Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Blower]

469: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—
“Child rights impact assessment(1) A Minister of the Crown must prepare and publish a child rights impact assessment in relation to any legislative provision, policy decision, budgetary decision, or other decision of a strategic or operational nature that has or will have a direct or indirect impact on children’s wellbeing,social care or education, which are undertaken by virtue of the provisions in this Act.(2) The purpose of a child rights impact assessment is to secure better or further effect of the rights set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).(3) A child rights impact assessment must include consideration of the views, wishes and feeling of children and young people affected by the decision, insofar as the Minister is able to ascertain those views.(4) A child rights impact assessment should be undertaken on all relevant legislation, policy and budget development which are undertaken by virtue of the provisions in this Act at the earliest possible opportunity and prior to making final decisions.(5) The UNCRC includes the rights and obligations set out in—(a) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Part 1;(b) Articles 1 to 6(1), 6(3) and 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict;(c) Articles 1 to 10 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography;(d) any other Optional Protocols to the UNCRC that the United Kingdom may in future ratify.(6) The UNCRC rights and obligations for the purposes of this Act are subject to any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the United Kingdom as may be in force at the time. (7) The UNCRC rights and obligations for the purposes of this Act should be interpreted in the light of General Comments prepared by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child under rule 77 of its procedure and Concluding Observations made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in response to a United Kingdom report under Article 45 paragraph (d) of the Convention.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will introduce a statutory requirement for Ministers – and thereby government departments – to routinely prepare and make publicly available a children’s rights assessment of the impact and/or expected impact of any proposed legislation, policy, budgetary decision or other strategic or operational decision undertaken by virtue of the provisions in this Act as they relate to children’s wellbeing, social care or education.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, having worked on these amendments with my noble friend Lady Lister, and in her unavoidable absence from the Chamber today, I shall move Amendment 469, speak to Amendment 470 and also mention Amendment 502F.

Amendment 469 introduces a duty routinely to prepare and make publicly available an assessment of the expected impact of any proposed legislation, policy, budgetary action or other matter that will have an impact on children. Amendment 470 provides for a more general duty, requiring Ministers to consider, protect and promote children’s rights as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Together, these amendments probe all options in the round. Amendment 502F, which is broader in scope, is complementary, but a clear duty to have regard to the UN CRC is preferable to the somewhat vaguer qualification “the desirability of”.

Amendments 469 and 470 had input from the NSPCC as part of the Children’s Charities Coalition, the Children’s Rights Alliance and UNICEF UK. They would place a clear duty on Ministers to have due regard to the UN CRC, although those bodies ultimately aim for full and direct incorporation of the UN convention in law, as in Scotland.

Three years ago, the British Academy published a report Reframing Childhood. It was the outcome of a wide-ranging programme chaired by my noble friend Lady Lister. Three themes emerged, each of relevance to this Bill. The first was “being and becoming”; this drew attention to the importance of childhood as a state of being of great significance to the child. The final theme was “children’s voices and participation”, and the second was “children’s rights” as articulated in the UN convention. This is missing from the Bill.

The Secretary of State has argued that the Bill represents the importance of understanding and promoting child-centred policy. Key to this is children’s rights. They help us value children as children, particularly those in the most marginalised groups. A children’s rights approach could encourage more coherent policy-making. These two amendments offer a practical way for the Government to explicitly enshrine a child-centred orientation in legislation.

UNICEF UK argues that children’s rights should be central to plans to improve children’s well-being and opportunities, as they are in these amendments. Having ratified the UN convention, the UK must comply with its principles and standards but, beyond ratification, Article 4 of the convention requires states to

“undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention”.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has ruled that the development of a children’s rights perspective is required for the effective implementation. In its 2023 report on the UK, it recommended that greater efforts to incorporate the convention into UK law and the development of mandatory children’s rights impact assessments for relevant legislation and policy should be taken. These amendments would be important steps in complying with that recommendation and would also bring England closer to the protection of children’s rights provided for in Wales, Scotland and Jersey. They would add teeth to the Government’s aim of child-centred action across departments and facilitate the Government’s mission-led approach in the opportunity mission in particular.

The duty on Ministers in Amendment 470 would ensure visibility of children’s rights and best interests in policy-making so that their needs and well-being were not overlooked. In line with Article 12 of the convention, it would mean listening to children so that they were heard and had their views respected. It would help to strengthen the public awareness of children’s rights, in particular through the publication of three-yearly reports. The duty could easily be integrated into existing decision-making processes. It is a step that other nations have taken, with positive results. A key element of the duty would be to involve mandatory children’s rights impact assessments, or CRIAs, as recommended by the UN committee in its report on the UK.

Amendment 469 spells out how CRIAs would be used to enable a systematic consideration of how children may be affected by a policy under development so as to identify, avoid or mitigate adverse impacts. They also enable policymakers to identify proactive measures, leading to better realisation of children’s rights. Evaluations have shown that CRIAs, properly conducted, are effective in improving policy-making from children’s perspectives. A comprehensive CRIA was provided for this Bill, but it reads more like an end-of-process assessment rather than one used from the outset to guide policy development. The expectation of the UN committee is that the CRIA would be part of the development of new policy and legislation from as early a stage as possible.

In response to an Oral Question earlier this year, my noble friend the Minister confirmed that

“the Government recognise the importance of considering children’s rights in that way”.

However, she added that they were continuing to encourage departments

“to carry out children’s rights impact assessments when they are making policy changes”.—[Official Report, 27/1/25; col. 9.]

But the fact that her own department does not collect information on the number of CRIAs carried out, as revealed in the Answer to a Written Question, shows that the Government do not know how many actually are carried out.

In discussing this with my noble friend Lady Lister, she described trying to get a CRIA published on previous asylum legislation as like trying to get blood out of a stone. When one finally emerged for Third Reading of the Illegal Migration Bill it was, alas, inadequate —a post hoc attempt to justify measures that actually undermined children’s rights.

Moreover, when asked about CRIAs, there is the tendency for departments to respond by referring to equality impact assessments carried out under the public sector duty, but EIAs are no substitute for CRIAs, which require consideration of children’s best interests and the full range of children’s rights. In the interests of good government, I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept the case for mandatory CRIAs that follow the UN committee’s guidance.

Over 115 organisations support these amendments, representing national charities and grass-roots groups, spanning areas such as child poverty, disability, youth justice and social care. More than 25 academics have written to the Minister for Children and Families to voice their support, pointing out that it is simply not possible to meet children’s needs in any of the areas covered by the Bill without first respecting and promoting their rights. Members of the Committee may have received an email from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, which states that:

“It is essential that this legislation includes measures for ensuring children’s rights are upheld”—


hence it, too, is supporting the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Equally, we will continue our work to ensure that child rights impact assessments will be delivered across government and that children’s rights and interests will be at the heart of decisions made by this Government. This has been an important discussion, but I hope that noble Lords feel suitably reassured by my responses not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, it is both a pleasure and somewhat of a challenge to respond to this extremely good and wide-ranging debate. I am extremely grateful for the mentions of our late noble friend Lady Massey, whose absence from this debate we feel quite deeply. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, even those with whom I disagree—I do not think I have ever before been described as being motivated by an elitist desire to thwart democracy when seeking to advocate for children’s rights.

However, the contributions were all extremely interesting. I am very pleased to have had the support of my noble friend Lady Longfield, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

In particular, I would like to mention the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who spoke about the need—this is really important—to balance parental choice and children’s rights. This may not occur often, but it may occur and we need to pay attention to that balance. He also mentioned the extremely worthy rights-respecting schools in which children can begin to advocate for themselves and understand what children’s rights really mean.

The need for children’s voices in the care system to be heard was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and that is important.

I will not be tempted into a discussion about academic selection, even though it is a matter on which I could say a very great deal.

I am pleased with the remarks of my noble friend the Minister, who said from the Dispatch Box that she is fully committed to children’s rights. I am sure that we will continue to discuss the question of a children’s rights impact assessment and the ultimate possible incorporation of the convention. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 469 withdrawn.