Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Lord Farmer

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, as one of the many qualified teachers in your Lordships’ House, I will speak to Amendment 14 in the names of my noble friend Lady Tyler—who cannot be with us today—me and others. Before I do so, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, to this Committee. I know that as the Children’s Commissioner she was so very committed to all these issues, and I know she is supporting the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, today.

I was involved with the legislation that set up the UK Children’s Commissioner in the first place and was involved in making sure that the commissioner “must” have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, not “may”, as was in the original version. That is relevant to what I will say about Amendment 14.

The intention of Amendment 14 is very simple: to ensure that those making decisions affecting children and young people seek and take into account their wishes and feelings, if they wish to give them, and to support them to do so. I welcome the Government’s ambition to be a child-centred Government and support the important steps taken in the Bill to strengthen the systems intended to keep children safe, yet there is more that the Bill could do to be truly child-centred. Specifically, it currently fails to embed meaningful consideration of the child’s wishes and feelings. I would like to strengthen it, hence this amendment.

As noble Lords will be aware, more than 30 years ago, in 1991, the UK ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In doing so, we recognised that children have a distinct set of rights that uniquely value all that it means to be a child. Article 12 of that convention sets out the right of every child to express their views freely and to have those views given due weight in all matters affecting them, including the family conferences we are talking about. They must be afforded that chance to express their views, wishes and feelings. The word “should” in Amendment 13 is not quite good enough in that respect.

In short, it recognises that children are experts in their own lives. I believe that children under 16 are perfectly capable of this, so I do not support the bit of Amendment 12 that limits this to over-16s. As long as they have appropriate support and understanding, many young children can be very articulate about what they think.

The amendment seeks to ensure that the systems designed to protect and support children and those who work with them are founded on the basis that we can hope to truly understand what is in a child’s best interests only by hearing and giving heed to their experiences and unique perspectives—the voice of the child, as we often call it.

As we know, in cases of abuse and neglect, giving children the opportunity to express their views is a critical factor in building trust and keeping children safe. Children themselves tell us that they are not routinely heard when decisions are made that affect them. Indeed, research undertaken with children and young people for the Children’s Charities Coalition’s 2024 Children at the Table campaign found that 62% of UK children think that politicians do not understand the issues that affect them, and almost three-quarters feel that children are not listened to by politicians. Let us listen and hear them today.

That is why I consider Amendment 14 to be so important. It would ensure that local authorities, in offering family group decision-making, are required to ascertain children’s wishes and feelings and give them due weight when making decisions related to that decision-making. It would also provide for a clear entitlement for the child to be supported to participate in the family group decision-making meeting. Where this is not in the child’s best interests, it would provide for the local authority to ensure that the child’s wishes and feelings are appropriately represented, for example by an independent advocate. Some effort will have to be made by somebody who really understands these things to ascertain those wishes.

The Bill currently requires local authorities to seek the child’s views. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of listening to children in the context of family group decision-making, including by the Minister in response to a similar amendment in the other place. But this duty falls short of the gold standard of the Children Act to seek and—importantly—give due weight to the wishes and feelings of the child in different contexts, including children in need assessments, child protection and any decisions relating to a child in care, or possibly going into care. We know from serious case reviews and inquiries that where children are not listened to, it can have devasting consequences.

Wishes and feelings are broader than views. Amending the Bill in this way would mean that those children who choose not to express their views—perhaps they are younger or shyer, are non-verbal or lack capacity—will still have their feelings taken into account when decisions are being made about their safety and where they might live. Passing Amendment 14 would do all that.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 18 in my name and to Amendments 7 and 14, which have just been ably spoken to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Walmsley. Amendment 7 is also supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Longfield and Lady Drake, and Amendment 14 by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Tyler of Enfield, who is not in her place.

This group is primarily about family group decision-making, so I will speak to Amendments 7 and 14 first. The Government have avoided referring to family group conferencing per se, presumably because they want to allow for evolution of good practice of the family group decision-making model. But as I said at Second Reading, the evidence base on which they are relying for this legislation assumes faithful implementation of what we know makes a difference.

One key aspect of family group decision-making is that it is not a one-off meeting. If it were, this could become a token effort to bring together all those with family or other close relationships to the child. Currently, however, the Bill makes provision only for the offer of a family group decision-making meeting.

Rather, family group decision-making involves a process with careful preparation that typically goes way beyond a single meeting, as Amendment 7 would require. When the child is supported to be involved in an initial meeting, as Amendment 14 specifies, they might flag that key people are missing, or their input might throw up previously unforeseen issues that need attending to before important decisions are made concerning their future.

Support is required because many children will be daunted by being involved in a family group decision-making meeting. They might even say that they do not want to be there but regret not being involved later on. When there have been long-standing difficulties in a family, they might be concerned about revealing secrets, getting into trouble or making things worse.

Safety planning—a key aspect of any process involved in rehoming a child—can also be delicate and difficult and should certainly not be rushed. The pressures on local authorities are unlikely to ease anytime soon, and the legislation should not be written in such a way that short cuts are taken and the family’s involvement is marginalised to speed things up. That cuts across the spirit of the whole approach, which is the coming together —and, we hope, the strengthening and developing— of a relational network for the good of the child at the centre.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Lord Farmer

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her support; it is very much appreciated. She has been a doughty warrior accompanying us along this path for many years.

I will speak to my Amendments 64, 66, 68 and 75 and I thank the Minister for the meetings I have had with him and the Bill team to hear his concerns, particularly around being overprescriptive.

Amendment 64 simply replaces “may” with “must” and thereby requires integrated care partnership strategies to lay out how health-related services can be more closely integrated with health and social care. In Committee, I said that “may” made that aspect of integration voluntaristic, and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why, as I am genuinely mystified, the ICP is at present only invited to do that.

Amendment 66 has been revised after the discussions mentioned earlier. I propose adding new subsection (5A) to Clause 116ZB to specifically invite ICPs to consider how family help services, including those accessed through family hubs, could be more closely integrated with arrangements for the provision of health services and social care services in that area. I avoid using “must” in that case, because it could place an overly prescriptive requirement on ICPs. I also avoid mandating the use of family hubs. They are simply mentioned as an important potential access point.

I recognise and applaud the many ways that the Government have improved the Bill with respect to children’s health. However, I explained in Committee that many children’s health needs are psychosocial: they need practical, not just medical, solutions and addressing them needs a whole-family approach. That is also particularly important when parents experience drug and alcohol problems, which can affect their children almost or as much as the parents themselves.

Early family help commissioned by local authorities therefore needs to be integrated with health as well as many other departments of government. Family hubs are mentioned in my amendment, not prescriptively but as the model that could enable that to happen. In Committee, I described how DWP’s Reducing Parental Conflict programme, DLUHC’s Supporting Families and the MOJ’s private family law pilots all looked to family hubs as an access point for those who need this support. The Bill could and should help to make that model proliferate to benefit families. As it operates according to principles, not an overly prescribed framework, it can be tailored to local need, including by drawing in the bespoke work of the local voluntary and community sector. Historically and currently, health services have had a poor track record in integrating with local government and wider partners. The Children’s Centre movement frequently lamented the lack of engagement with health. The opportunity the Bill provides to avoid that pattern being repeated should not be missed.

My Amendment 66 gives meaning to the phrase “family help” and points towards an amended Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 to explain what is meant by “family hubs”. In Committee, I explained that

“services which improve children’s lives through supporting the family unit and strengthening family relationships to enable children to thrive and keep families together”

is the independent care review’s working definition of “family help”. This is not a concept to be set in concrete in the lead reviewer’s final report, but simply one that is qualitatively different from “family support” in local authority usage. The latter leans towards late-stage statutory child protection, which ideally prevents children entering care and is far from the early help so many parents need.

Finally, my Amendment 75 necessarily changes how the Children Act 1989 refers to family help infrastructure to reflect more closely the way it has developed. It has also been adjusted since Committee to avoid mandating local authorities to provide family hubs, which would have significant cost implications, ultimately for the Treasury. As a result of my amendment, new Schedule 2(9) to the Children Act would state:

“Every local authority shall provide such family hubs as they consider appropriate with regard to local needs in relation to children and families within their area.”


“Family hubs” means an access point where children, their parents, relatives and carers can access advice, guidance, counselling or paediatric health services as well as occupational, social, cultural or recreational activities. This removes the anachronistic reference to and description of “family centres”. These were never consistently implemented in the way probably envisaged by the draftsmen of the 1989 Act, although children’s centres did emerge to fulfil many of their purposes in response to research on the importance of children’s early years.

To address the Minister’s concerns that putting family hubs into legislation would introduce unhelpful rigidity and prescription, I end by making an analogy with the Supporting Families programme. This does have a legislative underpinning, but the early troubled families programme from which it evolved provided principles for a tried, tested and consistent way of working, illustrated these with case studies and supported local authorities to develop their own bespoke approaches to that way of working. The DfE is taking a similar non-prescriptive approach in its family hubs framework, which emphasises principles—namely, access, connection and relationships—and avoids determining how local authorities implement these. Just as the Supporting Families programme has developed but is still recognisably the same way of working launched as “troubled families” 10 years ago, I and others anticipate the same continuous improvement trajectory for the family hubs model or way of working.

Family hubs are now official government policy, backed by a £130 million commitment, a major evaluation programme and decades of supportive research. The model is not prescriptive but enabling and supported by many local authorities and those designing health systems. I would be grateful, in conclusion, if the Minister would explain, after these assurances, why this important social infrastructure, the fruit of 30 years of reform, which builds on and extends Labour’s legacy of Sure Start centres, has no place in the Bill.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on his efforts to keep the issue of prevention and early intervention before us: it is vital. I also thank the Minister for the government amendments and the way he has engaged with us over this issue. I was particularly pleased to hear him use the word “action” at least two or three times in his introduction to the amendments. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and my noble friend Lady Tyler, on all they have done but in particular for pointing out, in their Amendment 59, that there could be a bit of a gap here. We have the CQC, which will inspect individual healthcare settings and, under the Bill, it will also have to see how the new integrated care system is working, but there is no guarantee that it will see it as part of its duty to see how that system is working for children. This is something that the NHS could do through the report called for in Amendment 59.