Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and to which I have added my name. I declare, as ever, that I am a teacher and I thank the National Children’s Bureau for its help on this.

Children do not come into care because they have won the lottery of life; trauma is unlikely to be far from their lives. Yet our assessment processes still rely on professionals who may have little or no training in mental health or trauma-informed practice. Care-experienced young people told the Education Select Committee, as part of its inquiry into children’s social care, that local authorities are not always fulfilling their obligations to include emotional and mental health in their health assessments of children in care. One young person told the committee:

“I feel a lot could be explained if they understood the experience of trauma. It will take time. It will not go away at night, and sometimes before it gets better it could get worse. No one talks about that. You will not be okay if you are going into care; there is a reason why you are there, and so it is important that the minute you go into care every child should have a mandatory assessment, physical and mental, and there should be that on-call support for them”.


Bringing qualified mental health practitioners into the mandatory health assessment of children in care is simple, practical and overdue. I hope that the Government will use this amendment as an opportunity to do more for children in care and to make their lives and, as importantly, their futures better.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I feel a strong need to speak on Amendment 61, this wonderful amendment, on

“Amending the sufficiency duty to prevent children being moved far away from home”.


Especially where a child has been put under a deprivation of liberty order, if you then move them a long way away, it means that parents or even foster carers have quite a difficulty in keeping in touch with the child. So the sufficiency duty on local authorities should be amended from requiring them to take

“steps that secure, so far as reasonably practicable”

to requiring them to take

“all reasonable steps to secure”,

which is a far better phrase that gives some assurance.

As somebody who fostered children and was in touch with other foster carers, I know that children were put a long way away when, under the expression of the Children Act 1989, steps had been taken that were “reasonably practicable”. But, actually, you could scratch under the surface and see the pressure in an area such as Tulse Hill near Brixton, where I was a vicar and where a lot of children were placed in care. The council had a big job to do, and your Lordships and I know that it was extremely busy. It is easy to say, “Yes, I’ve taken reasonable steps and done what is practicable”, whereas “all reasonable steps” should be taken, and you need to catalogue them in case somebody asks questions.

I suggest to the Committee that Amendment 61 would remove a lot of anxiety from parents whose children find themselves deprived of their liberty. Moving them a long way away is almost suggesting that parents will, or maybe will not, find a way of going to where these children have been placed. In the place where I ministered for 13 years, they were always living in a time of financial crisis. Buses were needed, taking a long time, to get to where these children had been put, which was such a huge burden.

I hope the Minister will see that this amendment would actually help our children. They are not someone else’s children; they are our children. As that wonderful African proverb says, it takes a whole village to raise and educate a child. They are ours; would we be happy if they were placed such a long way from home? That would be quite a burden, and I congratulate the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I will speak on Amendment 71 in my name. I am grateful to the Minister for her movement on this issue. In her letter to me of 7 October 2025, which was some time ago, she said:

“When used effectively, non-school alternative provision offers tailored support that meets individual needs and helps re-engage children in education, supporting future regular attendance in school. However, in some areas, inadequate oversight is putting already vulnerable children’s safety and the quality of their education at risk. Too often, children whose needs could be met in school are instead placed in unsafe, low-quality settings with no clear plan for returning to mainstream education”.


I do not understand why anything in our society is unregistered—whether a school, a care home or alternative provision. We should not allow that to happen, because we put the lives of people at risk.

Let us understand what alternative provision means. It means that a child or young person who has been permanently expelled or removed from school becomes the responsibility of the local authority. The local authority has to make provision for them. However, in many cases, schools have their own units on site, which is the best model by far. Where that provision is not available, local authorities have to find providers.

Remember that these children and young people are the most vulnerable. They often have special educational needs, are from difficult circumstances or suffer trauma or mental health problems. The Minister realises the issue and has come forward with some suggestions of how we might develop this. I am genuinely grateful for that. I hope that this will be another way that we can deal with this issue.

I will raise a number of issues with the Minister on which I hope she might be prepared either to write to me or to respond in her reply. Unregistered provision cannot be inspected by Ofsted, but we use the same criteria for registered provision that we use with maintained schools, academies and independent schools. This is a very different situation. These pupils require flexible timetables, smaller groups, therapeutic approaches, outreach work, incremental attendance and a curriculum that prioritises core skills, well-being and preparation. Often, inspections of alternative provision already highlight that applying mainstream criteria to alternative providers creates inconsistent judgments, perverse incentives and misunderstandings about what meaningful progress looks like for these pupils. Without adaptation, the strengthened regulatory framework in the Bill may unintentionally constrain innovation, reduce placement availability, push provision back into semi-regulated spaces or penalise alternative providers for not behaving like mainstream schools.

I am sure that the Government and the Minister want to get to grips with this issue, and I hope that their proposals actually deliver what we all want.