Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 51 seeks to highlight the need to include health agencies in the RCC arrangement.

As I mentioned in my speech in Committee back in June, integrated care boards now have a pivotal role to play in the NHS. The main argument advanced when they were proposed that they should replace the clinical care commissioning groups was that they could unite health, social care and all the voluntary partners that are involved. A lot of discussion took place about health inequalities, delivering holistic care and co-ordinating GP services. The regional care co-operatives are at the heart of the MacAlister proposals and have received widespread welcome and endorsement. Indeed, across parties, the view is that they are a pragmatic initiative and absolutely deserve all-party support.

I will not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee—we have been urged not to go over ground that has been trodden on already—and I certainly will not talk for very long, but I feel that it would be unusual and, indeed, illogical for the new RCCs not to be built on a strong and proactive relationship with the existing integrated care boards. This would indeed be the professional outcome that most people would desire. I say to the Minister: why rely on good will when what I am suggesting could be put in the Bill?

In her response to my amendment in Committee, the Minister fully agreed that it was vital that the sort of co-operation and collaboration I am talking about, between the two bodies, does indeed take place. However, she said that

“Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 specifies that local authorities must make arrangements to promote co-operation with relevant partners, including local integrated care boards, to improve the well-being of children”.—[Official Report, 17/6/25; col. 1925.]

in care. She went on to say that the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, provides the necessary clarity. In other words, the Minister said that my amendment was not necessary and was surplus to requirements.

However, I would argue that this is a flagship Bill. Indeed, throughout the entire Bill, there is a lot of talk about consolidation, clarification and updating existing legislation, so why not accept that rationale here? I obviously accept that my amendment has an element of “safety first” to it. But surely, we should not be relying on good will among professionals both in local authorities and in the local NHS.

I want to make one final point on the feedback that has come through from the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, which has commented on this particular clause. I will quote very briefly:

“Children in care are our collective responsibility. As a society, we cannot continue to fail those most in need of our support and protection. … Those who are not able to be cared for by their birth family and do not settle into fostering families or children’s homes often have multiple placements and experience nowhere that they feel accepted and cherished. Many end up in crisis in our acute hospitals, not meeting the criteria for child and adolescent mental health services and not having a home to be discharged back to”.


It goes on to say that the RCCs will now be

“a cornerstone of the governments children’s social care reforms, and a golden opportunity to address the failures of our care system”.

It also points out that

“Two pathfinders are currently testing the models to address the significant difficulties with finding the right homes, with the right care for our most vulnerable children with complex lives”.

It goes on to say that not having, on the face of the Bill, the need for co-operation and integration between these two bodies

“is a strategic omission of significant importance, and runs counter to the inclusion of health as a statutory, and strategic, issue in safeguarding partnerships”.

Finally, it says that the Bill therefore needs to name integrated care boards as partners in the RCCs to

“enable health to take greater direct responsibility for the health outcomes and the life chances of this most vulnerable group of children and young people.”

That is not me; that is the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals.

I just say to the Minister that this is quite a simple amendment, but it is an important one. If the Government do not accept it, I suggest to the Minister that we are missing a very important opportunity, because if we do not put it in the Bill, we will be relying on the good will of hard-pressed professionals up and down the country.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support of Amendments 43 and 49 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, to which I have added my name.

In Committee, the Minister clearly understood the basic principle of this group was to ensure that young people leave care with supportive and, hopefully, lifelong loving relationships. She assured the Committee that the Government

“are funding a number of family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes. These help looked-after children and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives and create safe, stable, loving relationships”,

which last. She said:

“The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme is being evaluated, and this will help to inform decisions about the future of the programme”.—[Official Report, 12/6/25; col. 1607.]


However, I understand funding runs out in March this year for these family-finding, befriending and mentoring programmes, and there is no decision yet on continuation. I am concerned that the good work to date will be wasted, but perhaps she has encouraging news on funding and the results of the evaluation. I particularly want to flag again lifelong links and how this picks up the vital relationships identified by family group conferencing, which is in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bellingham]

51: Clause 10, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) Regional co-operation arrangements must include the local integrated care board in their development, delivery and governance.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment aims to highlight the need to include health agencies in the regional cooperation arrangements.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. Although she went some way to satisfying me and others who support this amendment, I do not think she went far enough. I would like to test the opinion of the House.