think the noble Baroness made, about the process in place to discharge that particular child protection plan. On that, I outlined that we are confident that the current system and the strengthened focus on multiagency child protection are robust and that there is sufficient accountability around discharging child protection plans. If I have not sufficiently reassured the noble Baroness about that, I am willing to write to clarify the points I was trying to make on that amendment.
- The Minister's reply was encouraging and the spirit in the room has calmed. I did not quite get what I wanted, so I reserve the right to return to this on Report — but I hope the dialogue continues.
I thank the Minister for her reply, which was very encouraging, as especially was the spirit in which the debate happened. Things seem to have calmed somewhat. I did not quite get what I wanted, so I will reserve the right to think about it for Report, but I hope we can keep the dialogue going. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.