Committee stage in the Lords
Lords Committee debated three groups of amendments to Clause 1 and Clause 2, probing the scope of family group decision-making and the inclusion of education and childcare agencies as safeguarding partners.
B(These amendments push for a more ambitious use of family group decision-making. Amendment 4 would extend it to private law cases — two-thirds of Cafcass cases are private law, and the tragic reality is that some child deaths have followed family proceedings rather than public law ones. Amendment 6 would plug the gap at reunification: 27% of children leaving care return home, but 12% re-enter within three months and over a third within six years — the support simply isn't there. Amendment 17 would give the local authority a continuing safeguarding role after a child moves into kinship care — a kinship protection plan rather than a full child protection plan — to hold oversight while the new arrangements bed in without being a heavy hand of the state.My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 4, 6 and 17, which are in my name. They present a more ambitious use of family group decision-making processes. I am keen to understand whether the Government have considered these at all and, if so, why on balance they were excluded from the Bill. If they have not considered them, perhaps there is room to reconsider. For many children, being able to live with another family member, even if they still require support, is a better outcome that going into stranger foster care or a children’s home. This group aims to test the Government’s appetite to expand the scope of family group decision-making further. Amendment 4 would extend family group decision-making process to private law cases, which is something the noble Lord, Lord Meston, questioned in his earlier remarks. I think the Minister will be aware that this was raised as a recommendation in evidence in the Public Bill Committee in the other place by the chief executive of Cafcass. Two-thirds of Cafcass cases are private law proceedings. The Minister knows just how acrimonious these can be; indeed, we heard about that from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. That includes, of course, cases of domestic violence and abuse. My amendment would move these cases into scope. I understand that this would extend the scope of family group decision-making significantly and there are resourcing implications, but I would like to understand the Government’s logic in using this approach with some cases with material safeguarding concerns but not others that share many of the same characteristics about the risks posed to children. We know that, tragically, a number of child deaths have happened after family proceedings rather than proceedings in public law or child protection. I have not put down a specific amendment on this point, but, in a similar spirit, I wondered what consideration the Government have given to a situation where a Section 7 welfare report is requested by t…
Unusually, I entirely disagree with Amendment 4 — it is not just overambitious, it is plainly wrong. Private law cases already have the Pathfinder system, started by Alex Chalk and the President of the Family Division, which brings together the local authority, Cafcass, police and health at the outset. In the majority of cases, a family judge resolves matters within two hours. Mandating a family group meeting on top of that would be unnecessary and could be dangerous.My Lords, unusually, I entirely disagree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has put forward by way of an amendment. It is not just overambitious—in my view, it is plainly wrong, for two reasons. Although there is—thank goodness—a minority of almost insoluble family cases, there are other ways in which to deal with mediation. Some of the work, although not all of them do, and I do not think that a local authority should interfere in private law cases. Perhaps more importantly, there is a brilliant system started by the then Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, and the present President of the Family Division; I think it is called Pathfinder, but I am not entirely sure. It has been rolled out in four places. When a family starts contentious divorce proceedings, all those involved with the family—the local authority specifically, Cafcass, the police, local health people and anybody else who may be involved with the family—meet to decide whether it is a domestic abuse case, in which case it goes through a longer channel, or a case in which the parties are behaving properly but cannot agree. In the majority of cases, as the President of the Family Division has told me—he also gave evidence to one of the Select Committees in the House of Commons on this, perhaps the Home Affairs Committee—he or other family judges get rid of the case within two hours; they are completed. It would be unnecessary and unsuitable to have a family meeting of the sort proposed. There are real dangers to it in the other cases, particularly since there are other systems. So unusually, as I very often agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on this occasion I think that she is wrong and very much hope that the Government take no notice of her amendment.
I support Amendment 6. There is currently no strategy for supporting reunifying families, and 78% of local authorities admit their support is inadequate. Action for Children estimates that providing family group decision-making for all reunifying families would cost far less than the £320 million a year that breakdown currently costs — potential savings of £250 million. This is broadly supported by professionals, is in children's best interests, and saves money that can be recycled into the system.My Lords, I, instead, speak in support of Amendment 6. As we have heard, reunification is the most common way for children to leave care but, sadly, the number of children who re-enter the system remains far too high, as many reunifications break down due to lack of support. There is currently no strategy by which to support reunifying families, and 78% of local authorities admit that the support that they provide is inadequate. A breakdown in reunification not only is tragic for the children and families involved but costs the Government around £320 million annually. Action for Children estimates that the cost of providing family decision-making support to meet the costs of all reunifying families across England would result in significant cost savings of a potential £250 million. On the basis that this is accepted and viewed as a positive step among professionals, should be in the best interests of care for children leaving school and, finally, has the potential to provide cost savings to the Government, which could be recycled into the system, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on including in the Bill a duty to offer family group decision-making during reunification.
Will the Minister give some guidance? When Lady Butler-Sloss — probably our greatest expert in the Chamber — says something is wrong, I am very inclined to listen. But this was a reasonable discussion, and it would be good to hear where the Government stand.My Lords, this was a very reasonable sounding amendment, then the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, took a sledgehammer to it. Will the Minister give us a little guidance on the Government’s thinking on this? When people with experience on both sides are talking it is best that we hear the whole thing, but I will be very interested in what the Government say because if the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—probably our biggest expert in the Chamber—says there is something wrong, I would be very inclined to listen to her. But, as I said, it was a reasonable sounding discussion that brought it forward.
Amendment 4 is unrealistic and unnecessary for private law cases. Many private law disputes involve manageable contact disagreements that cannot justify a full family group meeting. Cafcass is already involved from the outset, there is a safeguarding report, a Section 7 report if needed, and a dispute resolution hearing where the judge applies real pressure — and the wider family is already brought in. It just doesn't need a formal meeting.My Lords, I have already expressed my views on Amendment 4, but I think I need to emphasise, particularly as my noble and learned friend has just made the same point, that I think it is unrealistic and unnecessary for private law cases. Many disputes resolved in private law cases are minor and concern perfectly manageable—I will not say “trivial”—problems over contact arrangements and so forth. That cannot justify a family group meeting. In any event, as my noble and learned friend has said, the existing mechanisms are already well tuned to dealing with disputes. Cafcass gets involved at an early stage; there is what is called a safeguarding report; and if the dispute does not go away, Cafcass produces a Section 7 report. Along the way, there is a dispute resolution hearing in front of the judge, and noble Lords can take it from me that the judge applies a fair amount of pressure to resolve the matter and to explore the realities of settling the case, which quite often involves exploring what can be done with the wider family. Of course, the wider family may have the time and the resources that the parents lack and help sort it out, but it does not really need a meeting; it just needs someone getting the parties in a room in the court with the Cafcass officer to sort out the practical realities of where things are going. I wish to emphasise that I do not think that Amendment 4 will assist.
It is a tribute to family group decision-making that so many want to extend it further. On Amendment 4: private law cases already have strong requirements — anyone making a private family law application must attend a mediation information and assessment meeting, and the Government fund the family mediation voucher scheme which has helped nearly 40,000 separating parents. The Pathfinder approach goes further still. I am not convinced that mandating a family group decision-making meeting on top of that is appropriate. On reunification and Amendment 17, I hear the intent, but I hope noble Lords are reassured that other routes of support already exist.I recognise that the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is to test the extent to which family group decision-making can be used in other circumstances. I think it is a tribute to the significance and efficacy of family group decision-making that people are so keen to test where else it can be used in the process. I will respond to the two examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has identified and then address Amendment 17. As we have heard, Amendment 4 would extend family group decision-making and, I have to say, was ably opposed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I appreciate the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in seeking to ensure that as many families as possible are offered the opportunity of family group decision-making, including those outside of public law proceedings. The Government recognise the importance of supporting families in private law proceedings. We want to help families resolve their issues quickly and without coming to court. That is why there are already requirements and processes—one of which the noble and learned Baroness talked about—that support families at this point. There is already a requirement, for example, that anyone wishing to make a private family law application must attend a mediation information and assessment meeting to discuss options to resolve their issue outside court, through mediation or other means. The Government also fund the family mediation voucher scheme, providing families £500 towards the cost of mediation. This scheme has helped nearly 40,000 separating parents. The noble and learned Baroness talked about other alternatives as well. On the Section 7 welfare report, the explanation was ably given by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but my understanding is that, as a welfare report, it can be requested by the court in any family proceedings where there are concerns about the welfare of a child. It is mostly done in private court procee…
- The Cafcass chief executive gave oral evidence that 140,000 children go through private law proceedings annually, and the Bill is simply silent on them — that is a real concern which may need to be addressed differently. On reunification, this is a small, discrete group and the cost of support has been worked out; without a mandate, in a world of tight resources, it simply risks not happening. On Amendment 17: local authorities are genuinely struggling to strike the right balance between keeping eyes on a child in kinship care and not being the heavy hand of the state — I hope the Minister will reflect on that further.
I thank all noble Lords for their comments on this group. Obviously, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have day-to-day experience of this area. This amendment was raised in Committee in the other place, and I will read briefly from the oral evidence given by the chief executive of Cafcass: “We see 140,000 children through proceedings every year. The Bill tends to focus on those who are in public law proceedings. Two thirds of the children we work with are in private law proceedings, where there are family disputes about who children spend their time with and where they live. Very often, those children are in families where conflict is very intense. There are risks to them; there is domestic abuse. The Bill is silent on children in private law proceedings, and I think there is an opportunity for that to be different”. This is a real concern. Maybe there are different ways of approaching it, but the concern about harm to a minority of children in private law proceedings is a valid one. On Amendment 6, my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park put it extremely well when she said that this is a relatively small and discrete group. The work has been done on what it would cost to offer this. I hear what the Minister said, and I probably often said similar things when I was on the other side of the House. However, the fact that it is not mandated in a world where resources are understandably tight risks it not happening. If we really are going to focus on such things in the Bill, this is a small group, and this amendment could make a real difference to the stability of their return home. I hope the Minister might think on it a little bit more. To be clear about Amendment 17, we were not assuming that the local authority would need to have a child protection plan for a child in kinship care, but, again, in real life we hear that it is difficult for the local authority to get right the balance between keeping eyes on the child…
Amendment 5 is about making sure family group decision-making is implemented effectively. The LGA's written evidence to the Bill Committee says guidance should make clear the elements of the model that make it work. The Family Rights Group — which has extensive evaluation and evidence behind it — is clear that meetings need an independent co-ordinator with proper training, private family time, and no ambiguity about the local authority's role. Can the Minister reassure the Committee about how cases involving domestic abuse will be handled, since there is real potential for coercion of adult victims and other family members?My Lords, I am delighted to speak to Amendment 5 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who has considerable experience in this subject. It is similar in purpose to Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 11, and we need to follow key principles to make sure that the family group decision-making model is implemented effectively. The LGA said in its written evidence to the Bill Committee in the other place: “It would be helpful to make clear in guidance the elements of the model that make it particularly effective so that these can be built on locally”. As we have heard from other noble Lords, the Family Rights Group is very experienced in this area, and there is considerable evaluation and evidence which needs to be followed, so that the meetings are seen as safe and trusted by families and do not inadvertently become seen as heavy-handed state intervention. I would be grateful if the Minister reassured the Committee about how cases involving domestic abuse will be handled, since there is clearly the potential for coercion of the adult victim and other family members. The other issues have been picked up by the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Longfield, such as the importance of having an independent co-ordinator who receives proper training. We should not underestimate how skilful a job this is. The Family Rights Group has been clear that there needs to be private family time, and the meetings must avoid introducing any ambiguity into the local authority role. They need clarity to help families make decisions to provide care and support. We look forward to the contributions from all noble Lords. I beg to move.
Family group decision-making co-ordinators must be independent, trained and experienced — that is the point of Amendment 5. Eileen Munro warned yesterday against shifting child protection responsibility to less-qualified workers who are not trained to detect hidden abuse such as psychological harm or coercive control. The Shannon Matthews case illustrates why kin altruism cannot be assumed: family networks can be highly complex, with loyalties and dynamics that professionals need real skill to navigate. A co-ordinator who cannot spot signs of coercive control is a last line of defence that may fail the most vulnerable children.My Lords, I added my name to this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran because I am also deeply concerned that children benefit from the right level of expertise in the family group decision-making process. I have already mentioned Eileen Munro’s commentary on the Government’s reforms in the Times yesterday, where she warns against the shifting “of child protection responsibilities to less-qualified family help workers. Although they offer support, many are not trained to detect hidden abuse such as psychological harm or coercive control. Supervision by overstretched social workers is no substitute for expertise, especially with workforce shortages and rising caseloads”. These comments, although focused on a different part of the child safeguarding system, also seem highly relevant here. Bringing together family members and others who are important in the life of a child means engaging with a family system that can be highly complex. Many here will remember the case of Shannon Matthews from West Yorkshire, a few months after the huge publicity following the tragic disappearance of Madeleine McCann. In February 2008, nine year-old Shannon was reported missing. She was eventually found in a house belonging to an uncle of the boyfriend of the kidnapped girl’s mother. The kidnapping was planned by Shannon’s mother and her boyfriend to generate money from the publicity and the sizeable reward, which her mother planned to split with the uncle when he “found” Shannon and took her to a police station. Perhaps noble Lords are already very confused about these family arrangements, and there is no doubt that the protagonists at the centre of this case were highly unusual. I am not sure whether Shannon’s mother would have been offered a family group conference, not least because of the involvement of other family members in the crime. When the police initially investigated Shannon’s disappearance, they had to look first at the extended family. What they found wa…
- Amendment 5 is sensible — it ensures families have access to a family group decision-making meeting underpinned by strong evidence, without being overly prescriptive. The Family Rights Group is already seeing local authorities claiming to use 'family-led decision making' to describe meetings led by professionals with minimal family involvement. Scotland is the warning: ten years after enacting legislation without being specific enough, a third of Scottish local authorities still have no actual offer. None of us wants to see that here.
My Lords, I support Amendment 5 in the names of my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Farmer. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a sensible amendment aimed at ensuring that all families who need it have access to a family group decision-making meeting that is underpinned by strong evidence that it works, without being overly prescriptive. Family group decision-making is a broad, generic term without clear principles and standards about what families can expect, and there is concern among charities and organisations supporting vulnerable children on the ground that approaches unsupported by evidence may proliferate at a local level as a result of the current drafting of the Bill. In its briefing on the Bill, the Family Rights Group says that it is “already seeing evidence of local authorities claiming to use such approaches, including reference to ‘family-led decision making’ to describe meetings which are led by professionals and where family involvement is minimal”. It also points to the experience of Scotland, where a failure to be more specific and clearer in legislation about what FGDM should be offered has resulted, 10 years after it was enacted, in a third of local authorities still having no actual offer. Obviously, none of us wants to see that, and it is clearly not the intention of the Government in bringing forward this new duty on local authorities.
On these Benches we strongly believe there must be an independent, suitably trained co-ordinator — that is non-negotiable. If the amendment passes, transitional arrangements may be needed to train people up. It slightly jars with me that one party believes unqualified teachers can teach but insists here on a suitably trained facilitator — though I agree with that position on this one.My Lords, on these Benches we very much believe that there should be an independent and suitably trained person; that is really important to us. We also appreciate that if this amendment were agreed—I do not know the timescale of training people up—there might have to be some transitional arrangements. It slightly jars with me that the party adjacent to me does not necessarily believe that teachers should be fully qualified—you can have unqualified teachers—but on this issue it wants a suitably trained person. In any situation where young people are involved, it is important that the person who is training or teaching is qualified and has the right skills.
The emphasis on evidence-based practice in Amendment 5 is critical. Scotland has had this for nearly ten years — we have a tremendous opportunity to learn from both their successes and failures. How much contact has the Minister had with Scottish colleagues, and what has been drawn from that experience for this Bill?My Lords, I support this amendment. Clearly, the family decision-making groups are extremely important, and we are discovering them rather late in the day. I could have said this on any of the other amendments involving family groups, but this one particularly caught my eye because of the emphasis on an evidence-based approach. The Scottish Government have had this for nearly 10 years, which gives us a tremendous opportunity to learn from the successes and failures they have experienced over that time. How much contact has the Minister had with her Scottish colleagues to learn from the best and the worst, and what has she taken from that to put into this Bill?
- We agree that family group decision-making should follow an evidence-based approach and be co-ordinated by trained facilitators — and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has identified a small discrepancy in the position of those opposite. The LGA is right that guidance should be clear about the evidence-based model, and that is exactly what we will do: statutory guidance will set out clear principles of practice building on models such as family group conferencing, including requirements for trained facilitators. On independent co-ordination, in the vast majority of cases it is right — but there may be circumstances where a family wants the process run by a trusted social worker. On private family time, domestic abuse considerations mean it would not always be appropriate to leave the family entirely alone. We are not taking a laissez-faire approach: we want the right evidence-based flowers to bloom, not a thousand. The Government have also committed to a £13 million uplift to the children's social care prevention grant for 2025-26 to support rollout, including recruiting and training facilitators.
The fifth group we are debating comprises only one amendment, but we have had some useful contributions. However, quite a few of the arguments that I would make in response to this group were those that I made earlier in response to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong on the need for evidence-based practice and on the use of proven approaches such as that of family group conferencing. I will repeat some of the points I made and respond to some of the particular issues that have arisen. On the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, I do not know the extent to which we have reviewed the experience in Scotland, but as we discussed earlier, we have looked extremely carefully at the research carried out by Foundations that we talked about earlier and the recommendations and approach that it brought forward. I agree with the intention behind this amendment that we should ensure that family group decision-making follows an evidence-based approach and is co-ordinated by trained facilitators. That is very important, and I liked the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on this point about qualifications, and in this particular context he has identified a little discrepancy in the position of some noble Lords opposite. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, refers to the LGA saying that it thought that we should make it clear in guidance what that evidenced-based approach is. I wholly agree with him and the LGA, and that is why we will use statutory guidance to set out clear principles of practice, building on the evidence from successful models, such as the family group conference approach, to ensure that all families are offered quality family group decision-making. That includes people being trained to do it. On the point about independent co-ordination, I made the point earlier that while I think that in the vast majority of cases it is right that there is independent facilitation, there might be circumstances where the family want the proc…
- Lord Farmer is right that this is a key last line of defence — and it is genuinely regrettable that no system catches everything. The evidence from Scotland, as raised by Baroness Evans and Lord Agnew, is clear: execution is critical and an evidence-based approach is not optional. We would do well to take the positives and learn from the negatives of the past ten years. On that basis, I withdraw the amendment.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It is important for all these children that we do everything we can to make sure that these processes can be implemented successfully, and ensuring that an evidence-based approach is followed is a key part of this. I briefly flag in particular the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who said that this is a key last line of defence. It is extremely regrettable that we cannot fix all the problems—there will be issues that get through the net—and that is exactly why we need a key last line of defence to help with those problems. I will also briefly flag the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. They absolutely correctly pointed out that the evidence from Scotland is that the execution of the plan is critical, and an evidence-based approach is crucial. We would be well advised to learn from the experience of what has been taking place over the past 10 years and, I hope, take all the positives and learn from the negatives. On that basis, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran.
Amendments 20, 24 and 25 seek to make education the fourth statutory safeguarding partner. Education settings — from early years to FE colleges, but especially primary and secondary schools — play a vital safeguarding role. The Children Act 1989 Section 7 welfare report, the Independent Review of Children's Social Care, the reviews into the deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson, and the Jay review of criminally exploited children have all called for it. In the DfE's consultation, 69% of 978 respondents agreed or strongly agreed that education being a statutory safeguarding partner was essential. The Bill gives us the legislative change needed — please look at the intent rather than the drafting.My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 24 in my name, for which I am indebted to Action for Children and the Children’s Charities Coalition for their support, and to the more technical Amendments 20 and 25; I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bichard for drafting them with the Public Bill Office, while I sat there looking rather bewildered. Unfortunately, he has had to catch the last home to Gloucester, so he cannot be here. Education settings can and often do play a vital role in safeguarding. This applies from early years to FE colleges, but is particularly important in primary and secondary schools. Including education as the fourth statutory safeguarding partner has been called for repeatedly in recent years, including by the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care and the 2022 reviews into the deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson. The question of education’s role in safeguarding was part of the consultation for the latest version of Working Together, the Government’s response to which was published in December 2023. There was very strong support across the children’s sector for this being implemented. The DfE response noted that, of 978 respondents, 69% agreed or strongly agreed that education being a statutory safeguarding partner was essential for effective local collaboration. However, the DfE noted at the time that any formalisation of education’s role through statutory guidance could happen only following legislative change. The Government committed in early 2024 to setting out a timetable for doing this, including a specific consultation on whether and how to make it work, but it was derailed by the election. Education playing a full role as a safeguarding partner is a long-standing policy goal for many children’s charities. It was a key recommendation in the Jay review of criminally exploited children, published by Action for Children in 2024, as it was a strong theme in both the oral and written evidence submitted to the review. I…
Schools and colleges know children best — they see them every day, notice when things are tough at home, and will often provide family support including food banks and breakfasts. Pastoral teams, youth workers and family support workers all have specialist knowledge. During the pandemic, schools came to the forefront of community safeguarding and were recognised as a protective factor particularly for children who were not in school. They have vital information to identify safeguarding needs and must be consistently involved.I support the amendment and will not add more to the case put forward by Action for Children, although I am grateful for its input and for that of my team at Centre for Young Lives. Schools and colleges are the public bodies and the people who often know children and young people best. They can see most children every day, and they will see where there are changes to children’s lives; they will know when things are tough at home; and many will intervene to do what they can about that. They will often provide family support: increasingly, food banks, sometimes laundries and, increasingly and very relevant to this Bill, breakfasts. Schools and colleges will actively assess children’s well-being and regularly refer children for mental health support. They will know when children are not in school and when they are of concern. They also know the local context and any concerns locally around exploitation, drugs, county lines and the like. The pastoral teams in schools are the eyes and ears, as are youth workers and family support workers: they will all have specialist knowledge about those children and young people. We saw that, in particular, during the pandemic, when schools came to the forefront in community support and safeguarding and were recognised for their protective factor, especially for those children who were not in school. They have vital information to identify safeguarding needs and will often be very involved in supporting children and young people to keep them safe when necessary.
- Amendments 21, 22 and 23 are probing amendments on the role of family hubs in safeguarding arrangements. Family hubs support families as the primary means by which children are safeguarded — this can be easily forgotten when we focus on formal statutory partners. Family support staff, perinatal clinicians, mental health professionals and mediators in a hub can all spot problems early. When social workers begin to see progress, it is vital families are stepped back into family help rather than left to flounder. The Isle of Wight pioneered this: early intervention hubs kept families stable while they waited for social services assessments, and prevented many from ever reaching the threshold of need.
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Amendments, 21, 22 and 23. First, because these three amendments are explicitly focused on family hubs, I declare my interest as a guarantor of FHN Holding, the not-for-profit owner of the Family Hubs Network Ltd. These amendments are probing because, as I have said previously today, I am interested in hearing how committed this Government are to local preventive family support in every community. More importantly, dedicated teams in local authorities and their partnership organisations up and down the country also need to know what they can expect. Including this infrastructure in safeguarding arrangements makes complete sense because, as I said in my explanatory statement, family hubs support families as the primary means by which children are safeguarded. This can easily be forgotten when we talk about who has responsibility to keep children safe. This is also important in the wider discussion of the Government’s social care reforms: how do the Government see the role of family hubs in the landscape of the more preventive, early-intervention approach which I support? Families need to experience non-stigmatising and seamless support. Family support staff, perinatal clinicians, mental health professionals, even mediators around the time of couple separation: any professional based in the hub can spot problems early that might need bringing to the attention of social services. This is presumably how schools and childcare agencies will function in their safeguarding arrangements. Families’ engagement with social workers, even in quite complex interventions, can take place in family hubs or in the wider family support network of buildings and organisations connected to those hubs. When social workers begin to see progress in these families, it is vital that there is ongoing support and lower-level input, including from volunteers in the community, and that they are not just left to flounder. Active prevention of cycles repeating t…
- Family hubs have genuinely transformed family law and family practice — increasingly widespread, they offer integrated support across a range of services. I support Lord Farmer's amendments. One technical note: a hub is a place, not a person. If Amendment 21 were accepted, legislation would need to clarify who exactly bears the legal responsibility on behalf of the hub.
My Lords, we should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, in his promotion of family hubs. They are places where families can be offered a range of services and integrated support and information. In my assessment, they have transformed the picture of family law and family practice. They are increasingly widespread and have an important role in the modern functioning of childcare. To that extent, I support the noble Lord’s amendments. I have a boring technical legal point. A hub is a place, not a person, which uses volunteers and community workers, as well as professionals. If the noble Lord’s Amendment 21 were to be accepted, we would need some clarity on who exactly, under the legislation, would have responsibility on behalf of the hub.
- Amendment 26 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament two years after implementation on the costs and burdens on education and childcare agencies from their new duties under Clause 2 — and whether the case is made for full statutory partner status. The Government's impact assessment is studiously vague about those costs, which feels close to naive. Amendments 27 and 28 probe how this will work in practice: who is the single point of contact in the local authority and in the education sector? Can LADOs handle this? Are they expected to contact every organisation directly? And — given there is no mention of special schools in the policy summary — can the Minister explain why?
My Lords, before addressing the amendments in my name in this group, I echo the appreciation expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for my noble friend Lord Farmer’s tireless work on family hubs. It is fantastic to hear that they are making a real difference on the ground. My Amendment 26 seeks to find a way through the difficulty in the degree of statutory involvement—the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is not going to like my language—of education and childcare agencies in safeguarding. It requires the Secretary of State to produce a report to Parliament two years after the implementation of the clause which sets out the impact on the resources and costs for education and childcare agencies from their new duties. It could look more widely at the impact on safeguarding and whether there is a need to follow the recommendations of many of the children’s charities and the Children’s Commissioner in making it a full statutory safeguarding partner. Page 34 of the Government’s impact assessment is studiously vague. It talks about “possible costs and time implications on LAs to set up new infrastructure” and “time implications on some education leaders to engage with systems that they may not have previously been involved in”. I am not sure how these impact assessments get written, but this feels like it is bordering on the naive. Of course, there will be direct costs for schools and childcare agencies, in both time and money, and we need to understand the extent of them. My amendment seeks to achieve this. We need to know what this approach will mean in practice for education and childcare agencies, which already have considerable safeguarding duties. Presumably, they will need to put in additional processes and checks; if this is just making the status quo statutory, I do not really understand why it is necessary. Perhaps the Minister could explain in her closing remarks. My Amendments 27 and 28 are probing amendments, again trying to find out the Government’s thinking on h…
The intent behind Clause 2 is right, but there are real reasons why this hasn't been done before. In a typical local authority, there are 400 to 500 schools and nurseries — this goes beyond anything that can be called a 'partnership'. The statutory documents every provider must work with already grow bigger every year; many are close to the limit of complexity they can manage. Most schools that fall down on safeguarding at inspection are small standalone primaries or special schools. Adding safeguarding partnership responsibilities — and later corporate parenting duties — risks being the straw that breaks the camel's back, and may blur who bears the primary responsibility in any given situation. Maximum simplicity and clarity is where the greatest value lies.My Lords, I support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran. These proposals are clearly well intentioned but there are reasons why this has not been done before, and her desire to explore how these amendments are intended to work is absolutely right. Just to put it in context, in a typical local authority, there are 400 or 500 schools and nurseries. This goes beyond anything that can reasonably be characterised as a “partnership”. So, how will it work? How much capacity will it absorb in each of those? What will it add? The core documents that all these providers must work with in keeping children safe in education and working together, get bigger and bigger each year. Many schools and childcare providers are close to the limit of complexity that they can manage. I should have declared an interest at the outset, as a former chief inspector of Ofsted. Most schools that fall down on safeguarding at inspection are small—typically primaries, often standalone primaries, and special schools. The vast majority take safeguarding seriously but some are struggling with the complexity. We need to be very sure about layering on safeguarding partnership responsibilities and, later in the Bill, corporate parenting duties, on top of all the existing duties. It may not add anything to safeguarding and, in some cases, could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and drives good staff out, or forces early years providers to close. Generally, layers of duties that make everyone responsible tend to blur who has the primary responsibility in any given situation. There will be the greatest value in these provisions if they work to achieve maximum simplicity and clarity, so that they are workable in the hands of normal, well-intentioned people.
- Bringing education into safeguarding arrangements is a logical step — schools see young people outside the family and very regularly. Family hubs are good things, reminiscent of Sure Start. The technical questions raised by Baroness Barran — who knows her way around this department — deserve real technical answers, because the answers will colour the rest of this debate.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has done us a favour by bringing the education organisation into this. It has the most contact, and it is a logical point. I cannot fault him on that. I also had a great deal of fellow feeling when he described his experience of watching the appropriate amendment being concocted. The idea of sitting there looking puppy-like and saying, “Please, this is what I’m trying to say. Will you help?” is something I think we can all empathise with at some point in the Bill. It sounds eminently sensible that, where you are seeing a young person outside the family and very regularly, that fits the logic and the approach here. As for family hubs, yes, they are good things—they remind me a bit of Sure Start but, hey, that is history. If we are going through the other technical amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—who, let us face it, we all know knows her way around the system and the department—it would be interesting to see the technical answers to those, because it will definitely colour the way this discussion takes place in later stages.
- We can all agree education and childcare settings should be consistently involved in multiagency safeguarding — and that is exactly what Clause 2 does. The evidence shows that where schools are properly included, communication improves, information sharing improves, and there are more opportunities to influence strategic safeguarding decisions. On the Clause 2 stand part debate: making education a statutory safeguarding partner in the way Amendment 24 proposes faces a structural problem — there is no organisation that can take on the equivalent duties, commit funding for all settings, or represent all settings' views. On Amendments 26–28: I will write to noble Lords with examples of how we expect the arrangements to work in practice. The LADO role is not appropriate as a single point of contact for general safeguarding responsibilities under this clause — it exists specifically for allegations against people who work with children. Yearly local safeguarding partnership reports, scrutinised by an independent person, will give the Secretary of State oversight of how education is being included.
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after such knowledgeable contributions from all noble Lords. It is fair to say that all the amendments in this group are wrestling with the same issues, which have been raised by the Children’s Commissioner and by the independent review into child social care, led by the honourable member for Whitehaven and Workington. We want to include education and childcare agencies in safeguarding arrangements. Indeed, schools already play a huge part in this area and make a significant percentage of safeguarding referrals where they have concerns about a child. But in practice it is hard, because of the number of organisations and their differing size and capacity. We have heard from all sides on this, with many calling for full statutory partner status for education and childcare—such as in Amendment 24 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield—while others are worried about workability. We fear that we may err on the side of caution regarding how full statutory partner status could work in practice, although we will of course reflect on the points made by all noble Lords. We support the aims of Amendments 21 to 23 from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who has such a depth of experience and understanding of these areas in general and of family hubs in particular. Amendments 20 and 25, from the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bichard, aspire to have an inclusive and non-bureaucratic approach to these arrangements. Naturally, we fully support Amendments 26 to 28, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.
- I thank the Minister for her thorough explanation — I look forward to the letter that will clarify more. Maximum clarity and simplicity: that is what we all want. I withdraw the amendment.
I thank noble Lords for this interesting and thought-provoking debate. I thank the Minister for her thorough explanation—I think I understood quite a lot of it. I would go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, asking for maximum clarity and simplicity. I greatly look forward to the letter from the Minister which will explain a lot more of this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.