Free School Meals

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for this opportunity to understand the Statement on free school meal expansion rather better. I acknowledge that parents and children in receipt of universal credit will welcome the Government’s announcement, and many across the House will welcome a review of school food standards. However, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified a number of points about how this change will work in practice.

As the Minister knows, transitional protections established in 2018 ensured that pupils who were eligible for free school meals would keep them during the universal credit rollout. This nearly doubled free school meal eligibility, from 13.6% to 25.7%. The Department for Education has now announced that these protections will end in September 2026 with the introduction of the new policy. However, it is not clear how many children will be affected by this.

Dr Tammy Campbell, director for early years, inequalities and well-being at the Education Policy Institute, said:

“To the best of our knowledge, the Department for Education has not fully assessed the number of children who will cease to be eligible for FSM as a result of the conclusion of transitional protections”.


She added:

“It is possible that the extension of eligibility will largely serve to balance out the cessation of transitional protections, rather than making significant numbers of children newly eligible”.


Can the Minister confirm whether the department has done such an assessment and, if so, what are the figures that it revealed? If it has not done one, when will that happen?

Can the Minister clarify the position in relation to pupil premium funding, since eligibility for free school meals is currently the gateway to the pupil premium? The pupil premium, which was a significant achievement of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government, provides £1,480 per primary school pupil and over £1,000 per secondary school pupil. My understanding is that the Government initially said that the link between the two will be broken, but then said in a second announcement that the total amount will remain unchanged. Can the Minister confirm exactly the Government’s position, how that will work in practice and whether the Government are indeed committed to the full £3 billion or so of pupil premium funding continuing?

The Government’s announcement included other important figures relating to child poverty, including that this change will lift 100,000 children out of poverty. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the timescale for that change. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that, in the longer term, it believes the policy will lift 100,000 children out of poverty, but it cautioned that, due to the phasing out of the transitional measures which I mentioned earlier, the short-term costs and benefits are likely to be far more limited. Christine Farquharson, associate director of the IFS, said that we will

“not see anything like 100,000 children lifted out of poverty next year”.

How long does the Minister think it will take to reach the Government’s targets? How many children does she believe will be lifted out of poverty next year?

Finally, can the Minister confirm how this policy applies to holiday activities, food funding and home to school transport? Will schools and local authorities continue to receive pupil premium and home to school transport funding based on the existing free school meals threshold or the expanded criteria? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we very much welcome the Minister’s Statement. As we heard, over half a million more children will benefit from a free, nutritious meal every day. The Government have estimated that this will put £500 back into parents’ pockets. In the coalition, as we heard, we introduced a free meal for every key stage 1 pupil and prepared to extend this to key stage 2. This is excellent news for parents and their children.

As a primary school head teacher, I was always concerned that the number of pupils’ parents who did not take up the free school meal entitlement was quite alarming. Despite numerous personal letters to those parents, newsletters and all the rest, they still did not take up their entitlement. That is why auto-enrolment of free school meals at a national level ensures that every child gets the meal they are entitled to. Will the Government now follow the example of many successful local authorities and introduce auto-enrolment for meals, and if not, why not?

As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, many vulnerable children spend many weeks each year not in school during the holidays. Will the Government take the opportunity to end holiday hunger and perhaps look at the feasibility of funding for meals during school holidays?

Children on free school meals, particularly those in more affluent areas, often feel embarrassed and stigmatised, and are sometimes bullied, because they are having free meals. Will the Minister assure the House that confidentiality will be maintained at all times for those who are entitled to a free meal?

I realise that the Statement was about free school lunches, but can the Minister update us on the number of children receiving breakfast and the timescale for rolling this out to more schools? The Minister is probably aware of the letter from a whole host of children’s charities about the problems of free breakfast for those children with special educational needs, which I have no doubt will come up during the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

We on these Benches have been pushing hard for the provision of free school meals in schools; it was in our manifesto. It is a victory for thousands of passionate campaigners, and the Government have listened.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for putting this amendment down. We can talk in parliamentary language, but it is when we hear the example that my noble friend Lady Benjamin told us about that we know the appalling effects that child abuse has on children and young people. They often carry that for the rest of their lives, and they carry it in silence. Somebody said, and I think it is absolutely right, that this is about changing the culture, where the responsibility is not to sort of pretend “I’m title-tattling” or “I’m not sure” or “It’s a friend of mine” or “I shouldn’t say this”; if you suspect that child abuse is happening, you have to do something about it.

Recently, we have heard about all the problems that the Church of England has faced, and we have heard various clergy say, “Well, I didn’t think it was that important”, or “I did do so and so”. If we had had this in law, those prominent clergy would have had a responsibility in law to speak out and those abuses over many decades of young people, not at school but in various holiday camps, I understand, would not have taken place.

We think that, by ticking the box on CRB checks, or now on the data-barring service, it is all sorted in schools. It is not. When we come to the schools part of the Bill and look at unregistered schools—particularly, I have to say, religious unregistered schools—it is worth noting that examples have come to light of children who have been abused in unregistered settings. Again, people will say, “I don’t think this has really happened; I’d better not blow the whistle on this”, but it is the case, and various Members of this House know that.

This is a very important amendment. I do not care which Bill it comes in, but we need to make sure that it passes into law.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, made a predictably powerful case for the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse and highlighted its terrible scale, impact and extent. I do not disagree with them when they say that the system is currently failing the victims. My noble friend Lord Moynihan also gave very powerful examples from the world of sport.

In my experience, this is one of the most difficult areas in which both to legislate and to implement legislation effectively. We know from a range of terrible cases, including, of course, the rape gang scandals of recent years, that even when a disclosure is made—whether by a child or when a professional makes the disclosure directly to the police or local authority—it is not always listened to. We also know from international research that mandatory reporting has led to enormous increases in recorded incidents. That may be an important contributor to the culture change that, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly identified, is so badly needed; but there is still, of course, an enormous gap between recorded incidents and the prosecution of the offenders concerned.

I have a couple of concerns about the amendment. One is volunteers, who play an important role, and the amendment perhaps affecting their willingness to take on voluntary and unpaid activity. Perhaps most importantly, we should think through the issues where there are suspicions rather than disclosures. As we have heard, the majority of child sexual abuse happens within families. We need to think through how suspicion is handled in practice, and the implications of children being taken into care while allegations are made against a parent or step-parent, or a sibling or step-sibling. I am not saying that, where abuse has happened, that is not important to do, but we need—and the Government need—to think through very carefully the implications and the disruption and fracturing of important relationships in children’s lives.

I note that, through the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government plan to introduce mandatory reporting where there is a disclosure or where abuse has been observed. I have some sympathy with that as a starting point, but I hope very much that we can keep a lens on this terrible issue. My noble friend Lord Moynihan says that he has been working on this issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for over 20 years. I have the greatest respect for their tenacity and patience on such a difficult subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I rise slightly nervously to respond to this debate, which follows and covers a number of very important and thorny issues. But one of the reasons I am anxious—I double-checked, hence my looking at my telephone— is I felt that, at points, the Committee was talking about slightly different things.

I accept absolutely the very valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that in every terrible serious case review of child death at the hands of their parents the issue has started with a single hit, but she would also accept that, thank goodness, those are very much the exception rather than the rule, and that the overwhelming majority of parents who may or may not smack or use physical discipline towards their child do not end up anywhere near those kinds of tragedies.

The reason I pulled out my phone was just to check that I had understood correctly. The reasonable chastisement defence applies only in cases of common assault and battery since the Review of Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 and the implementation of that review in October 2007. With the leave of the Committee, I will read a couple of sentences from the advice produced by the department in October 2007:

“Therefore any injury sustained by a child which is serious enough to warrant a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm cannot be considered to be as the result of reasonable punishment. Section 58 and the amended Charging Standard mean that for any injury to a child caused by a parent or person acting in loco parentis which amounts to more than a temporary reddening of the skin, and where the injury is more that transient and trifling, the defence of reasonable punishment is not available”.


So, I am sorry for whatever having to listen to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough has done to the brain of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, but I think my noble friend made a very fair point. Noble Lords and parents around the country may or may not agree, but this advice is absolutely clear that where chastisement amounts to more than a temporary reddening of the skin, or where the injury is more than transient or trifling, the defence is not available. It is fair to ask—and it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who I know has thought about this long and hard—that we understand what difference this is going to make to the kinds of cases that have been cited in the Committee this afternoon.

My other concern is about non-physical chastisement. I spent the first six years of my time in your Lordships’ House never mentioning domestic abuse, and I do not think I have stopped talking about it since we started the Bill. We know that in many abusive relationships—and this applies to children as well as adults—you do not need to use physical violence; coercion and fear and control are incredibly harmful. Figures were cited about the harm of physical violence, and I do not question those for a second, but I wonder where the law then goes. If we were to adopt the noble Baroness’s amendment, which obviously has significant support in both Houses, where do we then go in dealing with what, I would argue, is perhaps much more toxic and damaging for a child’s mental health and their physical health, given what we know about the links between the two in terms of emotional abuse and psychological harm to children? I look forward to noble Lords’ comments on that.

We also need to address—as ever, I am surrounded by people who know much more about this than I do—the reality that, if a parent is accused of smacking, hitting or slapping a child, not the kind of severe physical violence that was cited but the violence that would fit under the defence of reasonable chastisement, they may enter a slow, stressful and ultimately quite harmful criminal justice process, during which time they may be prevented from having contact with their child and that child might be removed into care. We need to balance the impact of the kind of chastisement as set out in Section 58 with the kind of harm that that process would bring to children. In no way do I endorse violence—

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will excuse me for picking up one point that she has just made. The law, as it stands, is extremely confusing and unhelpful to parents. For example, she talked about reddening of the skin. I do not know about the noble Baroness, but if I was going to hit a child, I would not know what level of pressure was going to raise a red mark on that child’s skin and which would not. How can a parent possibly know? So, the law is confusing and unhelpful. It is certainly discriminatory; as has been mentioned, you cannot as easily tell when a bruise is arising on a skin of colour as on a paler skin. Those are just a couple of examples where the law is confusing and it needs clarifying.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Baroness on the spirit of the law. It talks about “trifling”—where the chastisement is of a trivial nature—and, while different parents might interpret that in a different way, the kinds of abuse that were cited in the debate that we have just listened to were not trifling; there was no question that they were trifling.

I will turn now to Amendment 173 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, which seeks to introduce a national strategy to address neglect of children. As we heard the noble Baroness explain—from her own professional experience, she brings great expertise on this matter—neglect is too common a feature in too many children’s lives. I commend her for bringing this to the attention of the Committee, and I would support her assertion that many practitioners lack confidence in how to respond to neglect. The approach set out in the amendment is practical in terms of sharing best practice and supporting both professionals and parents to understand and address neglect. My question to the noble Baroness, and potentially to the Minister, is whether it is wise to try to separate neglect from abuse, since we know that in most cases they will coexist, and therefore I imagine one would want practitioners to go in with their eyes open to both.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are putting children at the heart of everything we do. This is evident in the far-reaching child protection and safeguarding measures in the Bill.

The amendments in this group were tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Tyler. They relate to the defence of reasonable punishment and what the Government are doing about neglect.

I will speak first to Amendments 67 and 505, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on removing the defence of reasonable punishment in legislation, which has been the basis of most of the contributions in this group. Let me be completely clear: the Government do not condone violence or abuse of children, and there are laws in place to protect children from this. Violence against children is not only unacceptable but illegal. The Crown Prosecution Service guidance referenced during the course of this debate is very clear that only the mildest form of physical punishment can be used to justify discipline. Child protection agencies and the police treat allegations of abuse very seriously; they will investigate and take appropriate action, including prosecution, where there is evidence of an offence having been committed. Local authorities, police and healthcare professionals have a clear duty to act immediately to protect children if they are concerned that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, identified terrible cases that we must all take note of. Much of Part 1 of the Bill aims to address precisely these types of cases. But it is important to emphasise that cases where children have been abused or murdered by their parents—children, in fact, who experienced abuse far short of the terrible cases she identified—even in cases where their parents claimed to have been legally disciplining them, would not be covered by the reasonable punishment defence. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. I am not convinced that it really was simply a reasonable punishment that led to the terrible outcomes in those cases; I think it was something far more profound, dangerous and worthy of attention—in fact, attention would be legally required.

We have heard that other countries have made these changes. We are looking closely at changes in Scotland and Wales and continue to build our evidence base, but we do not want to take this important decision yet. Wales will publish its report at the end of the year, looking at the impact that the change in legislation has had.

It is important that, in making any decisions, we consider all voices, including those of the child, trusted stakeholders and those who might be disproportionately affected by removing the defence. I certainly accept some of the examples used by noble Lords about the support that there is for removing this defence. I do not think it is quite as straightforward and completely categorically clear as some noble Lords have suggested.

Most parents want what is best for their children and they should be supported. It is right that we protect all children who are at risk of harm, but it is also right that we do not intervene in family life when children are safe, loved and well supported. This is why I agree with noble Lords who identified the need to find more positive ways to parent. I do not think that most parents who resorted at some point or another to a smack feel that that is the most positive way they could parent their children.

That is why we are rolling out national reforms to multi-agency family help and child protection—backed, as we have said previously, by over £500 million of funding—and, importantly, providing parenting support in 75 local authorities through family hubs. Parenting is difficult. Any of us who has done it understands the challenges of choosing the right ways to promote the positive development of our children. The recent publication of our practice guide for parenting services for parents of zero to 10 year-olds is a positive way to help parents identify how to do that very difficult job most effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 172, to which I added my name. My noble friend Lord Meston and my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss have said it far better than I possibly could. I know the amazing work of Pause and I commend its work to the Committee. I have full faith that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will say anything that is missing.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 169 and 172 in my name and to comment on the other amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Farmer for their support on Amendment 169, and the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Meston, for their support on Amendment 172. As has been noted, they seek to do similar things.

Amendment 169 is a narrower version, focusing on support for mothers who have had a baby removed into care at birth. Like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I prefer Amendment 172, which is broader and would create an obligation for local authorities to offer an evidence-based programme, such as the Pause programme, to mothers who have had a child removed from their care and who, as we have heard, very often immediately get pregnant again. From a human point of view, one can absolutely understand why, after all the attention that they may have received from children’s services prior to the child being removed and then the deafening silence that surrounds them once the child is gone. Very often, that void is filled by another pregnancy. I prefer Amendment 172 because it is a real issue and is broader, but the evidence for Amendment 169 is crystal clear. Almost half of newborns subject to care proceedings are born to mothers who had previously had a child—an older sibling to the newborn—removed through those proceedings. The near inevitability of that seems very powerful.

I am not sure whether it is on my register of interest, but I did a period of volunteering for Pause before I joined your Lordships’ House, so I have seen the quality of its work first hand. Since 2013, over 2,000 women have completed the Pause programme who, prior to working with Pause, collectively had had more than 6,200 children removed from their care—that is just over three children per woman. This is not a competition for how many children a woman has had removed, but Pause was founded by a social worker, Sophie Humphreys, and a district judge, Nick Crichton, after they worked together on a case where a 14th child was removed from the same woman. It is grounded very much in the experience of women.

I suggest to the Minister that this amendment is similar in spirit to Clause 1, which puts family group decision-making processes on a statutory footing, in the sense that some local authorities offer these programmes and some do not. The delivery is inconsistent and patchy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, the funding for it is not always available. Also in the spirit of the Bill, which seeks to support those in the care system, we know that 40% of women who have taken part in the Pause programmes were themselves in care.

The Minister will know that the DfE’s own evaluation of this work saw significantly improved outcomes for mothers, reduced rates of infant care entry and very significant savings to children’s social care, with the department’s evaluation suggesting that every £1 spent on the Pause programme resulted in a saving to children’s social care of £4.50 over four years and £7.61—that seems remarkably accurate—over 18 years. I am not sure whether that is the net present value of £7.61, but anyway—that is a 7:1 return. From the point of view of the mother and the children, and from the financial perspective, these amendments deserve the Minister’s serious attention.

More broadly, this group has been focused on the important subject of support for families, both at a relatively early stage and at crisis points, such as when a child is removed into care. The purpose behind Amendment 68, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Farmer, is to ensure that there is universal provision of family support services. There is no question that such services are valued by the families who use them and can make a great difference to the lives of children and to their parents. We support the spirit of the amendment, which keeps universal services separate from those that are voluntary but targeted to more vulnerable families, as the noble Baroness knows from our earlier debates on Clause 3.

Amendments 68A and 68B seek to introduce the concept of earned autonomy for family support services, which is again something that we are very sympathetic to. I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Farmer for his extensive work in this area, particularly in relation to family hubs. I look forward to hearing what the Minister might say about the expansion of family hubs, which the Government have described as

“a non-stigmatising gateway to targeted whole-family support”.

In normal-speak, I think that is a good thing.

Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, would require local authorities to report annually on early intervention services for children and families in their area. As the noble Baroness acknowledged, local authorities have annual reporting requirements, including in relation to their multi-agency safeguarding work. As I understand it, this amendment would make that more explicit in relation to early help. I just wondered whether this would not naturally fit as an update to the Working Together to Safeguard Children statutory guidance, as opposed to being in the Bill.

It is hard to argue with the spirit of Amendment 171, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I was sad to hear of her loss and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I am sure that, across the Committee, we are very grateful to those charities that offer great support to children, and their families, who have been bereaved. When I was in the department, I remember meeting the team at the Ruth Strauss Foundation—indeed, I went on to recommend it to extended family members, who benefited from its support. In some cases, when perhaps a parent has cancer, the death can be anticipated and support can happen pre bereavement as well as post bereavement, if the family wishes, but in other cases, such as cases of domestic homicide, the child in effect loses both parents—one parent has been killed and the other parent is in prison. Effective support in all these cases is to be encouraged. If accepted, this amendment would make the task of finding the right support so much easier for bereaved or soon-to-be-bereaved children.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for highlighting in this debate very important issues aimed at ensuring that children and families can get the support that they need at the right time. That is an enormously important theme of the Government’s reforms to children’s social care. In doing that, we are already taking forward recommendations from the independent review of children’s social care, mentioned by several people today, particularly the aim to rebalance the children’s social care system towards earlier intervention and supporting more children to stay safely with their families.

I shall speak first to Amendment 68, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, which raises the important issue of family support services. I appreciate the noble Lords’ intention with this amendment and confirm that the Government are already investing in the provision of family support nationally. I also accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that there is a need to ensure that there is that investment. The noble Baroness outlined the fall in investment since 2010; for example, in the Sure Start programme. It took me back to one of the very last interventions that I made in the other place before I came starkly up against the electorate in 2010. I expressed concern that a different Government might not continue to support the development of family support services and Sure Start in a way in which that Government had. There was heckling and jeering, as tends to be more the case at the other end of the building than here, but I am afraid that what we saw in the intervening years was a reduction in support for precisely the sort of services that noble Lords today are, quite rightly, pushing the Government to ensure that we both develop and fund. That is why, as we have frequently referenced—I do so again—that this Government have provided over £500 million to local authorities to roll out the national Families First Partnership programme, which aims to prioritise earlier intervention and ensure that families can access the right support sooner.

To turn to some of the more detailed points, I note the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, regarding earned autonomy status for local authorities to not follow prescriptive criteria in determining the services to be delivered. This is a challenge: how do we enable local authorities to have the autonomy to build and link the services in a way that makes sense to them in their circumstances, while also ensuring that additional investment placed into preventive services is spent on that? I have considerable sympathy for the idea that there needs to be that flexibility. That is why the Government are not mandating the delivery of specific family support services by any local authorities through the programme. They all have flexibility to respond to need in their areas, taking account of available resources, and they are supported in thinking about what might be appropriate and what would work best by reference, for example, to the programme guide that the Government have issued and the work of foundations that are developing information about what is most effective and working well. It is of course important, as I say, that we are clear that the additional money allocated for this work is spent on it. Grant funding is therefore ring-fenced to ensure that it is spent on a range of preventive services. Within that ring-fence, there should be—and there is—flexibility for local authorities to think about the nature and combination of the services that they are providing.

Before I move on, I want to respond to the point that the noble Lord made not only about flexibility, as we have talked about, but about combining funding pots. It is an important point. While local authorities funded through the family hubs and Start for Life programme have the flexibility, as I have said, to tailor services to meet programme expectations and address local needs, combining funding is also an important bit of that flexibility. Many local authorities are combining funding with other funding sources to enhance support for families. It is important that they are enabled to do that, notwithstanding the accountability point that I have made.

--- Later in debate ---

We are also already investing in services that support families through pregnancy and early childhood, including family hubs and Start for Life programmes. The work of Pause certainly sounds enormously important in leading the way in this area. It is clear that it is doing important work to improve the lives of women who have had or are at risk of having children removed from their care. My ministerial colleague Janet Daby met Pause earlier this year and the department is keen to continue working with Pause to support the work it is doing and to learn more broadly how we can support women in these situations and, of course, their babies as well. I think the ability to use family group decision-making in these cases may well also be something that could support much better outcomes than we are seeing at the moment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to go back and talk to her ministerial colleagues about this again. She is absolutely right that some of the effective targeted help and Section 17 types of help that she was talking about, set out in the Families First pathfinders, can be useful to some families, but these cases where a woman has already had multiple removals do not typically fit into that bracket; they go straight to care proceedings. The case load, if I remember rightly, is that each full-time Pause practitioner works with three women, so it is super-intensive and I think is complementary to this. I would just be grateful if she did not close the door on that as an option, particularly as I know that her noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, previously put this down as an amendment—I feel strengthened in that knowledge.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have been persuaded in the course of this debate about the significance of this issue. I had some experience in previous work that I did in children’s social care about this, so I will certainly undertake to go back and talk to my colleagues about some more specificity around the particular requirements in these cases. Perhaps I can return to the noble Baroness with a bit more detail about that.

Amendment 171 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to establish a duty on local authorities to improve access to bereavement support services for children. Like others, I recognise and respect the noble Baroness for talking about her own experience of bereavement, as we also heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, identifying the enormous pressure that falls on families and particularly other children at the point at which they are bereaved. It is for this reason that the Government continue to consider how to improve access to existing bereavement support. There is a cross-government bereavement group, chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care and attended by officials from the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office, continuing to look at how we can improve access to support.

Following discussion by this group of opportunities to improve signposting of support—and as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, I would have appreciated being signposted to some support outside the family—we have recently added links to bereavement support specifically for children and young people on GOV.UK. Schools increasingly talk to their pupils about mental health and where to access further support, both as part of the curriculum and through their wider pastoral duties. The relationships and sex education statutory guidance specifies that teachers should be aware of common adverse childhood experiences, including bereavement. I hope that, bringing those things together, we are enabling an improvement in the support that we provide for children who have suffered bereavement. I hope that this, along with the continued investment in services for children and family support, reassures noble Lords that we are taking action on that.

In all these areas, I hope that I have provided, after a useful and important debate, some reassurance about the acceptance by the Government of all the issues identified during the course of the debate, but also about the action that the Government are taking to commit to and invest in improving outcomes for children and their families through effective support services. I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press these amendments, but I will certainly come back on the specific points and reflect on the case made in what I think has been a very important and helpful group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to oppose Amendment 69AB, well-intentioned though it clearly is. I have several levels of concerns about the imposition of yet another duty. I believe that the expectations for looked-after children are generally well understood—whether they are actually carried out in practice is another matter. This particular amendment has some obvious holes. For example, there are kinds of intimacy in normal, healthy parent-child relationships that absolutely would not be appropriate between local authority staff and children.

More generally, there has been a proliferation of duties in legislation in recent years. For example, I became chair of Ofqual 14 years ago. After a particular duty was raised in my first board meeting, I asked my legal director for a session to talk me through all the duties that applied. To my astonishment, I discovered that we already had 28 duties, with a handful more in the pipeline; I am sure it is a lot more since then.

This imposition of duties as the go-to solution has several problems. First, it creates problems of overload. Normal human beings simply cannot hold so many different duties in their thinking simultaneously. Secondly, they get imposed in isolation. They are usually added without reference to previous duties, with which they often overlap but sometimes push in different directions. How do you reconcile them? They can lead to skimping. If duties that have been imposed need resource but are not funded, you can end up with everything being done less well—not only the thing that the duty is aimed at but all the other functions—which reduces the quality at the receiving end. It takes away the ability of public services to prioritise intelligently. It can divert resource away from the main purpose that the duty is intended to protect and towards the kinds of activities that demonstrate compliance with the activity.

Finally, if there is a surplus of duties and an impossibility of giving full effect to them all, a sort of cynicism builds up that can corrupt an organisation’s culture. When everybody knows that they are really only paying lip service to an enormous list, people stop believing in the ability of the organisation to fulfil its real purposes.

Tempting as it is to think that another duty is the great solution that will protect children from all the awful harms that have been talked about today—they are a great salve to all our consciences—we need to resist and make sure that we get to the essence of the things that will do the most to help children.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, again reminded the Committee that vulnerable children in the care of a local authority do not always receive the care that they deserve. We should never lose sight that that should be our goal. My noble friend Lady Spielman put it very well in her remarks and I will pick up on what she said. Local authorities understand their duties in this area. The noble Lord himself cited some of the legislation and guidance on the spirit of their responsibilities. The question, as ever, is around implementation, and I share my noble friend’s concerns about adding yet another duty to local authorities.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the single amendment in this group, Amendment 69AB, in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie. I reflect the concern that has been expressed about the care and support that some of the most vulnerable children receive. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, acknowledged that too many children have been let down over the years, and I believe that this Bill is a real opportunity to set things on a more constructive path.

I recognise that the amendment has been tabled to add a legislative requirement to ensure that the nature and level of parental care that families strive to provide for their own children is provided by local authorities for looked-after children. A local authority is a corporate parent in two senses: first, it has corporate parenting duties; and, secondly, it stands in the parents’ shoes, having parental responsibility for the children in its care.

As I said, I wholeheartedly agree with the amendment’s goal, and we want to ensure that our looked-after children received the highest possible quality support. However, existing legislative and regulatory frameworks mean that local authorities should already care for looked-after children as good parents would. Sections 22 and 22A of the Children Act 1989 already set out the duties owed by a local authority to any child who is looked after by it. These include duties to provide accommodation for the child, to safeguard and promote their welfare, to promote their educational achievement and to help them access a range of services. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, is giving me a look, but I did check that that is indeed the case.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

73: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Removal of unregistered status for approved kinship carersNotwithstanding the provisions of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/959) and the Children Act 1989, no placement of a child with a kinship carer that is approved by the Director of Children’s Services, shall be considered an unregistered placement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow local authorities to place a child with a kinship carer without needing to meet the fostering placement standards, where it is judged by the local authority to be in the best interests of the child, as a registered placement, including for the purposes of Ofsted inspection.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 73, 74, 75, 76 and 76A in my name, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for adding his name to these amendments. I apologise to those waiting for the regret Motion, but my speaking notes are quite lengthy on this group, because it is quite complicated and important. These amendments all seek to update the approach to the approval of kinship carers, which currently broadly mirrors that for stranger foster carers—I apologise if that is the wrong term. These amendments have been prompted by conversations I have had with leaders in local authorities and the family justice system. I put on record my thanks to the charity Kinship for its advice and explanation of the current position of kinship carers.

My amendments aim to recognise that placing a child with someone other than their birth parents requires balancing a number of risks and safeguards. Kinship carers have the obvious strength of a long-standing, usually lifelong, relationship with a child in the way that a stranger foster carer, however compassionate, does not. However, they may not meet the full standards required by a foster panel in order to be formally approved as the permanent home for a child.

Currently, there is no ability to balance these considerations. In a world where the Government understandably want to see an increase in the use of kinship care, including through family group conferencing, this could be unhelpful at best and potentially damaging for the child at worst.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate noble Lords’ concerns about ensuring that children grow up in safe, stable and loving homes within their family network. I reaffirm that the Government are firmly committed to enabling children to remain safely with their family whenever it is in their best interest, and, alongside that, to removing unnecessary barriers that may prevent this from happening. I recognise the assessment of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, of the contribution of kinship carers, which adds to our debates earlier in Committee.

I turn to amendments relating to the removal of unregistered status and requirements under fostering regulations for kinship carers: Amendments 73, 75 and 76A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. We agree with the noble Baroness that we must tackle the barriers that currently make it harder for people to become kinship carers. We fully appreciate that that process of becoming a formal kinship carer can feel intrusive or burdensome at times, and we recognise that there is room for improvement in how these assessments are carried out. It is vital that they are conducted in a way that is supportive, respectful and sensitive to the unique circumstances of kinship families. At the same time, these assessments play a crucial role in ensuring that children are placed in safe, stable and nurturing environments. They also help local authorities identify the right support for carers so that they are not left to manage alone. Getting this balance right is essential.

Whenever a child can no longer live safely at home with their parents or anyone else with parental responsibility, the local authority has an obligation to complete a robust safeguarding assessment. The approach to doing this is set out in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 and the Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011. Removing these assessments, as suggested by Amendments 73 and 75, risks undermining the assurance of the safety and well-being of children moving into kinship care arrangements.

However—to address some of the concerns that have been raised—the kinship care statutory guidance makes it clear that fostering panels should not make negative recommendations solely based on prospective kinship foster carers not meeting the fostering national minimum standards during the assessment. If the placement aligns with the child’s best interests, the prospective kinship foster carer should still be considered for approval to foster the child and then supported by the fostering service to attain the standards. Statutory guidance recognises that the assessment of kinship foster carers may differ from that of mainstream foster carers. Local authorities are permitted to adopt a tailored approach in presenting assessment reports for kinship carers, taking into account the unique dynamics of family relationships, safeguarding considerations, accommodation suitability and any relevant criminal history. Additionally, fostering panels reviewing kinship care applications are expected to include members with specific expertise in kinship care to ensure informed decision-making.

Regarding Amendment 76A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, specifically, the requirement for temporary kinship foster carers to be fully assessed as a foster carer is not a barrier but an important safeguard. It ensures that the placement is not only safe in the short term but sustainable and well supported in the long term. Under Regulation 24 of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, local authorities may grant temporary approval for a connected person to care for a looked-after child for up to 16 weeks, where it is necessary to place the child urgently and the carer has not yet been fully assessed. This provision allows for flexibility in emergencies, but it is time-limited by law to protect the child’s welfare.

Temporary approvals are intended to facilitate urgent placements but must be followed by a full assessment to ensure that the child’s needs are met and the carer is properly supported. This includes a thorough evaluation of the carer’s capacity to meet the child’s needs in the long term; ensuring that the carer receives the same entitlements as mainstream foster carers, including financial support, training and an allocated social worker; and establishing a clear and stable care plan for meeting the future needs of the child. Removing this requirement unnecessarily increases the chances of a breakdown in the kinship placement. This is because it removes important safeguard checks for children placed with a kinship foster carer and removes an opportunity for the services to build a clear understanding of the kinship foster carer’s strengths for tailoring the right support—resources that are vital to enable carers to provide safe and effective care.

It is important to recognise that kinship foster care is not the only route to kinship care. Many children are successfully supported through other legal arrangements, such as special guardianship orders or child arrangements orders, which can offer greater stability and permanence outside the care system. These routes can be less stigmatising and more empowering for families, and we are committed to ensuring that all kinship carers, regardless of legal status, receive the support that they need.

On this basis, and reflecting on the comments that have been made, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I must say that I was a bit more optimistic about the noble Baroness’s response because none of these amendments would cost the Government any money. They simply seek to improve the system that, as we have heard from practitioners and others—including my noble friend Lady O’Neill, who deals with this on a daily basis—is not working as well as it could. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, rightly raised in his remarks the position of the Law Commission review. There is no reason that one could not sunset these clauses if, in however many years’ time, the Law Commission comes forward with a more coherent plan.

Forgive me if I missed it, but I was not sure that I heard responses to my Amendments 74 and 76. Maybe the noble Baroness and I can both look at Hansard and double-check.

On Amendments 73, 75 and 76A, the noble Baroness said that these need to feel like supportive assessments for foster carers. The point really is about finding the balance between the familiarity and security of someone you have known all your life versus any shortcomings that they might have personally, where they live, or any of the points I raised earlier.

In reality, we know that directors of children’s services are having to make choices today to leave children with a kinship carer where they judge that the fostering panel would not exercise the discretion that the noble Baroness outlined, thereby putting themselves in a pretty impossible position vis-à-vis Ofsted. No director of children’s services wants to be in that position.

In relation to Amendment 75, we need to take great care over approval, but the point of Amendment 75 is that the family group decision-making process has already agreed that the kinship family or the member of the child’s extended family is suitable to care for them. The question is why we have to do that twice.

I will go away and reread what the noble Baroness said about temporary placements—I think that that may have been more reassuring. I did not pick up, and forgive me if I missed them, her remarks on the other two amendments, particularly Amendment 74, but we can follow that up separately.

The only other thing I would challenge, with respect—I know that the noble Baroness has enormous experience from her previous roles—is that I do not think one can describe either a child arrangements order or a special guardianship order as more secure and more stable, certainly in relation to parental responsibility. They are not as secure or stable as other alternatives.

We all want the same thing. I thought that these amendments were a simple, constructive way of taking steps forward on some of the things that have been flagged as the most problematic from the point of view of practitioners and leaders. I hope that the noble Baroness will go away and reflect on that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 73 withdrawn.

School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, on 6 February this year, in response to an Oral Question about teacher recruitment, the noble Baroness the Minister stated:

“We are committed to recruiting an additional 6,500 new expert teachers across our schools, both mainstream and specialist, and our colleges over the course of this Parliament”.—[Official Report, 6/2/25; col. 797.]


However, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the recent pay award has left a £400 million funding gap that schools will need to fill, which equates to the salaries of about 6,000 teachers. A recent survey from the National Association of Head Teachers showed that 46% of heads said that they would have to cut either teaching hours or the number of teachers, and 80% said that they would cut teaching assistants or their hours. I wonder whether the Minister could update the House on what the Government’s revised forecast is for the number of additional teachers they will recruit—that is, net of those redundancies and retirements—over the course of the Parliament. My maths suggests that it will be close to zero.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, on 22 May we were able to announce that this Government will fulfil the recommendations of the School Teachers’ Review Body and award a 4% pay increase to our teachers. Alongside that, we were able to announce an additional £615 million to fund that pay increase. That, alongside last year’s acceptance of the STRB’s recommendations, means that, while this Government have been in office, teachers have received a pay increase of nearly 10%. That is a fundamentally important contribution to retaining teachers in our classrooms and recruiting new teachers to be able to meet our 6,500 extra specialist teachers during this Parliament.

Noble Lords opposite, while asking legitimate questions, might like to reflect on the fact that, when we arrived in government, we found on the desks of the DfE the STRB’s recommendations from last year that their Government had run away from implementing. Since this Government have been in office, given the action we have taken not only on pay but on other provisions, we have seen an increase of 2,000 students starting teacher training. We estimate that the actions we have taken will ensure that an additional 2,500 teachers will be retained in the workforce over and above what would have happened had the previous Government continued their action towards teachers.

Social Mobility: Sutton Trust Opportunity Index

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. It is for employers to ensure that they provide access to the types of opportunities that will enable young people to experience different forms of work—but it is of course also the responsibility of those agencies tasked with enforcement to make sure that, where the law is not being properly applied, there are consequences for it. Of course, it is also our responsibility, which this Government take seriously, to make sure that all children have, for example, better careers education and the opportunity to have two weeks’ high-quality work experience and that we work with employers to ensure that placements are available to those young people doing T-levels while ensuring that apprenticeships are open to all. So there are a range of ways in which we need to make sure that young people get equal access to the experience of work that will set them up for a successful future.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Sutton Trust opportunity index rightly looked at the importance of early intervention and the early years, and the Minister will be aware that there are about 50,000 children annually on free school meals who go into year 3 without sufficient reading skills to be able to engage successfully in the curriculum. Will the Minister agree to look at the Apex programme funded by the Fischer Family Trust, which has worked providing reading mentors to children in years 1 and 2 where there are significant concerns about their ability to read? At the end of year 2, 81% of them reach the expected standard in reading, compared with 60% for a comparable cohort, and 95% pass their phonics test, compared with 85% nationally.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The scheme that the noble Baroness talks about sounds interesting and important, and I shall certainly undertake for the department to look at it in detail. She makes an important point, as she did in the previous Question, about the need to ensure that children are supported to make a successful start at school at the point at which they arrive. That means the sort of support that the Government are providing through family help and Start for Life to support not only the children but the parents to provide learning environments at home. That is supported, of course, by this Government’s priority to ensure that more children arrive at school ready to gain the benefits of that education.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 32 and 35, which relate to children with disabilities, because these children are, sadly, more at risk and so need our protection. Also, before I begin, could I just say that my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie is sorry that she cannot be here today—frankly, as am I, as she is exceptionally knowledgeable in this area and so I hope she will approve of the following arguments, particularly in relation to children with cerebral palsy, who I will talk about today?

While there are many different forms of ability and disability in children, if policy, systems and practice can get things right for children with cerebral palsy—the most common cause of physical disability in childhood—then the benefits will be felt by children with other conditions too.

Evidence gathered by the APPG for its report Best Practice in Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), Teaching, and Learning for Children with Cerebral Palsy found that many parents of children with cerebral palsy lack confidence in their local authority’s ability to make suitable arrangements for their child. Some even view their local authorities as being obstructive, inconsistent and unaccountable. Provision inevitably tends to reflect what local authorities are able to provide, rather than what the child concerned requires to have the best chances in life.

Much of this stems from the reality that when it comes to issues relating to children with profound disabilities, local authorities are not always the people who have the relevant condition-specific knowledge, nor the experience of the lifelong trajectory of a condition, to be able to make the right assessments of potential and be suitably ambitious for the child.

Section 17 of the Children Act, as referred to in Amendment 35, outlines the local authority’s duty to assess children who are “in need”, and this definition includes children with disabilities, who may require a paediatric developmental assessment to fully understand their needs.

Amendments 32 and 35, when taken together, would provide an acknowledgement of the necessity for a member of the specialist health team involved in the provision of care for the child—someone who understands the condition and has the sector experience to understand what is possible—to be involved in the multi-disciplinary child protection teams, to ensure that these teams are assessing all the possible options.

The persons referred to in new subsection (3) relating to the provision of health who are to be involved in the multi-disciplinary child protection teams are only defined in new subsection (4)(c) as

“a registered health professional, nominated by an integrated care board for an area any part of which falls within the area of the local authority, with experience in the provision of healthcare in relation to children”.

Therefore, the health professional, nominated by the board, could be the same person who represents the health board for all the MDCPT assessments. The text does not specify that they have to know anything about the child, the health prognosis of the condition, the services and interventions that might be best for the child or whether they are—or are not—available in any one particular local authority area, nor be able to form a qualified view of the potential of the child, based on specialist experience of children with disabilities.

In Scotland, children with profound disabilities have a nominated “lead health professional” who is responsible for co-ordinating relevant, cross-sector, multi-disciplinary services and liaising with parents to take responsibility for ensuring that the needs of the child are met. Sometimes these needs, as the Committee might imagine, can be quite specific and technical; for example, when dealing with specialist resources for communication, assistive technology and mobility needs, particularly for children with complex disabilities. This lead health professional, who has practical knowledge of the individual child’s circumstances and health condition, would therefore always be included in a multi-disciplinary team discussion. It would not be left just to a representative of the health board, or a generic paediatric clinician.

Only recently, in her letter to the Times, Professor Eileen Munro warned against shifting child protection responsibilities to less-qualified staff. I therefore urge the Minister to accept—or at least to think about—these amendments, which outline the importance of including a member of the children’s disability team, someone who knows the condition or conditions, and not just a generic professional who ticks the boxes specified in the current text referring to the persons referred to in new subsection (3)(a).

Guaranteeing the right representation on these teams will go a long way to ensuring that assessments are likely to be safer, that children at risk have swift access to the resources they require and, where local areas lack appropriate provision and/or expertise, that there is a voice of knowledge to ensure there is no fear of commissioning, a voice that can work with other specialist providers in the best interests of the child.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 36. I am also delighted to support my noble friend Lady O’Neill on her amendments, as well as those of my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, who was so ably represented by my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton today. All these amendments seek to clarify some of the operational issues with the proposed multi-agency child protection teams.

I do not want to steal from the Minister’s remarks, but she might remind the Committee that the context for introducing these teams came from the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, which the previous Government commissioned and was led by the honourable Member for Whitehaven and Workington. Following a key recommendation from his review, we established 10 pathfinder sites to pilot and test out these teams, alongside a number of wider reforms to early help, targeted family help and support for children in need, as defined under the Children Act. We support the spirit and direction in which this draft legislation is going, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out, we have concerns about how it will be operationalised in practice.

Noble Lords may be aware that, in a former life before joining your Lordships’ House, I was involved in the establishment of multi-agency teams all around the country to address high-risk cases of domestic abuse, which were known as multi-agency risk assessment conferences—MARACs. We did that in every local authority in the country. At the end, those teams were managing about 60,000 adult cases a year and over 100,000 children. They involved statutory and non-statutory agencies. For better or worse, I am very familiar with the issues that are important when operationalising this kind of work.

The detail is important. Who attends these teams? Is it the same person? How senior are they? Is it the caseworker or a representative covering all cases? As my noble friend Lady O’Neill and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked, who is accountable for the work? How can we share information legally? How does information sharing translate into action planning? How do you involve the family? These and many other issues are so important to get right, and we will explore them in more detail in the debates on the other amendments to Clause 3.

My Amendment 36 simply seeks to understand how the Government expect the new statutory multi-agency child protection teams will interact with existing multi-agency work, particularly the multi-agency safeguarding hubs—the MASH teams. There are so many acronyms in this world; I saw that the department has even snuck in a new one: MASA. Who knew what MASA was? Nevertheless, it is in the documentation. The MASH teams, which are now pretty much universal around the country, are not statutory. Some are great, but some are less so. How does this team interact with the multi-agency risk assessment conferences for high-risk domestic abuse or the multi-agency public protection arrangements for high-risk perpetrators? In a world where resources are tight, we need to avoid duplication.

Equally, however, we know that non-statutory agencies—the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who is in her place, knows this extremely well from her work outside the House—at the very least bring different information to multi-agency work. Frequently, they are really trusted and can build relationships with families that can be harder for statutory agencies, with the powers that they hold. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how she expects the multi-agency child protection teams to work in practice with the MASHs, the MARACs, the MAPPAs and any other organisation that has an acronym beginning with an “M”.

I will pick up on the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady O’Neill. My key question about Amendments 29 and 31 is: can the Minister say how she expects that the involvement of partners, both statutory and non-statutory, will be funded? What we hear from the pathfinders is that it is very difficult to get other agencies outside the local authorities to participate in the teams, and that some of the extra funding the pathfinders have been given has gone to funding police officers to attend a multi-agency child protection team, which in my world feels like a very odd thing for the local authority to do. I assume that the Minister does not believe that that is a sustainable model, let alone for non-statutory agencies, where, all too often, we rely on their good will and do not acknowledge the pressures on their budgets.

I am also very interested to hear the Minister’s reply in relation to Amendments 39 and 40, which deal with cases across local authority borders. She will know that, for vulnerable families, that happens all too often—one parent lives in one local authority and the other parent lives in another; the family are moved from temporary housing in one local authority to temporary housing in another; or a child lives in one local authority but is being groomed by a gang in another. I think I am right in saying that a contributing factor in the tragic case of Sara Sharif was that she moved local authorities but the understanding of the degree of harm she faced did not move with her.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

30: Clause 3, page 3, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 4
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to confirm that Local Authorities can use their discretion in how the MACPTs are implemented operationally in their areas.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 30 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and to Amendment 37 in my name. Amendment 30 goes to the heart of one of the three major concerns expressed to me by several directors of children’s services. I wonder whether, with the Minister’s permission, we could park what feels like a false argument that is developing about whether directors of children’s services support the aims of these reforms. I think they are all supportive; certainly all those I spoke to—I cannot speak for others—were supportive of the aims. The concerns that we are trying to flag are that they are worried about implementation. I worry that the Minister is not seeing the whole picture, which may be something that she wants to explore further outside the Chamber.

It is not just about those private conversations. Perhaps in gentler terms, the Local Government Association and the ADCS have highlighted concerns about the degree of discretion that local authorities will have in how they implement the new multi-agency child protection arrangements. My amendment would remove some of the prescription in the Bill around membership.

Also, I commend to all your Lordships who are interested in this area the department’s cunningly titled Families First Partnership Programme Guide, because it very firmly states that it is not guidance but—trust me—when you read it and it keeps saying that it is going to set “delivery expectations”, it feels a lot like guidance. That document is prescriptive. In closing the previous group, the Minister talked about flexibility, learning and so on, but that programme guide does not feel very flexible. It says that you must have lead child protection practitioner roles and that, in many cases, independent chairs of child protection case conferences will be removed. It gives an overview of the reform across the whole system.

I can speak only personally, and it may be that I woke up a bit late to some of the problems with Clause 3, but this is whole-system reform. The Minister rightly referred to the document published in November; there is also this document, which was published in March, and there have been a number of others. The Committee needs to think about it in the round, even if only parts of it are in the Bill. The programme guide gives a very tight timescale for directors of children’s services to implement these changes and it is very clear in its expectations about how the additional funding should be spent. I am sure that the Minister is advised to talk about flexibility but, if I were a director of children’s services, it would not feel very flexible from reading the document.

The concerns we have heard would, I hope, be addressed by my amendment, but the spirit of my amendment goes wider in its aim to align autonomy and accountability. Local authorities will ultimately be held responsible for the effectiveness of the multi-agency child protection teams—in part, for some of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who is no longer in his place, expressed in his remarks earlier. With that responsibility, surely more discretion over implementation should be permitted. Could the Minister address that point in her closing remarks?

As I mentioned, the worries I have heard come from some of the details that are set out in what I am now going to call the FFPPG—only those in this Committee will know what that means—which risk disrupting the finely balanced approach that currently exists in the best local authorities between early help and targeted support, under Sections 17 and 47. They also risk adding cost, with the need for additional lead child protection social workers for the separate multi-agency child protection arrangements—where are those social workers going to come from, and how will they be funded? They risk losing the critical fresh pair of eyes that an independent child protection case conference chair currently provides. It is obviously important, as we have seen in many cases, to have that independence, from someone who is experienced and can think again about the risks that remain to a child. Those families in child protection arrangements will now have two social workers, with all the resource and case management implications that brings, and indeed the risk that the family play one social worker off against another.

As my noble friend Lady Berridge said, rather than focusing on the cultural and organisational issues that make all the difference in the quality of social work, the Government seem to be focusing on process. There is a risk of adding complexity, and there is no question that it adds cost. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why. It has been said, but it deserves saying again, that there are real concerns that there is not a sufficient evidence base for this. I will cover that a bit more in the following group.

Amendment 37, in my name, would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the impact of the multi-agency child protection teams. This would work well if, first, the Government publish the evaluation of the pathfinder sites—the Minister has committed that that will happen—and, secondly, address any practical issues arising. As she said, and I agree completely, the whole point of a pathfinder is to find out what works in practice and what does not. The timeline in the programme guide says March 2025 for 12 months; local authorities are expected to have implemented the changes needed in their teams to start these reforms by spring next year. I do not know how we can address practical issues and expect local authorities to do that transformation work with no further visibility on funding at the same time.

Thirdly, it would make sense that the Government agree with some version of my Amendment 30, so that there is some discretion for a director of children’s services in, say, Cumbria to implement these arrangements slightly differently from one in, say, Hackney. There will be variation in approach, and it is responsible and, I would argue, useful for the Secretary of State to report on this, so that we reinforce a culture of learning across the sector and support local authorities to evolve the model based on effective practice. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have come on to more understandable consideration of how the teams will work in practice, particularly with respect to local authority responsibility. Multi-agency child protection teams will be effective only if they are truly multi-agency. There is an understandable concern here about the significance of the role of local authorities, but it is probably also worth remembering, as we discussed on Tuesday, that safeguarding partners—local authorities, health and police—have joint and equal responsibilities for safeguarding in legislation. Through the multi-agency child protection teams, we are trying to ensure that day to day, in operational terms, with respect to individual children and cases, there is a practical way for those responsibilities, and the information that those agencies may have, to be brought together in that full picture about the child.

I spoke earlier about the findings from the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel on child protection. To tackle the issues it identified, we need, as I have suggested, multi-agency experts in a room together, sharing information and bringing their different perspectives to decisions that protect children. It is important that we ensure the right people are deployed to those teams so that expert, swift and decisive action is taken to protect children, and we recognise the importance of safeguarding partners reporting on the impact of their arrangements to make sure that is happening. We need to base that, as has been the argument on other parts of the Bill, on the best possible evidence, which is both the professional work that constituted the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and, as others have mentioned, the independent review by my honourable friend Josh MacAlister.

Of course, we also need the evaluation that noble Lords have talked about. It will come in more than one stage. There will be evaluation of the process and some of the practicalities of setting up the process that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referenced, and, later, of the impact of the teams.

Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks local discretion in multi-agency team membership and organisation. Requiring safeguarding partners to nominate a minimum team reflects partners’ collective duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. They will also have, as I outlined in the previous group, flexibility to add other agencies or individuals, reflecting local needs and to tackle local harms. We know from Families First pathfinders that these teams are already making a real difference. In Ofsted’s recent inspection of children’s services, Dorset, one of the pathfinders, received an “outstanding” judgment. The report noted that when children are at risk of significant harm, strategy meetings are well attended by partner agencies and that effective information-sharing and analysis of risk lead to children receiving the right intervention and support. It is right that we celebrate the success of and learning from pathfinders and, as I suggested previously, learn from where things have been more challenging. On the resourcing, as I said on Tuesday, this transformation journey is being supported from our £500 million Families First Partnership Programme funding.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, made a couple of specific points. On whether this is doing away with an independent chair, one of the main purposes of multi-agency child protection teams is to have a fresh pair of eyes coming in at the point of the Section 47 inquiry. The new lead child protection practitioner role will work—in fact, is working in pathfinders—in a very similar way to the current independent chairs. I take her point about the need for a fresh view and independence, but that is built into the design of the teams.

On whether this would mean children having more than one social worker, children and families will stay rooted in family help throughout. Multi-agency child protection teams will lead the child protection functions, working with and wrapping support around children, families and the family help lead practitioner. The multi-agency child protection team brings expertise and a fresh focus on significant harm. The lead child protection practitioner will be an experienced social worker but will not be the case lead. In other words, the important ongoing relationship, which I know children feel strongly about, with a person they can understand, work with and gain a relationship with, will remain in place, but additional expertise will be brought to this from the multi-agency child protection team.

On Amendment 37, which would place in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report annually on the team’s impact and activities, I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is essential that we understand how multi-agency teams are leading to better outcomes for children and that that learning be shared across the system. That being said, safeguarding partners already have a statutory responsibility to publish annual reports on their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. This will include reporting on multi-agency child protection teams once the teams come into force. Statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, already sets out the information that should be included in yearly reports, and that will include evidence of impact. Guidance will be updated to include the reporting requirements for these new multi-agency teams. There will be, at the level at which it really matters, a responsibility to account for and report on the nature and success of the multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.

On that basis, and with those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank warmly all those who contributed to this short debate, in particular my noble friend Lady O’Neill for her practical examples of how it works on the ground and the very reasonable concerns she and colleagues have about these reforms. If I am honest, I was worried when I listened to the Minister about the amount of confirmation bias in her remarks that this will work exactly as we all wish. If that turns out to be the case, I will be the first to admit that I am wrong, but most big, complicated reforms such as this do not go exactly as planned: some things go well, and others do not. I hope the Government will keep an open mind on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose Clause 3 standing part of the Bill and I fully support Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lady O’Neill. I thank my noble friend Lady Berridge for her support and for her very practical suggestion that the Minister meets those practitioners and experts. I hope very much that when the Minister winds up she will be able to say that she will have such a meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am more than happy to clarify for the benefit of the Committee. I have spoken personally to three directors of children’s services and one deputy director, and I have encouraged some of my colleagues to talk to their local director of children’s services. I stress that I was surprised at their response. I did not ring up and ask them to tell me about all the problems with the Bill; I rang up and explained that I would be responding on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I always prefer to talk to someone who is directly affected before I give my views, which may or may not be on message. It was an unprompted response. It is for them to decide if they wish to speak privately to Ministers, rather than for me to say at the Dispatch Box who they are. If the noble Lord has spoken to others who say something different, I am sure it is helpful for the Minister to hear that too.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Actually, I have spoken to only one director and I would not wish to comment on what they said, because it would perhaps give the wrong impression.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, rightly said that our child protection procedures are the envy of the world. She is right to say that, but it does not mean that we are complacent about the fact that we have good child protection procedures. You have to constantly look at any policies or systems and change and improve them. I am always impressed that children are at the heart of everything we do. When we had the Question on media literacy, and I rather cheekily asked what the Government’s number one priority was, the Minister rightly said that it was child protection. That is symptomatic of how we as a House react. We cannot stand still but, when we make detailed changes, we have to be sure that they are right. We should pilot them, perhaps learn from the pilot, and then use that to change and adapt, and we have to make the resources available.

I am particularly concerned about qualifications—they are the hallmark of safety. You would not want a plumber without any plumbing qualifications to come to your house, nor would you want an electrician without qualifications to look at the wiring. So it is in child safety, where we must make sure that the people around the table are qualified to give judgments and opinions to protect children.

As somebody who has said that he is not an expert by any means in this area, I hope that, when the Minister replies, she might simply spell out for me why she wants to make those changes and why she has not taken the advice of somebody who clearly is an expert and knows what they are talking about, and who has—probably through frustration—had to write a letter to the Times.

--- Later in debate ---

I understand the issues that have been raised about implementation. I hope I have provided some assurance about the continued engagement of our teams with experts and practitioners as we develop the detail of the implementation and the regulations, and the ability for this House to scrutinise those as well. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Can I just clarify a few points that the noble Baroness made in her remarks? She gave the example of Warwickshire reducing the number of children on child protection plans, but of course the number of children on child protection plans nationally fell last year by 1.7% and has fallen by 3.1% since 2020, and that is despite the increase in unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Clearly, we welcome the progress in Warwickshire and anywhere in the country that is achieving that, but I think the impression that she gave was that this was an unusual occurrence, and it is just important to acknowledge that that is a national trend.

Secondly, the regulations the Minister refers to are obviously extremely important in terms of implementation. I can remember other Governments publishing draft regulations during the passage of a Bill so that the House had clarity on their intentions. I wonder whether she would be very kind and take that back to the department and see if that is an option in this and potentially other areas of the Bill.

I am not sure whether I followed the Minister’s comments about the duplication of caseworkers, but page 13 of the department’s guidance appears to suggest that, in Section 47 cases, both the family help lead practitioner and the lead child protection practitioner will be involved. I am sorry to be picky about the money, and of course she is right on the £500 million, but, again, her department’s own documentation states that £253.5 million of that is mainstreamed funding originally for the Supporting Families programme. Again, this is just to be clear about what is new money and what it is for.

Finally, I wonder whether the Minister might pick up on my noble friend Lady Berridge’s suggestion about a meeting. She talked about the general engagement the department rightly has, but can she comment on whether she feels able to accept that invitation?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that she did not want to undermine the good work happening in Warwickshire by pointing out a general downturn in the number of child protection plans. Good, because, as I suggested earlier, we should celebrate where there has been good work, which in Warwickshire they certainly attributed to the changes they had made.

On the point about draft regulations, there is a tension here, because on the one hand people are asking us to continue to engage on the detail of how this is going to be implemented, yet also to have the regulations alongside the Bill. I will reflect on this and come back to her. On the point about duplication, I have explained it twice, but, clearly, I have not explained it well enough. So I will undertake to write to noble Lords about the operational details, and particularly the role of the family help lead practitioner and the lead practitioner for child protection, and the operational detail that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, was talking about.

On the point about new money, I think I have been pretty clear about what is new money; I said it explicitly. On the meeting, my point was that there will be a whole range of meetings and engagement; I did not say I would not have a meeting. My honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for children’s social care has met many practitioners, experts and DCSs as this process has gone on. I suspect that, between us, we will be able to continue meeting people in the way suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, this is really a probing amendment. I am the first to admit that this is not an area in which I have deep expertise, but my questioning comes from the angle of the impact on schools and is on how much time and cost would be involved.

I understand that Clause 3(4) amends Section 16J of the Children Act 2004 to require safeguarding partners—local authorities, police and health—to ensure that multi-agency child protection teams are adequately staffed. This includes representation from education. Schools themselves are not made statutory partners, but safeguarding partners must secure the participation and representation of education and childcare agencies at both operational and strategic levels in local safeguarding arrangements.

I also understand that the legislation does not impose new direct financial obligations on individual schools. The duty to ensure that teams are sufficiently staffed falls on the safeguarding partners, not the schools themselves. However, I presume that schools will incur some indirect costs related to staff time for participating in safeguarding arrangements, meetings and training. How will this change from the current arrangements? What additional obligations are likely to occur?

I listened carefully to the Minister’s point on the new money for implementation—£270 million. I respect the fact that she cannot give any clarity on long-term funding until the spending review in a few weeks’ time, so I do not have an issue with that. However, if we take that money—£270 million—and assume that even half goes to schools, when of course it will be a fraction of that, it is only £6,000 a school. I will come on to this in a minute.

I understand that the Government are planning to provide guidance to support implementation and that safeguarding partners are expected to tailor arrangements to local needs, which may help manage additional burdens on schools. When will that information be available? This is important because of the need for schools to budget. Unforeseen burdens are particularly likely in schools in areas of high deprivation, which are seeing the backwash of so much suffering of vulnerable children. The point, of which I hope the Minister will be mindful, is that we have only 1,265 hours a year of directed time for our teaching cohort, so every hour doing something other than teaching is salami-slicing away our ability to provide good education. Something has to give.

The other area I am puzzled by—this, again, is my ignorance—is these pilots that have been running. I have been trying to find some feedback on these pilots but have not been able to find anything. The Commons Select Committee raised this issue of a lack of clarity, so can any be provided? My noble friend Lady Barran said that some of these pilots had received extra money to juice them up and get more participation, which is great, but will that be rolled out more widely?

I am very worried about this because, as noble Lords know, we are facing something of a financial bloodbath in the school sector. If we have to start hiring supply teachers to enable ordinary teachers to be released to go to safeguarding meetings, these costs will hit us. Can the Minister give us a timeline on the implications for schools and assure us that schools will have sufficient time between the publishing of the guidance and the setting of their budgets? For example, we really need to set our budgets in April to go live in September, because that tends to be when teacher recruitment goes on, as people resign and are appointed. I hope the Minister will understand where I am coming from. I acknowledge that I have a lot less knowledge of this sector, but I am worried about the backwash into the school sector. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton’s amendment. The example that he gave of teachers and teaching assistants, as cited in his Amendment 34, could obviously be replicated for many other agencies, with a valuable contribution to make to multi-agency child protection teams and wider safeguarding activities, including local drug and alcohol services, mental health services, domestic abuse services, housing associations and more. The key point here is that practitioners need to feel confident about how to engage in the process and how any information they share will be used, confident that it will not put anyone at risk and, as my noble friend so ably put it, confident that they have the time in their working day to be able to participate responsibly. From my own experience, I know we make assumptions at our peril about how confident even statutory agencies are in some of these areas, so any programme that promotes safe and effective partnership work is to be commended.

My Amendment 38 seeks to understand what capacity the Government think will be needed on the ground and what guidance they plan to give for this. The Bill says in Clause 3, page 3, lines 16 to 21:

“Arrangements … must include the establishment of one or more multi-agency child protection teams … for the purpose of providing support to the local authority in connection with the discharge of its duties under section 47 of the Children Act 1989”.


In Clause 3, page 3, lines 27 to 31, it says:

“A multi-agency child protection team is to consist of … at least one of each of the persons mentioned in subsection (4), and … such other persons as the local authority considers appropriate after consulting the other safeguarding partners”.


My cracked-record question is this: what does this mean in real life?

I am sure that the answer to this is no, but, as written, it could mean that Birmingham has one team and Rutland has one team. I am sure the Minister will reassure me that that is not the plan. Even smaller local authorities, particularly rural local authorities, have multiple child protection teams already, so adding one more will not be that useful to them if they have multiple existing teams that need that multi-agency engagement.

When I led the charity SafeLives and we did the rollout of multi-agency risk assessment conferences around the country, we gave estimates to every area based on evidence of realistic case loads, resource requirements and so forth—and we had rather less influence than the Government do. My challenge to the Minister is: if a small charity can do that, surely the Government can do something similar or work with the ADCS or the LGA to develop appropriate clarity and guidance. I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain the Government’s plans.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, having read both these amendments, I think it is reasonable to ask the Government what resources are required. When it comes to teachers, we have often dealt with the question of what is required and, if it is a new skill, how they will acquire it. Having enough awareness to call in an expert is another thing we have often talked about in other fields—I certainly have on special educational needs.

If you do not have that training in place, it is a matter of where you go to get that support. Asking for that is one of the things we should do here. I hope the Minister will give us a reply that at least starts to push us towards looking to where these resources are and, more importantly for the people on the ground, where they can look to for support and help, or be trained to do so. Without that linkage, people who are only now being brought into this process on an official basis will fail if they do not know what they are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak in this group, but I want to add my support to my fellow Norfolk Peer and noble friend Lord Agnew and ask the Minister a question. We have talked about local authority resources and the pressure that local authorities are under. Norfolk County Council is the strategic authority and its competences include education, special needs, vulnerable children, et cetera. Its budget is under a great deal of pressure, as the Minister will know. Norfolk County Council said recently that it has to find another £40 million of savings.

As we move towards unitary government, there are plans to bring in unitary government across Norfolk, which basically means getting rid of the districts and maybe replacing them with one unitary council, which would be Norfolk County Council, plus all the other competences. However, if we move to more than one unitary authority in a large county such as Norfolk, and maybe in counties such as Suffolk as well, and have possibly one or two unitaries replacing the county and the districts, what will happen in terms of the dissipation of resources going into this type of work with vulnerable children? Would they be spread between one or more authorities? What are going to be the consequences in terms of replication of services and cost pressures on those authorities, at a time when budgets are very tight anyway?

The other question I have follows on from the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. If resources are not going to be made available, what possibilities are there going to be for teachers and TAs to get that extra training outside their local authority? If they want to enhance their career or widen their experience on their own initiative because there is nothing available for them in terms of provision within the authority, what can they do and who can they turn to to get that extra training?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think there is a misunderstanding about my noble friend Lord Agnew’s remarks. My understanding is that he said that schools have got very good at safeguarding, but there are new responsibilities on schools in this Bill and he asked whether additional training would be required and where the resource would be, rather than saying, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, seemed to infer, that this was a new thing. My noble friend knows extremely well that it is not a new thing.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In previous groups, I have spoken at some length about the purpose and functions of these new multi-agency child protection teams and how they will be delivered as part of the existing joint and equal duty on safeguarding partners to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area.

On Amendment 34, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for his contribution on ensuring that teachers and teaching assistants have the right training to work effectively in child protection. Statutory guidance is clear that teaching staff should receive safeguarding training at induction and at least annually thereafter. My noble friend Lady Bousted was very clear about that position. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was also very passionate about the need for schools to be involved in this issue, which is precisely why on Tuesday we debated the clause about education and childcare settings being key safeguarding partners, and the improved emphasis on that in this legislation.

However, despite having this assurance, I decided in the spirit of the previous discussion that we were having that I would consult an expert about whether this is in fact the case. I consulted a teacher very close to me about the sort of training that he is receiving. He told me, “Every year, we receive statutory update training at the beginning of the year. This can take most of one of our inset days and requires us to read the updates for KCSIE”—Keeping Children Safe in Education—“guidance. Then we get update training through the year, every couple of weeks in briefing, and then about once a half-term in an after-school CPD”. He is an excellent teacher, although as his mother I am completely biased, and he is in a very good school. I think this makes the point about the current position in terms of training for teachers and teaching assistants.

There is a reasonable point to be made about the education partners. Although they already have a responsibility for safeguarding, they will now also have a more explicit role in the multi-agency child protection teams. I hope I can reassure noble Lords by saying that the statutory guidance is also clear that the statutory safeguarding partners, which include the other partners that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referred to, should support practitioners that work with children, including through creating a learning culture where practitioners stay up to date on best practice. We are clear and confident that the education practitioner in the multi-agency child protection teams will be able to operate as a crucial link to and from education and childcare settings, ensuring that school staff are supported to work effectively with vulnerable children and the child protection teams.

The pathfinder areas have developed multi-agency workforce development plans and delivered comprehensive multi-agency training that has provided opportunities not just to ensure that practitioners have the knowledge and skills they need to deliver effective child protection but to align on shared values and build these vital cross-agency relationships. Training typically covers the reforms, safeguarding responsibilities, local practice frameworks and how different roles fit together across the system. There is both an opportunity within schools and an improved opportunity, from the role of the education practitioner in the multi-agency child protection teams, to ensure that that expertise is there.

I turn now to Amendment 38, which relates to sufficient resource and delegated functions. I spoke on this in the previous group. In fact, we have, understandably, talked about it in several groups so far in Committee. I will briefly revisit the key points. The new teams will be delivered as part of the existing joint and equal duty on safeguarding partners. I have previously mentioned the flexibility in the new measures, which enables teams to operate along police and health footprints, balanced with a sharp focus on multi-agency child protection delivery, where agencies are clear about their responsibilities and accountabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, answered her own question. Of course it would not be the case that you would have the same number of multi-agency child protection teams in an authority such as Birmingham as you would have in Rutland; that would not be logical.

I am not sure that I would characterise this system as simply adding another child protection team alongside the current ones, as I think the noble Baroness said. As I said in my explanations on the previous group in particular, the intention is very much that these teams will be the place where agencies will be able to work together in the consideration of child protection cases and issues. They are quite distinct from the child protection teams that might currently exist.

In terms of resources, safeguarding partners already agree and dedicate resources as part of their local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, and the Government have provided £500 million to support the rollout of the Families First Partnership Programme, of which multi-agency child protection teams are a part, as I said previously.

I do not want to be churlish about this, but I am not sure I would have rolled up to this Committee at this point to focus particularly on how difficult school and local government funding is if I had spent the last 14 years supporting the last Government. Nevertheless, it is an important point that we ensure that there is sufficient funding, which is why this Government have already increased, in real terms, funding going to both schools and local government.

On the group before last, we responded to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, about the consequences and the process of local government reorganisation. I think I gave some reassurance on that, provided to me by my noble friend Lady Taylor.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

41: Clause 4, page 6, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 on page 7
Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment which seeks to question the effectiveness of the drafting of 16LA

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 41, I shall speak to Amendments 45 and 46 in my name. I look forward the speech of my noble friend Lady Spielman, on her Amendment 69, and take this opportunity, on behalf of the Committee, to wish her a very happy birthday.

As I set out in an earlier group, I hope that my prior experience in setting up information-sharing fora at scale in relation to high-risk domestic abuse will be useful as the Committee debates these important changes.

My Amendment 41, as well as Amendment 42, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, would remove the duty to share information in relation to safeguarding welfare for the agencies referred to in new subsection (4), which include the statutory safeguarding partners—police, local authorities and health, education and childcare agencies, and any person who is doing work for either group. That could refer to, for example, an independent chair in a serious case review. Can the Minister be clear about who is intended to be covered by new paragraph (c)?

My concerns about this part of the Bill are that it feels, when you read it, as if it is taking information-sharing in isolation. It seems to imagine a world where a relevant partner—let us say a school or a child-minding agency—has information that it is concerned about a child, which it passes on to the local authority, and then that is it. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, but I am trying to make sure that the Bill does what the Government intend it to do.

In practice, you need information-sharing protocols, and a place where you can discuss the information that you have shared. The Minister earlier referred to Annie Hudson’s comments about people being in the same place. You also need to be together to agree what actions to take in relation to that information. I cannot see how any of that works in the Bill. The Minister may say that it is not for the Government to prescribe these things, but we have a lot here in regulation and guidance, and it would be helpful if the Minister could elaborate and say exactly what the guidance will cover.

My other worry is that, in real life, you often do not know the significance of the information that you hold until you join it together with information from other agencies. We used to say at SafeLives, “You don’t know what you don’t know”. When the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, was the Minister, I remember taking one of her colleagues from the Home Office to visit one of these multi-agency meetings, which I thought would almost certainly be the kiss of death for our future relationship with the Home Office, but we survived. There was a case of sharing information, which I remember very vividly, where the police officer said that they knew about the case, they had attended the address seven times, the woman was always drunk and, on the final occasion, they fined her for wasting police time. As we went around the table, it came to the representative from the A&E team, a nurse, who looked at the police officer as only nurses can and asked him to run through the dates of those attendances, which he did. She said that they had had an attendance on every one of those nights for that woman, she had several broken bones and they had an attendance from the child the next day who had, they were told, fallen off his bike. We do not need miles of domestic abuse training to know that neither party could probably put those things together until they had heard the other side.

Even on a simpler level, any of your Lordships who have been involved in this work will know that in the same family you can have one child who is causing all sorts of trouble in school and is visibly disturbed, and a sibling who wants to stay for every after-school club and is the most immaculately behaved. I know that a Bill cannot address all those permutations, but we just need reassurance that the Government have thought this through in practice.

It is also frequently not responsible to share information if nothing is going to happen with it. We are not just offloading risk from what we know on to another agency. The balancing considerations in the data protection legislation are there for a reason and we should respect people’s privacy unless we think that, by sharing information, we will make them safer.

It is important to have a full picture of a child’s life when considering safeguarding concerns. I wonder how this works where, say, the school shares a low-level concern with health because it is the most relevant statutory agency but, in the same case, the police share different information with the local authority. That is not clear to me. I know who, in theory, should hold the full picture, but in practice how does the local authority social work team hold the whole picture? Crucially, how is that picture kept up to date? Similarly, where is the duty for the lead safeguarding agencies to share back with wider organisations what action they have taken based on the information that was shared? Those organisations need to know how they can help, what they can do that would make a child safer and, indeed, what they could do that might increase risk to a child.

It is also not clear to me from the Bill what the threshold is for sharing. The duty in new Section 16LA(1)(a) and (b) states that a person to whom the section applies—in this case, all the 400-plus schools, nurseries and childminders in a typical local authority that my noble friend Lady Spielman referred to on Tuesday—will have a duty to share information that is

“relevant to safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the child”.

That is obviously incredibly broad and would require a lot of resource if it is followed to the letter. Again, when I look at the impact assessment, I cannot see how that has been fully accounted for. If the Minister could elaborate, that would be very helpful.

I also think that agencies will need guidance about when to disclose information, as the law obviously allows them to do this today, and this does not change those duties. Even statutory partners such as the police benefit from guidance, and we need to strike a balance between hypervigilance, on one hand, and information dumping—sharing everything and risk aversion—on the other.

It is also not clear to me from the Bill whether education and childcare agencies should seek consent, presumably from the parent rather than the child, before sharing information, and where public interest overrides consent. In practice, as the Minister knows, there is a blurry line when sharing information about a child. Say the child came into school unwashed, in unwashed clothes, for the fourth day in a row. That might be something specific about the child that is legal to share, but it implicitly shares information about the parents, where the balancing considerations might play out differently.

In a world where agencies trust one another, this becomes a two-way street. The local authority makes a request of a nursery for information, for example, but can the nursery make a request of the local authority? More specifically, how do the Government think that subject access requests will be handled? I think of my grandson’s former childminder, who was wonderful. How do we expect those mom-and-pop or mom-and-mom organisations to deal with this, both administratively and in human terms?

My noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 49 raises the point about retaining public trust in the process, including by clarifying the need to maintain records of processing disclosures made under this new section. I could go on, but I do not think I need to. Inserting new Section 16LA is the right thing to do, but getting it right in practice is fiendishly difficult. Moving from a world where education and childcare agencies can and do share information with statutory agencies about the safeguarding and welfare of children to a world where they have a duty to do so, without having tested this in practice, may throw up all sorts of unintended consequences, so I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure me. I think it would be unfair to expect her to address each of those points in detail, but will she consider them, comment on those that she can and perhaps find out from the department whether there have been any pilots of this approach? If there have been any in the Families First Partnership areas, how is that going?

I turn to my other amendments. As noble Lords will know, the Public Bill Office here has done a beyond superhuman job in tabling a huge number of amendments. I am ashamed to say that some came from me at a very late hour, and I am hugely grateful, but I think that my Amendments 45 and 46 overlap; we do not need them both.

These amendments link to some of the points that we raised on Clause 3. I am thinking about cases in which information unexpectedly emerges about significant risk, either to another sibling or to an adult in the family or extended family, which is, if I can sneak it back in, why I prefer Amendment 45 over Amendment 46. The former, in relation to a sibling, is easier to deal with. Domestic abuse is an obvious concern, and I know that the Minister shares my concerns about that. Our actions must be prioritised to safeguard the child, but that could in turn increase risk to the victim, which ironically could then make things worse for the child. The victim discloses domestic abuse to the childminder, who then reports it to the local authority and the police. The police turn up and, as we know, in many cases no further action is taken, and that perhaps silences the victim from seeking help. I know the Minister is familiar with the fact that we cannot legislate for every human behaviour, but I am just thinking through the risks, both to the victim and to the child, in such a case.

I will give another true case from many years ago. An abusive father was the carer for his mother, and adult services were unaware of the concerns about his behaviour despite the fact that his mother kept falling out of bed and injuring herself. Within this approach, I wonder how those wider information-sharing gaps will be bridged. My amendment is probing, but I want reassurance that the Government have thought these things through. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply and the contributions of other noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

We will work with sector representatives to ensure that standards work focuses on the biggest information challenges that they face. We will draw, for example, on the Cabinet Office examples that the noble Baroness identified. We need to develop and test these standards prior to their implementation, and assess the most appropriate method to introduce them, but I hope that that gives the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and others some certainty and assurance that we are making progress on this. With all the explanation that I have given, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response, and I look forward to her letter on some of the even more detailed points that I think deserve clarification. It was reassuring to hear her confirmation that there will be user testing going on, as she said. I wish her and colleagues in the department good luck with the consent guidance, because it is hard. If you are in a nursery and you are worried that a child is being neglected, getting consent from the parent is not a comfortable conversation, but not telling them and them finding out could put the child at greater risk. It always was hard and does not get any easier.

On my noble friend Lady Spielman’s amendment on open data standards, it was good to hear the Minister’s response that work is going on in that area. Maybe in future debates we can get clarity about some sense of timing. Going back to the earlier debates on Clause 3, one of the biggest blocks to multi-agency work is just how slow it is to get data out of different systems to be able to share it. Can the Government do anything to smooth that along? I thought the experience of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was extremely helpful in that regard.

We have at least two examples—there may be more—of doing these big data transformation projects quickly when we need to. The first was the linking of primary and secondary healthcare data—not schools—during the pandemic, so that we could predict ICU bed capacity needs. The second is, as the Minister knows, my favourite: attendance data. That has been a game-changer and, happily, we are seeing attendance start to improve. I am glad to hear that the department is taking that seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

44: Clause 4, page 6, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the relevant person considers that the disclosure would be more detrimental to the child than not disclosing the information, this decision must be recorded.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require that decisions made not to disclose information must be recorded.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendments 44, 47 and 48 all relate to the recording of information-sharing decisions, and they cover the two obvious situations: one where information is shared and one where it is not shared because the relevant person considers that sharing it would be more detrimental to the child than not sharing it. These amendments seek to clarify what the expectations are on all agencies, from the smallest childminder to the largest college, in terms of recording their decisions and the reasons for those decisions.

Keeping good records is obviously essential but it takes time and requires secure storage and access rights. Good record-keeping can improve safeguarding situations; for example, where there are changes of staff or somebody is on holiday and a new or temporary member of staff may not know the history of the case. Similarly, an agency may decide not to share information at one point and then decide at a subsequent point that it is in the best interests of the child’s safety and welfare to do so.

I would like to press the Minister on cases where the decision is made not to share information because of the fear that it would be detrimental to the child’s safety. As discussed earlier, we do not know what we do not know. So one piece of information might not seem overly worrying but, when pieced together with others, as we have discussed, the picture changes. Also, we need confidence that practitioners are considering these decisions with care. No one expects perfection in these areas but, rather, defensible not defensive decision-making.

Will the Minister comment in this regard on subsections (5) and (6), which I assume will be clarified in regulations? Having a clear decision-making process, to record as simply as possible the decision taken and the reasons for it, will improve the quality of decision-making. In a serious case incident, by which I mean when a child is killed or seriously harmed, it will be vital, so I ask again: how is this going to work in practice? I can see that, if you are a strong local authority, a strong trust or a large college, this might be close to business as usual, but what about the single small primary school head who has to deal with this, along with 55 other responsibilities, or the nursery or the childminder? I look forward to the Minister’s remarks. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in group six, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendments 44, 47 and 48 seek to require practitioners to keep records of decisions made when processing information under the new information-sharing duty. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that documenting such decisions is important for the reasons that she outlined. This principle is already embedded in the non-statutory guidance Information Sharing: Guidance for Practitioners and Managers, as well as in the Information Commissioner’s Office’s A 10 Step Guide to Sharing Information to Safeguard Children, both of which promote clear and proportionate record keeping.

In relation to the points that the noble Baroness made about smaller organisations having to carry this out, I shall read an extract from the non-statutory guidance that I think is helpful. It includes the advice:

“Record the reasons for your information sharing decision, irrespective of whether or not you decide to share information. When another practitioner or organisation requests information from you, and you decide not to share it, be prepared to explain why you chose not to do so. Be willing to reconsider your decision if the requestor shares new information that might cause you to regard information you hold in a new light. When recording any decision, clearly set out the rationale and be prepared to explain your reasons if you are asked”.


Furthermore, data protection legislation includes key principles such as lawfulness, transparency and, crucially, accountability, which require organisations to demonstrate compliance with data protection obligations.

Our plan is, as the noble Baroness surmised, to introduce statutory guidance covering matters such as appropriate record keeping. Agencies must have regard to the guidance in discharging the duty, which further strengthens the position of recording decisions. We think this strikes the right balance by ensuring that audit trails are in place, as she outlined, without placing unnecessary administrative burdens on practitioners who are already, as she said, working under significant pressure. I hope that has reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I did read an extract from the non-statutory guidance that already exists, Information Sharing: Advice for Practitioners Providing Safeguarding Services for Children, Young People, Parents and Carers. As I also said, there is the Information Commissioner’s Office’s A 10 Step Guide to Sharing Information to Safeguard Children. I am sure they are 10 straightforward steps.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Only 10 steps. I am reassured that the Minister has considered this carefully. I think my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is right to probe gently in relation to the smallest organisations, where familiarity with this degree of responsibility may be less great and it could cause some anxiety. So, in addition to the guidance, there might need to be some support for those organisations—but I am sure the Minister will consider that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 44 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, it is important to remember that particularly vulnerable children, such as newly arriving asylum seekers, will have no number and not be on a database. For them, local networks of relationships could literally be their saving grace. I trust that the Minister will address these important issues in her remarks. In the interim, I support Amendment 50, 54, 62 and 63.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 59, ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Cash, and Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer. The points made by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough about some of the risks with the consistent identifier are incredibly important to get right. Nearly all of us in this House support the introduction of a consistent identifier, but the points about data protection, privacy and malicious use that he raised, as well as a potential extension of scope, need to be resolved before it can be implemented safely at scale.

My thinking behind probing Amendment 59 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lucas was to ask the Minister—if she can bear it at this stage of the afternoon—to run through again how we think this will work in practice for the smallest organisations. In the last group, she set out clearly the non-statutory guidance around balancing considerations and recording information. It sounds straightforward when read out like that, but, as we know, it is more complicated in real life. We are expecting those very small organisations to input and hold data on a consistent identifier in a way that is secure.

I do not think previous speakers raised the risk of data hacking. We recently had concerns over the cyberattack on the legal aid database, where personal, sensitive information was stolen by the cyberhackers. Clearly, this is not the kind of thing that should happen with children’s data. What thought have the Minister and her team given to that?

Can the Minister also confirm whether the use of the single unique identifier has been tested with all types of practitioner? I think she mentioned the pilot in Wigan, but does that include the smallest practitioners as well as the largest, and what practical implementation lessons can be learned from that?

Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer—who cannot be in his place today—which was very well introduced by my noble friend Lord Jackson, is a small but important amendment. Noble Lords have referred to the terrible death of Victoria Climbié. I remember reading the report many years ago; if I remember rightly, eight different files were held on her, partly because she had lived in two local authorities and partly because her name kept being spelled differently, which was one of the reasons why the risk of harm to her was missed. That is an argument in favour of a consistent identifier, but information can still be inputted incorrectly, including numbers—we will have a debate soon on dyscalculia. It is a very serious issue, as is the point, which I had not thought of but should have done, about how malicious information that is shared and recorded could ever be removed. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and thought-provoking debate on an important topic: namely, how we use a unique identifier in the interests of safeguarding our children. Noble Lords have quite rightly raised some crucial questions for the Minister to answer, particularly relating to privacy and aiming to clarify His Majesty’s Government’s purpose in this clause.

We hope that the Minister will be able to shed further light on both the specific and broader issues. I believe Amendment 56, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, and Amendment 63, in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, are both important as they seek to outline what should be in future regulations. We are interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on these, and seek to clarify if the Government would consider publishing draft regulations during the passage of the Bill.

Similarly, Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer highlights the crucial issue of accurate and secure data collection, as well as the recording and storage of that data. I appreciate that technology has moved on, but many noble Lords will remember the child benefit data loss in 2007, the cyberattack and theft of data from the Legal Aid Agency only last week and the current disruptions from a cyberattack that one of our major high street retailers is facing. This is a real and present danger, which is only going to increase. The loose nature of the clause creates veritable and justifiable concerns.

On more specific issues, we are particularly interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on Amendment 54 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer. Can she please give the Committee an example of a similar set of identifiers that is of general application? We also look forward to the Minister’s response to Amendment 59, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, which would, if accepted, allow this project to move forward on a much lower risk and much more affordable basis.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

51: Clause 4, page 7, leave out lines 21 to 27 and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision relating to the consistent identifier.(2) For the purposes of this section the NHS number is the consistent identifier.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the single use identifier is described on the face of the Bill.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, my remarks on this group have shrunk somewhat, thanks to the Minister’s earlier reply, so this is really an opportunity for her to confirm and clarify some of her earlier comments in relation to the use of the NHS number, which is addressed through my Amendment 51, which I think shares the aims of Amendment 52, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, presented in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, earlier.

The context for considering this group of amendments is the long debate that has run for many years about whether there should be a consistent identifier for children and, if so, what that number should be. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, has campaigned on this very actively over many years, so I am sure she is here with us in spirit.

I was very reassured to hear the Minister say that there would not be a database and therefore that we do not have to worry about some of the concerns surrounding ContactPoint and other similar projects today. As your Lordships’ House knows, the Children’s Commissioner and leading children’s charities all support this move and believe that a consistent identifier

“will enable a child to be identified with more confidence”

across the multiplicity of information management systems that we know exist and therefore allow information

“to be shared more efficiently and securely when consent has been received or a safeguarding decision has been made to do so”.

Rightly, the assumption in their statement is that is that information can be shared only with consent—or, to be fair, if a safeguarding decision has been made to do so, which implies that there is no consent. So obviously, this will apply in both cases.

My amendment would do two things. First, it would put in the Bill that the consistent identifier would be a child’s NHS number. Many commentators on the Bill have said that it is important to do this rather than leaving it to regulations, and we need to be clear that the Government are not tempted by another major IT adventure in this area. Secondly, it would allow the Secretary of State by regulations to make provision relating to the consistent identifier. Our intention is to get clarity in the Bill that it is the NHS number, but then give the Secretary of State the flexibility she needs to keep the approach up to date. I know that the Minister has said—I do not want to put words into her mouth—that the Government are exploring using the NHS number, and it looks like the front-runner. Those are definitely not the words she used. I wonder whether she could elaborate a little, to the extent that she feels able, on whether it is really the NHS number or whether anything else is realistically in contention. Therefore, if that pilot was not successful, how much time and money would this set us back?

In debates on earlier groups, other noble Lords mentioned the limitations of the NHS number. Of course, there are children who do not have one, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, but the Minister has already given a constructive way through that, and there are also adoptive children. I know there are real concerns that adoptive children should have a single NHS number that does not change. I felt there was a hopeful hint behind her words, but maybe she can expand on that. I think there have been cases where changing numbers and not having that history of a child’s health has not been in the best interests of the child.

It would also be good to hear the Minister’s reflections on the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Jackson about families who might be driven away from registering with a GP because of concerns about how their data might be used, thus preventing access to basic healthcare for their children. How real a risk does she believe that to be? Either way, we think that those risks just pale in comparison with those of another new IT project and a number created purely for these purposes. If I have understood correctly that the NHS number is the front-runner, could she expand a little more on the Wigan pilot? Is it the only pilot that the Government are intending to run? How long will it run for? Will there be others? Will they be evaluated? Can she give us any hint on a timeline? I assume there will be no wider rollout until that work is complete. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and strongly congratulate the Government on having picked up the concept of a unique child identifier. I was part of the group, with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, when we did not get there on previous legislation, and we were told that one reason was that the Department for Education could not see how it could do that and link with health, so seeing the Department for Education involved is particularly cheering.

I will make a case quite strongly for the NHS number rather than anything else, partly because I think we need to learn lessons from other number systems. If we look just at hospital records, different hospitals have different numbers and then there is the NHS number, and that has resulted in all kinds of clinical muddles and potential errors. The other thing is that children move around. People do not stay in the same area all the time, and the NHS number moves with them. If they have one number and move to a new area and register with a GP, for example, and then go to register with a school, if there have been major concerns then eventually those case notes will come through and people will become aware.

Going back to my previous experience, sometimes we found that the families with the highest risk had multiple addresses, out of town and in different cities. The other advantage is that, although we have devolved healthcare systems, we have a unique NHS number so, if people move between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, that number will persist. That is not a central database; it is simply saying that the number is there.

Children’s names change and their “known as” also changes. They may be known as another name but the number, a little like their genetic make-up, is fixed, which is really helpful. It will also avoid problems of lots of children having the same name, which is when muddles happen. I am from Wales, and we have a lot of people called David Jones and David Evans, and quite a few called David Williams, let alone Siân and Ceri. They are great names but, if you are trying to differentiate between them, you have to be really careful.

The final reason why I think this is particularly important is about transition and children who have learning difficulties and neurodiversity. Transition is an extremely difficult time for children. In those late teens, hormones are kicking in all over the place and all kinds of things are happening. Their relationships with the people who have been their carers through childhood change, and they can be at particular risk during those times, particularly during puberty if they have real learning difficulties.

I really hope that the pilot with the NHS number continues. When the Minister responds, it will be very helpful to know what kinds of numbers are being evaluated in those pilot areas—I hope there are more than one—so that the studies are sufficiently powered to be valid. Where have the objections come from? Who has not complied with being engaged? There may be some education needed to remove any sense of threat, because it will make safeguarding easier for people who have responsibility for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am pretty certain that officials will have already consulted with the royal college, but, if they have not, I give the noble Baroness an undertaking that they will.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I again thank the Minister for her reply. I am not sure I heard exactly whether there will be more than one pilot or quite what the timeline was, but, at this hour on a Thursday evening, I will not press her on that. I trust her to update the House when she is able to say more.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her intervention. It is a reminder that we are so fortunate to be surrounded by such experts, and such patient and persistent ones—in a good way. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches are very supportive of Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Of course, there is detail to be worked out, although we have already heard some encouraging ways through about how to use this anonymised data in practice. Clearly, if it could be aggregated and anonymised in whatever cut—so to speak—that would help us interrogate it and get some answers to some of the systemic issues that exist in child safeguarding and welfare.

We are interested in both parts of the noble Lord’s amendment: namely, research and commissioning. Having a better understanding of the patterns of safeguarding issues, which children are most likely to be affected and what works would be invaluable for practitioners and policymakers alike. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, understanding what does not work and where the glitches are in the system is equally valuable. The more transparency we have on these issues, the better the commissioning of services will be. This made me think back to my noble friend Lady Spielman’s Amendment 69 on open data standards, and I know the Minister said that work is going on in that regard. If that was successful, it could be shared for some of the same purposes as Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I wonder whether that might be another way through, if the Government are unable to accept his amendment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, having listened to what has been said about Amendment 61, I say briefly that it is very sensible, providing that the data can be kept safe. That is the caveat. If the Minister could address that point, that would inform the Committee as to where we can go with this.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) A family group decision-making meeting must be offered by the relevant local authority when a family is going through private law proceedings.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to reduce the conflict in private law proceedings by offering a family group decision making meeting, allow other family members to support the child as well as to identify where there are significant safeguarding risks to the child/children. It seeks to strengthen the intention that mediation and reconciliation out of court are better for the child.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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 the court. As the Minister will know, a Section 7 report is a court-order document, prepared under Section 7 of the Children Act 1989, and is ordered when parents cannot agree on arrangements for their children’s care, usually only if there are any aspects of the children’s welfare that require further investigation. My question is: could this also be an area where family group decision-making might apply? If the Government have not considered these options, can the Minister, as a minimum, commit to considering them and working out the practical implications? This is exactly the kind of situation where the wider family could help but where the involvement of child protection professionals is needed.

I am optimistic—although my optimism might be waning—that the Minister might look favourably on my Amendment 6, because it makes so much sense for children. It addresses another current gap, when a child is reunited with their parents after a period of being in care. Reunification is the most common way for children to leave care, with 27% of those leaving care returning home in 2022-23. However, the number of children who then re-enter the care system is far too high, with 12% of those children re-entering within three months and more than a third within six years. Of course, we all want reunification to have the best chance of success. The statistics on those breakdowns are pretty stark, but the human cost for those children is far starker.

Finally, my Amendment 17, which I think the noble Baroness was starting to talk about on an earlier group—but maybe not—seeks to give a continuing role to the local authority in safeguarding a child in kinship care. With this amendment, I seek to probe what safeguards are in place around kinship care. So, if I have understood correctly, if the public law outline for care proceedings has started or the child has been made subject to a child protection plan—both of which would be the case when a family group decision-making process starts, as per this legislation—the significant harm threshold has been met. New carers may not be able to address all the risks that a child faces; they may well be the right place for that child to be, but they might need additional support.

For example, from my work prior to coming into your Lordships’ House, I know of a number of cases where a child’s parents coerced the kinship carer into allowing them to have unsupervised contact with their children—which we can all understand, on a human level, may be very hard to resist. I appreciate that this is a very delicate balance that needs to be struck, but this amendment aims to give the local authority the ability, where needed, to create something like a kinship protection plan, rather than a child protection plan, until it is confident that the arrangements are safe and in the child’s best interests, or until a child arrangement order or special guardianship order is made by the family court. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on these amendments, which would significantly improve the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

Given those explanations and assurances, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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 to make sure that everything is okay, and supporting the family without being overly intrusive and behaving like the heavy hand of the state. It is a real issue that practitioners are worried about, so I hope that, together with colleagues in the department, the Minister will consider it some more. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Earl of Effingham]

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) The family group decision-making meeting, or meetings, must follow an evidence based approach including the appointment of an independent and suitably trained coordinator, including in relation to domestic abuse.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that family group decision-making meetings follow an evidence based approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Meston (CB)]

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.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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 how this will work in practice. The hesitation on the part of the Government in this area, which I think is reasonable, reflects the difficulty in implementation, given the number of organisations involved in education and childcare. My amendment suggests that it would help to have a single point of contact both within the local authority and within the education and childcare sector. Can the Minister confirm whether the assumption is that education and childcare providers can all contact the LADO in their local authority with any safeguarding concerns, and is she confident that the LADOs around the country will have capacity for this? Similarly, is the local authority expected to contact every organisation directly, or is there a role for a single point of contact who could perhaps advise on general queries?

Finally, I have given notice that I intend to oppose the proposition that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. To be clear, unlike some of my other clause stand part notices, this is purely probing. The policy summary produced by the DfE states:

“These arrangements enable education and childcare agencies to have representation”—


this is my emphasis, not that of the policy summary—

“at both the operational and strategic decision-making levels of these safeguarding arrangements”.

The summary continues:

“Practically, this may look like including the breadth of education settings: from early years and childcare to schools including academies, independent schools, alternative provision and further education in operational safeguarding boards, and”—


again, this is my emphasis—

“having representation for their views at executive boards so that they can influence decisions being made about safeguarding in their local area”.

Interestingly, there is no mention of special schools in that list. I am not clear why, because I would have thought that safeguarding would be a particular priority. I think we all have a sense of what this looks like at an operational level, but the policy summary talks about involvement at a strategic level. Will the Minister explain who is going to be able to represent all agencies in an area, what representation of their views at executive boards will look like in real life, and how this will be resourced? Clause 2 is an area where there is broad support for the Government’s approach, but we need more clarity on how they intend to implement these duties and how they will be funded.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to— (a) improve the safety and wellbeing of children;(b) improve the regulation of children’s homes, fostering agencies and other settings where looked after children are accommodated;(c) improve safety and standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales;(d) make provision regarding children not in school.”

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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 removing key processes without asking why they exist or how they interact with other checks and balances. What looks tidy on paper (neatly divided ‘pillars’ of reform) may create dangerous, unpredictable consequences in practice as they interact”.


These are concerns from one of the greatest experts on child protection in the country, and we should take them very seriously. Her letter closes with the hope that, as this Bill passes through your Lordships’ House,

“the government will use this opportunity to listen, pause and revise its plan”.

I hope that, when she responds, the Minister, who has great and much-respected experience in this area, will be able to offer some encouragement, in contrast to the tone of the Government’s response in the Times yesterday. As Professor Munro wrote yesterday:

“Reforms must strengthen child protection, not weaken it”.


So why are the professor and other senior leaders in the sector so worried? In simple terms, I believe it is because these early clauses have not been properly tested. Indeed, there are reports that the initial pathfinder sites are encountering significant implementation problems that need to be resolved before a wider rollout. Surely the Government should publish the evaluation first and then adapt their approach depending on what it shows. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm when that evaluation will be published.

Equally concerning is the inadequate funding to implement these extensive changes, particularly in relation to children’s social care. The £290 million allocated for one year falls dramatically short of the £2 billion-plus estimated by the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care as necessary to make early help effective. Without proper resources, we risk creating a system that cannot deliver on its promises.

More broadly, Part 1 is quietly unambitious. It fails to offer a vision of how to expand the reach of well- tested approaches, such as family group decision-making, or to present a convincing approach to grow capacity to support looked-after children in their communities and avoid unnecessary placements in children’s homes or, worse, in unregistered provision. I cannot overstate our collective responsibility, as a House, to address these issues thoroughly and carefully in the interests of those children. This is not a matter for party politics; we have a duty to get this right, or children will be harmed.

As was evident at Second Reading, there are also serious concerns about Part 2. The proposed changes to academy freedoms are both puzzling and troubling. Among the most egregious is the delay in introducing effective interventions for schools to be judged in special measures or inadequate, which was described by the Children’s Commissioner as something that will leave children

“spending longer in failing schools”.

The Bill removes trusts’ discretion to use their professional judgment regarding curriculum and teacher pay and conditions. The new power of the Secretary of State to intervene when they judge that a trust is likely to breach its funding agreement and direct the remedy. The Bill’s own impact assessment says that the limitations on pupil admission numbers will

“limit the ability of popular schools to grow”.

For decades, parents have voted with their feet when it comes to schools, and this will erode parental choice and drive down standards.

Regarding home education, the proposed register misses both ends of the spectrum. At one end, the scheme, as drafted, will not adequately protect the most vulnerable children. At the other, it is unnecessarily intrusive, requiring disproportionate detail from parents who pose minimal risk to their children. Most critically, it fails to address the needs of parents who never intended to home educate but feel they have no choice due to inadequate provision for their child with special educational needs. We will be putting forward amendments to address these shortcomings.

The Bill presents a critical opportunity to shape the next decade of school improvement in England. On these Benches, we would support an effort that builds on what has been learned from the academisation journey thus far. The first phase of academisation addressed entrenched underperformance in a small number of schools. The second phase saw some multi-academy trusts use their autonomy to innovate and raise standards. Now, we need to scale the best practice of the most effective trusts and the most effective local authority schools to deliver better outcomes for pupils, more opportunities for staff, greater choice for parents and a more resilient school system.

Surely, we need a system where the lowest performing trusts and local authorities feel the same level of oversight that is currently felt by the headteacher of an under- performing school. This means evaluating not just results but the value that responsible bodies add. Thought needs to be given where another body could improve outcomes for pupils to what the mechanisms might be that could facilitate that change so that autonomy and accountability are aligned and the interests of children are kept paramount.

There is a tremendous opportunity to bring forward measures in the Bill that will deliver for children, staff and parents. I hope the Minister will consider concerns expressed across the House, and indeed outside it, in the spirit in which they are offered and be open to amending the Bill to achieve much more. If we do not make these changes, or at least give them the chance for honest and detailed consideration, we face four unacceptable risks.

The first is we end up with a rather ineffective, overly bureaucratic regulatory regime for residential care and independent fostering agencies. The second is we get a set of rules in relation to home education that neither keep the vulnerable few safe nor respect the rights of the majority. But it is the most serious risks that need spelling out. In relation to our schools, we face at best stagnation and at worst a steady decline in standards. In relation to children’s social care, we face an increase in the number of children suffering avoidable harm. I know this is not what the Government, and particularly neither of the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today, want to see happen—they do not want that anymore than the coalition Government wanted to create some of the problems we see today in relation to the SEN system when we passed the Children and Families Act. Introducing major structural reform, in this case in both children’s social care and schools, without proper preparation, evidence and funding is irresponsible and puts the cart before the horse at a time when we already have wholesale reform in our local authorities, integrated care boards, curriculum, inspection regime and more.

I absolutely commit to both Ministers to engage in the Bill in the most constructive spirit possible, and I hope that they feel the amendments in my name are practical and constructive. I also owe both of the Ministers my honesty in setting out the degree of concern, even though, standing here right now, warm words might feel easier to say. The stakes—the safety, well-being and the future of our children—could not be higher.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that, in outlining the purposes of the Bill, I have satisfied noble Lords that Amendment 1 is neither required nor, in fact, would achieve anything. The Bill does not need an amendment to clarify its purpose—that is clear from the content of the legislation and the accompanying documents. It is clear from the ambition and the action of this Government. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment so that we can progress to considering the detail of the Bill and the important amendments tabled by noble Lords.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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 helpfulness of some sort of public-facing language at the beginning of the Bill.

I say again that there are experts on both parts of the Bill who are flagging serious concerns. I do not question for one second the Government’s good intentions in this Bill; I question the ability to achieve that without some reflection. I was interested to learn that the evaluation of the pathfinders is due to be published in spring 2025. I guess we are on special government time, as we are in May.

As I close my remarks, I hope that the Government will adopt the constructive tone they have suggested they will as we get into individual amendments, and perhaps they will look again at Hansard to see some of the very valid points that would help us all achieve the goals of this Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

2: Clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert—
“(1) When a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings in relation to a child, 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.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the offer of a family group decision making meeting when formal child protection proceedings are initiated and / or when the child protection plan is failing to protect the child instead of before the local authority makes an application for a care and supervision order as the trigger for offering the meeting.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I cannot answer that today, but I certainly undertake to write to noble Lords on that important point and that juxtaposition in relationship.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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.

Schools: Mobile Phones

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister rightly cites some of the evidence in this area, but I think it is becoming overwhelming. The Children’s Commissioner is right about the number of schools that have policies in this area. The question is: are they effective? The evidence from Parentkind and Policy Exchange is that only 10% to 15% of schools have a really effective ban on phones. The department’s own evidence shows that 50% of GCSE classes are disrupted by the use of phones, and we are hearing increasing evidence from healthcare professionals about the impact on our children. The Minister rightly says that we on this side of the House uphold autonomy in our schools and academy trusts, but this is about a precautionary principle, and protecting our children. What is stopping the Minister from moving on it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness identifies the need for all of us to continue thinking about the best practice for schools to ensure that their classrooms are mobile phone free, and that they are working on the best evidence. There is a whole range of ways in which schools are responding to this, and it would be good for them to look at the very best practice across schools that are taking action. However, I am afraid that the noble Baroness’s point was that this is difficult and nuanced, that people are doing it in different ways, and that we need detailed consideration of how to do it best. None of those things would be delivered by a—I hate, in this place, to call legislation crude, but none of them would be delivered simply by legislating for something that, as she identified, is more complex than that.

Pupil Absenteeism

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend—despite what he just said about me—is absolutely right. This is where that personalised plan around an individual child—using, where necessary, early help provision, family support and challenge to parents—is absolutely fundamental for those children, who have sometimes completely lost touch with what it means to attend school regularly and learn appropriately. They need that type of intervention—my noble friend is absolutely right.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Government have done some excellent work on attendance, and the national roadshows that have been held with schools are to be welcomed. The numbers are improving, but they are not improving quickly for children on free school meals. What will the Government do about that?

Free School Meals

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I suspect that there are ways in which AI could help. As we talk to stakeholders and others who are involved in trying to encourage the full take-up of free school meal entitlement, there are also some less technological ways in which, for example, those who work closely with families, let us say in local authorities, on other areas of their benefits—housing benefit, for example—can be facilitated through the sharing of data that I have talked about to make the links for those families to the sharing of free school meals. There is a whole range of other areas of stigma, as my noble friend outlined, where sometimes work, both in schools and at a local level, can help to overcome those barriers and make sure that children and their families are getting what they are entitled to.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned DWP. She will be aware of the concerns about the loss of entitlement to free school meals when those on legacy benefits migrate to universal credit. The estimates I have seen are as high as 1 million children. Could she say what assessment the department has made of this? If she does not have the figures, perhaps she could write to me and put a copy in the Library.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is talking about the changes to the transitional protections: as she knows, phase one has now come to an end. To reassure families, no pupil will feel any change as a result of the move to phase two of the protections until after the summer. I can assure the noble Baroness that, as with all government policy, we will keep our approach to free school meals under review. I am happy to write to her with the figures for those who have had transitional protections and how they will be supported until the end of this school year. Then, we will bring forward more information about what will happen at that particular point.