Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Committee (3rd Day)

15:57:00

Amendment 66

Moved by

66: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause— “Mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse(1) The Children Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) After section 16LB insert—“16LC Reporting of child sexual abuseSubject to the provisions of section 16LD(7), (8), and (10) and section 16LF, providers of any one or more of the activities set out in Schedule 1A, who know of, or have reasonable grounds for suspecting the commission of, sexual abuse of children in their care, must, as soon as is practicable after it comes to their knowledge or attention, report it to—(a) the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO),(b) Local Authority Children’s Services, or(c) such other single point of contact with the local authority as that authority may designate for that purpose. 16LD Process(1) If the report under section 16LC is made orally, the maker of the report must confirm the report in writing no later than seven days thereafter.(2) Section 16LC applies whether or not the activities are defined in any enactment as regulated activities involving children.(3) Section 16LC applies whether a commission of sexual abuse takes place, or is alleged or suspected to have taken place, in the setting of the activity or elsewhere.(4) For the purposes of section 16LC the operators of a setting in which the activity takes place and staff employed at any such setting in a managerial or general welfare role are deemed to stand in a position of trust and are deemed to have direct contact with children in their care whether or not such children are or have been attended by them.(5) For the purposes of section 16LC all other employed or contracted staff or voluntary staff and assistants are deemed to stand in a position of trust only if they have had direct contact with and have attended such children during their time in such a position.(6) For the purposes of section 16LC children are or are deemed to be in the care of the providers of the activities set out in Schedule 1A—(a) in the case of the operators of any setting in which the activity takes place and of staff employed by the operators at any such setting in a managerial or general welfare role, for the period of time during which the operators are bound contractually or otherwise to accommodate or to care for such children, whether such children are resident or in daily attendance wherever the activity is provided, and(b) in the case of all other employed or contracted staff or voluntary staff and assistants, for the period of time only in which they are personally attending such children in the capacity for which they were employed, or their services were contracted for.(7) The Secretary of State may, in exceptional cases, issue a suspension document to rescind or temporarily suspend the duty referred to in section 16LC in the case of any specified child or children if it appears to the Secretary of State that the child’s welfare, safety or protection would be prejudiced or compromised by the fulfilment of the duty.(8) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the welfare, safety and protection of children is furthered, they may exempt—(a) any specified organisation that works with children generally, and its members, or(b) any specified medical officer,from compliance with the duty referred to in section 16LC provided that no allegation is made against that entity or person.(9) The Secretary of State may make regulations varying or adding to or deleting from the list of activities in Schedule 1A, whether or not such activities are defined in any enactment as regulated activities involving children.(10) A person who makes a report under section 16LC in good faith, or who does any other thing required by sections 16LC to 16LF, may not by so doing be held liable in any civil or criminal or administrative proceeding, and may not be held to have breached any code of professional etiquette or ethics, or to have departed from any acceptable form of professional conduct. (11) Reports under section 16LC and the identities of the persons making them must be received and held by their proper recipients in confidence.16LE Offences(1) Failure to fulfil the duty set out in section 16LC following the procedure described in section 16LD before the expiry of the period of seven days of the matter, allegation or suspicion first coming to the knowledge or attention of the provider or of any person whose services are used by the provider as defined in section 16LD is an offence.(2) A person who causes or threatens to cause any detriment to a mandated person, being a person placed under the duty to report pursuant to section 16LC above, or to another person, either wholly or partly related to the mandated person’s actual or intended provision of a report under section 16LC, is guilty of an offence.(3) Detriment includes any personal, social, economic, professional, or other detriment to the person.(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a level 5 fine on the standard scale.(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a level 4 fine on the standard scale.16LF DefencesIt is a defence—(a) for any person to show that the Secretary of State acting pursuant to section 16LD(7) has issued a suspension document;(b) for any person employed by or operating as an organisation that works with children or for any medical officer to show that the Secretary of State has by a suspension document, whether temporarily or permanently, exempted it and its members or any medical officer from compliance with the duty in section 16LC; (c) to show that a report of the commission of the known or suspected child abuse has been made by any other party to the body or person under section 16LC(a) to (c) before or during the seven days referred to in section 16LE(1).16LG DefinitionsIn sections 16LC to 16LF—“children” means persons under the age of 18 years;“operators of a setting” , in the case of schools, sixth form colleges, and colleges of further education in private ownership, includes the proprietors, members of governing bodies, and board members in the case of ownership by a limited liability company;“providers of activities” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.”(3) After Schedule 1, insert—“Schedule 1AREGULATED AND OTHER ACTIVITIES1 Education including—(a) schools;(b) sixth form colleges;(c) colleges of further education;(d) pupil referral units;(e) residential special schools;(f) hospital education trusts;(g) settings of education other than at schools;(h) private tuition centres. 2 Healthcare including— (a) hospitals;(b) hospices;(c) GP surgeries;(d) walk-in clinics;(e) outpatient clinics.3 Others including—(a) child nurseries and kindergarten provision;(b) childminders and childcare providers registered on the early years register or the compulsory or voluntary part of the childcare register;(c) registered social care providers and managers for children;(d) children’s homes;(e) children’s hospices;(f) youth offender institutions;(g) the Probation Service;(h) private institutions contracted by public bodies to provide services to children;(i) organisations providing activities to children, such as sports clubs, music, dance or drama groups, youth clubs, and Ministry of Defence cadet forces including Sea Cadets, the Volunteer Cadet Corps, the Army Cadet Force, the Air Training Corps and the Combined Cadet Force, Fire Cadets;(j) organisations providing holidays for children or supervising children while on holiday;(k) churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other places of worship and religious organisations, and other organisations holding non-religious worldviews;(l) services offered to children by local authorities outwith their statutory duties;(m) services offered to children by the police outwith their statutory duties; (n) transport services including taxis and coaches commissioned by the providers of the regulated activities in this Schedule.””

My Lords, Amendment 66 is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. This is a probing amendment, the core aim of which is to further protect children. In January this year, this House debated my Private Member’s Bill on mandatory reporting of child sex abuse. It ties in very well with Amendment 107B, which is also in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. We are all very keen, I think, to see the IICSA recommendations implemented in full. I will not prejudge what the Minister will say, but I expect to be told that there is another vehicle for this amendment; none the less, I think this is worthy of debate. From Rotherham to Rochdale, there have been far too many children who have been abused and too few perpetrators brought to justice. We must continue to learn from our past mistakes. This amendment is a step towards ensuring that positive changes are being made. This amendment seeks to ensure that adults in positions of authority over children in regulated activities would have a legal requirement to report any suspicion of or knowledge of child sexual abuse. Regulated activities include those in education, healthcare, sports and others, which are fully listed in the proposed new schedule. I recognise that this is the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but I am keen that protection goes much wider than just schools. I am very keen to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, might say on the duty of care.

16:00:00

This amendment does not seek to criminalise the general public; rather, it seeks to ensure that those in positions of authority have a duty to speak up and protect children. This is often teachers, coaches and support workers, and they are able to put the safety and needs of children first because they spend a lot of time with children. In the past, we have heard that upward reporting in an institution is sufficient; sadly, we have seen that it is not. Whether that is because of possible damage to reputation, concerns over implications or something more sinister, it is clear that we need stricter guidance on how to report child sex abuse.

In March 2020, the Office for National Statistics estimated that 3.1 million adults in England and Wales have experienced sexual abuse before the age of 16. In October 2022, IICSA estimated that more than one in six girls and one in 20 boys are being sexually abused in the UK every year. On average, it takes victims 26 years to disclose abuse. The Local Government Association estimates that only one in three children who were sexually abused by an adult told someone.

Our system is failing the victims of child sex abuse and changes need to be made. Too frequently, there is a lack of understanding surrounding child sex abuse across professions and organisations working with children. Raising public awareness and providing culturally sensitive training and support for all is essential. A significant number of people support some version of mandatory reporting. As legislators, we need to ensure that the right protections are put in place. I beg to move.

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for tabling it. I would like to quote from a speech I made on 26 June 2014, soon after the terrible crimes of Jimmy Savile had been analysed in the Lampard report. Our campaign for the mandatory reporting of child abuse went back at least a decade before that, but the Savile case showed clearly what happens when people who know do not tell. I realise, as the noble Baroness does, that the Minister might tell us this is the wrong Bill to explore this issue, but I have always taken every opportunity to raise it, and that is why I am doing so again today. On that occasion, I said: “I have always felt that a child is his or her own best protector. We can do what we can to protect a child, but we cannot sit on her shoulder all the time. This is why it is so important that children are taught in every school, through a balanced PSHE course, how to protect their own personal integrity … They also need to be taught what a healthy, non-abusive relationship looks and feels like, and who to turn to in case of fear or of actual abuse”. I still believe that this is every child’s right. I went on to say: “We must then minimise the opportunity for perpetrators to reach vulnerable children”, and to talk about the shortcomings of DBS checks, which “are not enough, as they only identify those who have offended before, and are no use against first-time offenders or those who are clever enough to avoid detection”.—[Official Report, 26/6/14; cols. 1418-19.] This is still the case. In that situation, the knowledge or suspicion of abuse by adults around the child is a vital ingredient of protection. We need to ensure that those who know or suspect what is going on report what they know to an appropriate and responsible person. I mentioned that lawyers who acted for dozens of Jimmy Savile’s victims had told me that the most shocking revelation of all was the number of victims who had reported what had happened at the time to someone in their institution, only to be ignored and their claims covered up. One girl in Stoke Mandeville told a nurse what Jimmy Savile had done, only to be told, “You’re making a mountain, you silly girl. Do you know what he does for our hospital?”—how shocking. That is why I believed then, and I still believe 11 years later, that we need a clear and comprehensive system for the mandatory reporting of child abuse which would make it an offence—with clear penalties—for those in a position of trust in a regulated activity to fail to report knowledge or reasonable suspicion of abuse. The person making the report need not know for sure that abuse was taking place; that is for the competent authorities to decide after investigation. Reasonable suspicion is all that is needed. The amendment before us refers to regulated activity as defined in the Children Act 2004 and the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, both of which I well remember—though the definitions would need amending to exclude such confidential helplines as Childline. These measures have been successfully in operation in Australia for years, so I do not believe that it would be a problem here. I am grateful for the advice of Professor Ben Mathews—who also advised IICSA—about the Australian system. The idea that there would be a lot of mendacious reporting did not occur in Australia; in any case, one cannot fail to lift a stone for fear of the slime one might find underneath. Childline advisers will often encourage children to report the abuse themselves to a trusted adult. In that situation, the child must be able to have confidence that, if they do so, their disclosure will be properly dealt with, and no concern about reputational damage should get in the way of that adult doing the right thing by the child. The only way children can have that confidence is to make failure to report abuse an offence. When a child gets up the courage to confide in a trusted adult about abuse, they do so because they want it to stop. Imagine how that child feels when nothing is done. The intention of the amendment is not to put people in prison, except in the most egregious cases, but to change the culture. I believe that it would help workers to report abuse if they saw it as a public duty and not as telling tales. There is considerable public support for this. In an independent poll of the public in 2014, 96% of people supported it. I am not sure what the figure would be now, but, in the years since then, given the revelations of mass grooming gangs abusing young girls for years and nobody believing the children, I would think the figure might be even higher now. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment.

My Lords, this amendment is both necessary and important. It is a credit to the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, who eloquently introduced it, and for years fought for the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse to be firmly placed on the statute book. Child abuse, whether in the form of physical, emotional or sexual mistreatment, whether through lack of care, or whether leading to injury or harm, is offensive and detestable. I welcome recognition by the movers of this amendment that the amendment should capture the importance of child sexual abuse in schools and sport clubs, as covered in proposed new Schedule 1A. Within sport, each case of sexual abuse among children is one case too many. In sport, it is compounded because it takes place within a relationship of trust or responsibility; it is an abuse of the power and it is a breach of that trust. The influence that a sports coach or physical education teacher has over children is disproportionately compounded by the physical nature of proximity in sport and the near total control which can be exercised over an ambitious child seeking success in the world of sport. We have seen how prevalent this is in the worlds of gymnastics, football and athletics, to name just three sports which have witnessed the ugliness of child sexual abuse. Taking each in turn, for decades this was a problem that was festering at the heart of gymnastics. For far too long, some coaches and teachers have been able to act with total impunity, forcing young children to experience extreme training programmes while bullying and humiliating dissenting voices into silence. Some coaches have abused their power and authority to commit terrible crimes against the children they should have been caring for, leaving lives destroyed in their wake. In the wake of the #MeToo movement, numerous prominent gymnasts spoke out about the bullying, discrimination and abuse that they experienced in the sport at schools and in clubs. As a result, the Whyte review was commissioned, and an independent report examined the allegations of mistreatment in the sport of gymnastics. Predatory coaches and teachers were allowed to move from school to school and gym to gym, undetected by a lax system of oversight, and predatory coaches and teachers worked to conceal abuse. In football, a child abuse scandal involving the abuse of young players at football clubs began in November 2016, and by the end of 2021, 16 men had been charged with historical sexual abuse offences, 15 of whom were tried. One was head of PE at a school in Birmingham, another a secondary school teacher. In athletics, the documentary “Nowhere to Run” in the UK concerned the sexual abuse of athletes by a coach and how the athletes tried to deal with the impact of the abuse. The current situation in law, as noble Lords in this Committee know, is that while child safeguarding requirements are mandatory for all schools and colleges in the UK, a duty is legally enshrined in the Education Act and various statutory instruments, which are welcomed. However, we need to go further. Those measures did not deter many of the cases that have come to light, and there is no law that compels everyone to report child sexual abuse. Despite the promises for action within the Crime and Policing Bill, there is no criminal sanction for failing to report child sexual abuse under the mandatory reporting plan. We need to go further than a duty to report that “may be referred” to a “professional regulator (where applicable) or the Disclosure and Barring Service, who will consider their suitability to continue working in regulated activity with children”. I join the noble Baronesses in their view that there should be professional criminal sanctions for failing to report or covering up child sexual abuse, which they have put in the amendment they have tabled. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has led work on a duty of care and safeguarding; I have been privileged to support on it for over 20 years. We have sought to create a sports ombudsman, or a sports duty of care quality commission, who would also have duties of care within all schools. We have sought to develop an independent benchmark survey to measure duty of care, to monitor whether duty of care policies are working, and to inform future policy and investment decisions, and we have sought to ensure that there is a duty of care guardian—one in every school, I hope—with responsibility for engaging with participants in school sport, as well as with young people across the talent pathways and in community sport. Today we can go one step further. We can rectify the position of the absence of a well-designed, mandatory reporting law at the heart of the safeguarding shortcomings in institutional settings such as sport and recreation at schools. Let the lessons of the past protect the children of tomorrow, and let those of us who I hope one day will vote for this amendment, if it is not accepted by the Minister today, take the lead for future generations.

My Lords, this is an extremely important amendment. I have a slight concern that the Minister in replying may say that the Crime and Policing Bill is the place for such an amendment, but the problem with the proposals in that Bill is that they are based on age, whereas this amendment is much more subtle in responding to the emotional entrapment that goes on in grooming, the activity that goes on in grooming, and the difficulty of sexual abuse being perpetrated at all ages. There are five areas that I think would have to go along with this—a public health awareness over the dangers of the early stages of emotional entrapment, leading to grooming that leads on to sexual abuse and the pressures that children are under. Therefore, there must be an awareness overall across society that none of this is acceptable, with training and support of all those who have any responsibility for children, and, when there is suspicion, clear pathways to people who can really deal with this sensitively. One of the situations that comes to mind is the child who goes in to see their GP, perhaps a teenager seeking contraceptive advice. They may actually be in a sexual relationship where they have been coerced, pressured and emotionally groomed, and entrapped with the person who is abusing them, even if that is somebody who is also very young. There may be an imbalance in that relationship, particularly if it is a child who is desperate for love, affection and closeness altogether in their life. When legislation is introduced, which it must be, it will also need good scientific evaluation—not just a tick-box review but a proper study to see how it is working. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, say that this was a probing amendment, simply because there is a change I would like to see to it. The amendment refers to healthcare, including in GP surgeries, and I would like that to be extended to primary care services, given that a lot of primary care services occur out in the community. District and community nurses are going into people’s homes, which may well be places where they pick up that something is not right, particularly if there is one parent, or sometimes even two, who are ill and need input.

16:15:00

I also have a very slight concern over the offences. The amendment mentions a

“period of seven days of the matter, allegation or suspicion first coming to the knowledge or attention of the provider”.

I say, simply from experience of having been a GP, that sometimes you can have some index of suspicion, but you cannot put a finger on it and you need more than seven days to begin to ask questions and explore it. That is not to criticise this amendment. I think it is extremely well drafted and brought together, and I hope the Minister will take the contents of this forward, even though it was proposed as a probing amendment.

My Lords, I too support Amendment 66 and the proposed introduction of a mandatory reporting requirement for sexual abuse, in accordance not just with the speeches we have heard but with the carefully reasoned recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. In simple terms, failure to report known or reasonably suspected abuse puts the child concerned at future risk, and it can make a person failing to report complicit in what has happened and in what may later happen to the victim of that abuse and, indeed, to others. Moreover, a failure to report prevents proper and prompt investigation of alleged abuse and can deprive the victim of appropriate treatment and support. A failure to report is a failure to protect. All that is obvious, but it is a complex area. There are only a few cases when it can be truly known that abuse has occurred, because it is largely an unwitnessed crime. Accordingly, under the terms of this amendment, the person expected to report must have reasonable grounds for suspicion. If the child is young, that suspicion could well depend on the adult’s understanding of what the child has said or tried to say, or on an interpretation of the child’s behaviour. That may not be easy, particularly if the person concerned does not know the child well or the structure or dynamics of the child’s family. These difficulties should not be made worse for victims of child sexual abuse by failures to report and by deflection of evidence of abuse for the sort of reasons and excuses so clearly described by the report of the independent inquiry—in particular, a misguided desire to protect the alleged perpetrators or institutions. In the sort of cases dealt with in the family court, schools can often be the first to realise that there may have been some type of abuse, and some school staff can, understandably, be nervous of the reaction of angry family members if allegations are made. I recall a case in which the teacher admitted not acting when he saw obvious injuries to a child simply because he was reluctant to get involved in making the statements and reports that might be required. If there is to be a duty in law underpinned by criminal sanctions, as the amendment proposes, it will be particularly important that it is made known to all who will be subject to that duty and that, where possible, they have guidance on how to record and manage disclosure and evidence of possible sexual abuse. It can be crucial to avoid inappropriate and repeated questioning of a child. Changing the focus slightly, towards cases arising in the family context, I should mention that the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel’s cogent and disturbing report in November 2024, I Wanted Them All to Notice, stated that: “Over the past 20 years or so, the light on the sexual abuse of children within families has gradually dimmed. We have witnessed a worrying evaporation of the skills and knowledge that professionals (leaders and practitioners) must have to work confidently and sensitively in this complex area of practice. This dilution of focus and expertise may be partly explained by the greater public and professional attention on the sexual abuse of children in institutions, by ‘famous’ people and on the sexual exploitation of children outside their home. This was undoubtedly urgently required, but it may also have drawn our eyes away from the more common experience for children, of sexual abuse in their families”. It goes on to suggest that the “moral outrage that can accompany media attention on extra-familial sexual abuse has perhaps distracted attention from the more commonplace nature of familial abuse. In turning our attention away from the latter, we have undermined the confidence and capability of professionals to identify and respond to sexual abuse in families”. The panel called for a national strategic response. Approval of this amendment would be an important step in that response. There should be a mandatory duty to which all professionals should adhere.

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment and agree with everything that has been said so far, particularly the very important and valuable contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. He, like I, tried many child abuse cases. It is a sad part of the work that family judges do that there are so many sexual abuse cases of children, from babies to the age of 17, and they are all absolutely terrible. It is important to remember that there are two sorts of sexual abuse—that within the family and that without. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, there has been less of a mirror on abuse within families as on strangers abusing children. It is extraordinary in some ways that we do not already have mandatory reporting, since it is so obvious and so important. There are so many people out there, certainly members of families, who know what is going on but do not know what to do. I am talking about siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, because this is a very serious part. I do not know whether noble Lords realise that the majority of sexual abuse is within the family, although there is far too much by outsiders. If it is within the family, it becomes increasingly important that those around the child, who do know but do not know what to do, are told that they have an obligation to do something effective. I hope that the Minister recognises that this is long overdue. It must come into this Bill or into the Crime and Policing Bill—preferably both. One group of people who have not so far been referred to are the police. If it is an obvious case of sexual abuse, the local authority employee must go immediately to the police. Let us not forget that any sexual abuse of any child, of any person, is a crime.

My Lords, as someone who has been involved with child abuse issues and child protection down the years, I thought it necessary to add my voice to support the amendment. It may be that we want to talk about the vehicle, it may be that we want to talk about the drafting, but it is really important that the House makes absolutely clear that there is agreement on the principle around mandatory reporting, because that has not always been the case, and that is the first massive step to dealing with this issue. I otherwise wanted to say only how pleased I was to hear the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. In 2012, when I spoke in this Chamber against the watering down of vetting and barring, I was told roundly that we should have an exemption for all sports clubs and societies because they were exemplars. The last 12 years have shown us how wrong that would have been; they have also shown us how important the amendment is.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 107B, which is in my name. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the same legal rights would apply to a child in care as those which apply to children living with their families. In that sense, it is linked to Amendment 69AB, which I shall move later today. In 2022, the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, henceforth referred to as IICSA, highlighted the fact that the family court can limit parents’ exercise of their parental responsibility, but the court is unable to intervene in the same way with corporate parents. The report recommended a new “route by which children in care can apply to the family courts for orders to mandate or limit a local authority’s exercise of its parental responsibility”, which is what this new clause seeks to achieve. There are many recognisable harms in the children’s care system, some of which have been identified by noble Lords already, among them: children being moved from settled homes; children being sent many miles from their home area; siblings being split up; children forced to move areas ahead of critical GCSE or A-level exams; children desperately unhappy at where they are living but being told there is nowhere else for them to go; and children approaching their 18th birthday woefully unprepared for life ahead of them. As incredible as it sounds, it is still common for children in care to be told that they must register as homeless once they reach their 18th birthday. It is not difficult to understand why that often causes unbearable stress and anxiety, affecting all areas of the child’s life. The family court is able to intervene in how parents exercise their parental responsibility, yet it has no equivalent power in respect of corporate parents, when looked-after children are the most vulnerable children in our society. As IICSA’s final report explained: “Courts can make decisions about children who are not in care, but only local authorities can make decisions about children who are in care”. That is an inconsistency that I believe needs to be confronted and brought to an end. IICSA considered the role of the independent reviewing officer, the ability of children in care to apply to discharge care orders, bring claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 and to bring judicial reviews, and it found each of these systems of protection to be insufficient. IICSA foresaw children in care having a straightforward legal mechanism on a par with children in the community, whereby the exercise of a local authority’s parental responsibility could be put under the spotlight and subject to restriction and instruction where necessary. This new clause would implement IICSA’s recommendation 6 by giving children who are the subject of a care order the legal means of challenging their corporate parent’s actions and, perhaps equally importantly, inactions. When a child in care is suffering, or at risk of suffering, significant harm, this new clause would enable the family court to make an order to prohibit the local authority from taking action that could be harmful to that child. The family court would also have the power to make an order to require the local authority to take particular action “to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare”. On 16 January in another place, the Home Secretary made a clear statement that the Government would set out a plan for implementing all 20 of IICSA’s final recommendations. Their Tackling Child Sexual Abuse: Progress Update issued in April very helpfully set out how children in care’s access to independent advocacy services will be strengthened through the publication of revised national standards and statutory guidance. However, this is a long way from implementing IICSA recommendation 6, the purpose of which is to give children in care a new legal mechanism to challenge the actions and inactions of their corporate parent when these are causing or are likely to cause the child significant harm. Such a measure will go hand in hand with effective independent advocacy services, because it is likely to be independent advocates who assist children in care in accessing this new legal safeguard. We all know that IICSA was a seven-year public inquiry that heard devastating evidence of the ways a whole host of institutions consistently failed vulnerable children. Its recommendations must be taken seriously and, as I said, the Government are on record as being committed to implementing all its 20 recommendations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, my noble friend may well suggest that the Crime and Policing Bill is a more appropriate vehicle for this amendment. If so, why does it not appear in that Bill? I believe it is a very important step. I hope my noble friend will be a bit more positive than that and be able to offer a commitment that she will return on Report with a government amendment to make children in care legally the equal of children in the community.

16:30:00

My Lords, I will very briefly illustrate the importance of Amendment 66 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. As I was making a speech in Hull in 2017, when Hull was the City of Culture, a woman came in and, when she saw me, she almost fainted. She buckled. I thought, “That’s very strange”. Anyway, I finished my speech and after everybody had asked for a selfie and an autograph, the woman came towards me and said, “Floella, I’m sorry I reacted that way, but when I was eight, I was fostered. My foster parents had two sons, and every day they used to come home and sexually abuse me. The only thing that got me through it, Floella, was seeing your smiling face. I so wanted to scream out and tell you, but I knew someone out there loved me. I’m now a 48 year-old woman, and every time I go through a dark period in my life, I think of you and so wish I could have told you back then”. That is why it is important that children should know that there is somebody they can speak to about the kinds of abuse that 48 year-old woman is now reliving, because, as I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime.

My Lords, I have Amendment 69A in this group. It speaks for itself. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 66, having spoken on the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill. I also gave evidence to the independent inquiry. If I remember correctly, I believe that the Government’s position at that time was that this recommendation from IICSA was under consideration, so I am grateful to see that it is being taken forward, as well as the recommendation for a child protection agency, which is the subject matter of a later amendment. I wish to make two brief points. First, it is important to remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, that disciplinary processes already exist in some settings, such as large institutions, but many of the organisations outlined in proposed new Schedule 1A are probably more appropriately called out-of-school settings, which are often not even incorporated charities. Even if they are a charity, the only obligations and duties are those of the trustees and they can be stand-alone charities that are not part of any wider network. It is important to put this mandatory reporting obligation on those involved in an increasing number of charities, which do excellent work but sometimes stand in a very vulnerable governance situation. My second point, which is connected to that, is that there have been previous discussions in your Lordships’ House, I think with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, on a suggestion that has been floated over the years of some kind of confessional exemption in the context of religious institutions. I think the days when we could nail down which religious institutions those are—maybe some synagogues, a few nonconformist churches and the Catholic Church—are long gone. I hope we can hit this on the head: how can we have any confessional-type exemption if we have such a wide variety of institutions nowadays? Increasingly within the Christian community, although the Catholic Church is seeing a resurgence, young people are going to independent churches that may not be a member of any network. I do not see how practically that can work nowadays. I would hate for any confusion around that to halt an important amendment that is way overdue.

My Lords, when I was a vicar in Tulse Hill in the early 1980s, five young women came to see me. Four had been abused by their fathers. The youngest was eight at the time it happened. Working with them, listening to them, finding help that would restore who they truly were was a very long journey, but I am glad to say that all of them have now taken on professions that I did not think were possible. One of them has had the courage to report her father, who is now doing a quite a long sentence. I come originally from Uganda. I never imagined that a father could abuse an eight year-old girl. I just thought in terms of culture that that was just outrageous, but I listened, and we had to find a way of helping them. Most abuse of young children happens in the home by family or friends. We need to work hard to make the message quite clear. I am reminded of those wonderful words by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard; noble Lords have heard him speak about the Soham murders. He did an inquiry into the Soham murders. One of his wonderful phrases in that report, which has sustained me in my work dealing with people who have been abused, was that we will never succeed in preventing child sexual abuse, but we can make it very difficult for abusers to do it. For me, mandatory reporting is an important reality. When I appeared before IICSA, I was asked a question, and I said mandatory reporting must happen, because the only way that we are going to make it difficult for those who want to carry out their heinous crimes is if they know that it will not remain hidden. As most of it is in the home—at least in my experience—we have got to find a message that can remind a perpetrator of that, even though they may be behind closed doors in an apparently loving home where people’s lives have been blighted. I support Amendment 66. I hope the Minister will say something that can capture the imagination of this nation. We must not look at just the big organisations, but at what happens in the home.

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.

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.

16:45:00

I was planning to say a little more about Amendment 69A than my noble friend decided to. The amendment understandably focuses on cases where there has been a conviction, but we know that this is a very complicated area, and there are various things about my noble friend’s amendment that make me uneasy. First, there are vastly more cases—perhaps particularly in the area of child sexual abuse but certainly in that of domestic abuse, which I know personally the most about—where there will be no conviction. I worry that such an amendment could bring a focus to a subset of cases that, ironically, might not be the most worrying in terms of child safety.

Secondly, it will not always be clear whether the conviction is actually related. In the case of domestic abuse, a stalking-related offence might be handled under the misuse of telecommunications legislation and therefore not identified as a domestic abuse offence. Thirdly, we know that in cases where there is bidirectional violence, there is a risk that the primary carer receives a conviction but the secondary carer does not. So I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, particularly in relation to direct child abuse and child sexual abuse, but maybe the Minister can clarify how many cases resulting in a child sexual abuse conviction end up with parental contact actually being allowed. In other words, is the amendment needed or are those cases already ruled out?

I would argue—but there are greater experts in the Chamber than me—that we need our judges and Cafcass officers to be skilled in assessing risk and balancing the considerations that affect the safety of the child. I worry that if we start to try to manage different specific situations via primary legislation, we may constrain their discretion, which we need to work so well. The focus on the welfare of the child being paramount is crystal clear, and the family court is focused and needs to stay focused on that.

On Amendment 107B, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite because I confess that I did not completely understand it as given on the Marshalled List. He is right that we must set high expectations for local authorities and have consistency on the legal rights of children in care.

My Lords, this group of amendments has enabled us to hear a consensus in this House about the enormously difficult, tragic and appalling instances of child sexual abuse over the years, and that it is no longer good enough for us not to take important action to protect children in the most appalling circumstances. That is why this Government are committed to protecting children from harm, including from the horrors of sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation. Measures included in the Bill and the significant programme of reforms already under way will help to protect children at risk of abuse and stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks in services. I shall speak to the detail of the amendments. As we have heard, Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, seeks to insert into the Children Act 2004 a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse. I wholly understand why noble Lords have taken the opportunity today to raise this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, we should take every opportunity to raise it and to emphasise the determination of this House and indeed this Government to take action. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, about the specific issues relating to sport. We have also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Bichard, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about their experience and the pressure they have rightly put on the Government to make progress. Noble Lords knew that part of my response would be that the Government are already taking forward a new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse for individuals in England undertaking regulated activity with children, as well as, crucially, a new criminal offence of obstructing an individual from making a report under that duty. This duty is included in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently in the other place. That is the most appropriate route to debate the detail of a mandatory reporting duty, but I have no doubt that colleagues in the other place—and those of my noble friends who will be responsible for taking that Bill through this House—will have listened carefully to the specific points and challenges raised by noble Lords during the course of the debate on this group, and on Amendment 66 in particular. I will draw this debate to their attention because, while we might disagree over the details, we can agree that any new duty must ensure that the words of children who are seeking help are heard and apply the strongest possible measures to anyone who seeks to cover up abuse of this kind. I will respond to a couple of points on the mandatory duty. On criminal sanctions, there may well be differences, partly because of the sensitive and careful balance here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, identified. The Government have not attached criminal sanctions in the Crime and Policing Bill to a failure to report. However, there will be criminal sanctions for anyone who obstructs an individual from making a report under that duty. This is because millions of people in England take part in regulated activity with children and young people. Many of them will be teachers, nurses, social workers and other qualified professionals, but a significant proportion will be volunteers giving up their time to support, for example, their child’s sports team. Those volunteers are the lifeblood of many opportunities on offer to our young people. They should comply with the duty, but we do not think it would be proportionate to create a criminal sanction for failure to comply with it. That could create a chilling effect where people are reluctant to volunteer or even enter the professions, because they fear being criminalised for making a mistake. I know that this is a delicate and difficult area and I am sure that it will be subject to further debate when the Crime and Policing Bill comes to this House. The purpose of mandatory reporting has to be to improve the protection of children. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, emphasised, the aim is to create a culture of support, knowledge and openness when dealing with child sexual abuse. In working through the details of how this mandatory duty works, we must be careful that we do not do the opposite to that. Mandatory reporting will create a culture of openness and honesty, empower professionals and volunteers to take prompt, decisive action to report sexual abuse and demonstrate to children and young people that, if they come forward, they will be heard. Amendment 69A was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Given the amount of work we have to get through on the Bill, I thank him for his brief but effective introduction to his amendments. I recognise the importance of safeguarding children from the risk posed by parents who have been convicted of serious offences, including those involving domestic abuse, child abuse and child sexual abuse. Ensuring their safety and well-being must remain at the heart of our family justice system. This amendment seeks to allow the High Court to curtail or remove parental contact where a parent has been convicted of domestic abuse, child abuse or child sexual abuse. It would also require the High Court to publish annual statistics on how many times they have removed or curtailed rights to parental contact. However, we do not believe that new legislative provision is required, because existing legislation already serves to protect children from the harms associated with abusive parents. This is undoubtedly an issue where the courts should consider enormously carefully the potential damage that could happen to a child through contact with people in the sorts of circumstances that this amendment references. Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 already states that the child’s welfare must be the court’s “paramount consideration” when making a decision relating to a child’s upbringing. That section already includes a list of factors, known as the “welfare checklist”, which the court must take into account when deciding whether to make a child arrangements order for a child to spend time with or otherwise have contact with a person. This already includes considering the likely effect of any change of circumstances on the child and any harm that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. It follows that, when determining whether parental contact with a child is appropriate, legislation already gives the court the powers set out in the first subsection of this amendment. The court must already consider any potential risk or harm to the child, and this of course includes the very serious risks associated with domestic abuse, child abuse and sexual abuse. The noble Lord’s amendment would also require the High Court to publish data on the number of times parental contact is curtailed or removed. Although I understand the call for accountability, it would not in fact be possible for the Ministry of Justice to collate this information without consulting each individual judgment. Of course, many of these judgments will be made in the family court, and therefore it would be very difficult to go through each individual judgment in order to collate the information that the amendment asks for. This is not to undermine the significance of the point being made by the amendment, but I hope that the noble Lord will see that there is already, within the law and in fact within the practice of the courts, the ability to ensure that this protection is available for children. Amendment 107B was tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie. It seeks to enable courts to prohibit or enforce specific local authority action where children in local authority care are experiencing or at risk of significant harm. I wholly share my noble friend’s objective here; we recognise the necessity for children and young people to be protected from harm, to have their voices heard and to challenge aspects of their care, especially when they have concerns about their safety. But of course, if a child is at risk of harm, they need swift and responsive action from the professionals around them, not a court process to navigate. The system of children’s social care is purposefully designed to protect and safeguard children, and there are numerous existing mechanisms through which any concerns can be escalated. That does not mean that there is no room for improvement here, as I will outline. But, for example, there are many professionals who surround children in care, each with a specific duty to promote the child’s best interests. They include social workers, independent reviewing officers and advocates. In children’s homes, they are required to report serious incidents and abuse allegations to Ofsted, which will investigate and, where necessary, has powers to take appropriate action. There are also legal routes to challenge local authority actions where there are serious concerns about misconduct. We are, of course, aware of cases in which children have been harmed while in care, which is completely unacceptable. We know that strong, trusted relationships surrounding the child are key to keeping children safe, which is why we are already taking further action, as I say. First, we are improving advocacy for children in care by publishing new national standards and statutory guidance for advocacy later this year. Secondly, we are introducing new post-qualifying standards for social workers that clearly set out the need to be agile and timely in adapting plans and intervening to keep children safe. We are creating a new local authority designated officer—LADO—handbook to improve consistency and information sharing across local authority boundaries. We are improving qualifications, standards and access to training for staff in children’s homes to ensure that children are receiving the high quality of care they need. We are in dialogue with the sector, including children and young people, to consider how effectively professionals around the child work seamlessly together.

17:00:00

My noble friend particularly referenced this in the context of IICSA recommendation 6. He will of course know that in April 2025 the Government published an update on their work to tackle child sexual abuse. That update confirms that the Government will introduce the new national standards for advocacy for children and young people and revise statutory guidance on providing effective advocacy for children and young people in 2025. That will include new standards on the provision of specialist non-instructed advocacy for children with complex needs and learning disabilities. We also remain committed to reviewing the roles of professionals who surround the child to ensure that they are creating that seamless network to protect the child.

The introduction of new court powers proposed by this amendment risks creating uncertainty around the role of the local authority, when we should be ensuring that the systems and processes in place immediately around the child, available on a day-to-day basis, are as robust and effective as intended.

I thank my noble friend for the points that she has made. She referenced the update that came out in April, but that does not go far enough to meet recommendation 6 of IICSA, which talks about access to courts. It seems to me that there is an inconsistency between that and what the Home Secretary said in January about implementing all 20 recommendations, if the update is—if I understand my noble friend correctly—as far as the Government are prepared to go in this aspect of it at this stage.

In relation to recommendation 6, in very big consultation with the sector, the objective of the Government is to deliver on the intention of the recommendation while recognising—this is something that professionals have also raised—that, for the reasons I have outlined, a new legal route here not only is not necessary but would risk making children’s ability to have their voice heard and for the professionals around them to support them less likely to happen. It is the Government’s view that this is a more effective way of delivering the intentions behind recommendation 6. Between existing safeguarding mechanisms and planned improvements, this Government set a clear expectation that children are safe, their voices are heard and professionals work together to take immediate action in response to issues or concerns. I thank noble Lords for the range of issues that have been raised on this group of amendments. I hope that I have been able to provide some assurances and that noble Lords will feel content not to press their amendments.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response—it was perhaps not unexpected. I also thank all those who spoke in this debate. I am really pleased that there is consensus on mandatory reporting, but perhaps the wording requires a little more work. I understand why His Majesty’s Government think that another vehicle might be more appropriate—perhaps this is a useful rehearsal for that future debate. I do not think what the Government are currently proposing goes far enough, but the Minister is absolutely right that we need to use every opportunity we can to discuss the protection of children. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for the decades of work that she has done in this area. She has had a couple of attempts at a Private Member’s Bill and I am following her footsteps. The noble Baroness raised the absolutely abhorrent case of Jimmy Savile, who was given complete, unfettered access to vulnerable people based on the fundraising that he did. As a child, I spent lots of time at Stoke Mandeville and at other sports events in places where he turned up. I remember one event when I was probably about 12 years old. He arrived to a great fanfare and lots of people said, “Jimmy’s here, Jimmy’s here; you have to go and see him”. I was not particularly keen to do that. There was one adult who said to me, very quietly, “No, you don’t need to go”. I asked why—“Everyone is saying we have to go and see Jimmy”—and she said, “No, no; you can just stay here. You don’t need to go”. I did not think anything of it or tell anyone. I was chatting with my friends, and I thought she probably thought that chatting with my friends was more important than going to see him. That was one adult who had a suspicion and was uncomfortable about behaviour, but there was nothing I could raise and nobody I could complain to. I was just told, “You don’t need to go near him”. It reminds me of how easy it is for adults in positions of power or trust to groom and to coax and to then lead to abuse, and how adults have an amazing position, where they can get into really uncomfortable situations. But adults also have incredibly positive relationships with children. I note the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and recognise her extensive work in volunteering. I do not want this amendment in any way to stop people volunteering or to make them feel that they are not able to or that there is undue pressure on them, but I wonder whether there is a form of words, or whether the right training and regulations could be put around it, that would enable people to feel more comfort. Again, a lot of youth organisations and other organisations have very positive relationships with young people. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We have worked together for a long time on duty of care. I have to say that the idea for an ombudsman that was in my 2017 government report on duty of care was actually borrowed from him and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, from the early 1990s. I think we both agree that sport, at its best, is absolutely amazing. It can give people a very positive life. I have benefited hugely from my time in sport, but whether it is teachers or coaches, those who want to access children live on their reputation. I have heard a number of times, “But they are a good coach”, or, “They are good at their job”, and they are able to slip through the net. I also pay tribute to the survivors of football abuse, who I have met several times over the years. A number of them came into Parliament about 18 months ago to talk about their experience and how it was just ignored by so many people around them because there was no legislation in place. Again, they fell victim to, “But they are a good coach”. Abusers were able to tie into these young boys’ dreams of wanting to play professional football. That leads me to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Finlay: we have to be better at defining what a healthy relationship is, and educate children at an appropriate age about that. In a sporting context, there is far more that we can do on the athlete pathway and as people graduate through to performance levels. My noble friends Lord Meston and Lord Bichard and my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss have extensive experience of these issues, very sadly, and we should listen to them. Like my noble friend Lord Bichard, I argued against the watering down of DBS checks, because it would allow those who want access to children to be able to get it too easily. I am reassured by some of the statements made about sharing information between LADOs, but I do not think they go far enough. I would support the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, if they brought them back at another time. The IICSA report took seven years. I believe strongly that all its recommendations need to be implemented. It is not just about the intention of the recommendations; they should be implemented in full. With that in mind, I recognise that I probably need to do some more work on drafting and have further discussions on this amendment. At this time, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 66 withdrawn.

Amendment 67

Moved by

67: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause— “Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment(1) The Children Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) In section 58 (reasonable punishment: England), omit subsections (1) to (4).(3) After section 58, insert—“58A Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment(1) The common law defence of reasonable punishment is abolished in relation to corporal punishment of a child taking place in England.(2) Corporal punishment of a child taking place in England cannot be justified in any civil or criminal proceedings on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.(3) Corporal punishment of a child taking place in England cannot be justified in any civil or criminal proceedings on the ground that it constituted acceptable conduct for the purposes of any other rule of the common law.(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) “corporal punishment” means any battery carried out as a punishment. (5) The Secretary of State may make regulations for transitory, transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of this section. (6) The power to make regulations under subsection (5) is exercisable by statutory instrument.(7) This section comes into force six months after the day on which the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2025 comes into force.58B Promotion of public awareness and reporting(1) The Secretary of State must take steps before the coming into force of section 58A to promote public awareness of the changes to the law to be made by that section.(2) The Secretary of State must, five years after its commencement, prepare a report on the effect of the changes to the law made by section 58A.(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after preparing a report under this section—(a) lay the report before Parliament, and(b) publish the report.(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations for transitory, transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of this section.(5) The power to make regulations under subsection (4) is exercisable by statutory instrument.””Member's explanatory statement This new clause would abolish the common law defence of reasonable punishment in relation to corporal (physical) punishment of a child taking place in England, amend certain provisions of the Children Act 2004 relating to corporal punishment of children and place a duty on the Secretary of State to report this change.

My Lords, the long title of this Bill starts by stating that it is to: “Make provision about the safeguarding and welfare of children”. The Bill’s focus on well-being will be undermined if we allow intergenerational cycles of violence towards children to remain perpetuated. Amendment 67, along with the consequential Amendment 505, seeks to closes a loophole in the safeguarding provision for children; a loophole that was closed in Scotland in 2019 and in Wales in 2020 but not yet in England and in Northern Ireland. Children need the same protection from assault as adults, yet lack protection because the law’s amendment 20 years ago left a loophole. When children are hit, the assaulting adult can claim that it is “reasonable chastisement”. There is no legal definition of what is reasonable; it depends on the circumstance. The line between lawful punishment and unlawful abuse is open to interpretation. Paediatrician Professor Andrew Rowland, child protection officer at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, pointed out that he is “regularly faced with difficult situations where it is alleged that physical punishment has been used against a child”. Last year’s practice review in Worcestershire into nine year-old Alfie’s death flagged up the difficulty in distinguishing “between what is lawful and proportionate and what is harmful and abusive”. The preceding year, Norfolk’s review into the death of child AK concluded that the current law is confusing. These risks are reiterated in safeguarding practice reviews, particularly as bruises are more difficult to see in skin of colour or when the child is extensively covered by clothing. The 2018 report from AFRUCA on safeguarding children in black and ethnic communities in London and Manchester found that complexity and ambiguity in England leaves many families unclear on the law, particularly those who have recently arrived in the UK. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK has signed up, commits states to protect children from all forms of physical violence, including corporal punishment within the family. The UN committee has explicitly stated that physical punishment is a violation of a child’s right to protection and should be banned. Around the world, 68 countries have now prohibited physical punishment and have shown a drastic reduction in the number of children being subject to severe corporal punishment. There is clear evidence that physical punishment has no positive outcomes for children, as reported in the Lancet in 2021. The review of 69 studies found that physical punishment consistently predicts increases in child behaviour problems and mental health issues and in escalating physical abuse over time, increasing the need for child protection for more severe violence. The behaviour of control by hitting becomes externalised, with ever-worsening behaviour. These associations between physical punishment and detrimental outcomes are robust across child and parent characteristics: the more that children are hit, the worse the child behaviour over time. Hitting children hurts on the outside and on the inside; it damages emotional development. Eight in 10 child runaways cite family violence as a cause. As one child said, “I was sick of my dad and his girlfriend hitting me”. Last year’s report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health shows that those who experience physical assaults in the name of punishment are two and a half times more likely to experience mental health problems and twice as likely to go on to experience significant injury and damage through more serious forms of physical abuse. Children subject to being hit in the name of discipline are more likely to bully others and to repeat the cycle of violence over and over again once they become adults. The Children’s Commissioner for Wales, alongside the other three children’s commissioners, supports extending equal protection for all children in the UK. This amendment does not seek to prosecute parents. In Wales and Scotland, there has been no evidence of a significant increase in prosecutions following this change. It is about behaviour and culture change. If I hit a noble Lord, they would rightly accuse me of assault. However, England allows adults to hit a child, who will be much smaller than them, with a much more vulnerable body and emotional make-up. It is a way to vent their anger when they—the adult— cannot cope.

17:15:00

In Wales, removing the common law defence of reasonable punishment as a defence to the battery of a child was accompanied by an implementation plan of public education. The police can decide if it is in the public interest to take a case forward and they decide the most appropriate disposal. They can refer for a rehabilitative alternative to prosecution if further action needs to be taken, allowing parenting support to encourage positive parenting.

The monitoring report will be published later this year. However, as Jane Hutt, the Chief Whip in the Senedd, said about the law in Wales:

“It’s the third anniversary of this landmark legislation and it’s part of life; it is accepted, it’s embedded”.

Similarly, five years of experience in New Zealand has shown that such laws serve an educational, rather than punitive, function, shifting attitudes to more beneficial behaviour change.

This proposal has support from over 25 sector organisations, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, the Children’s Commissioner for England and the British Association of Social Workers. It is time to protect children from assault and battery. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 173 in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for adding her name to it. I am extremely supportive of Amendments 67 and 505, which were very powerfully introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. My amendment seeks to require the Government to prepare and publish a national neglect strategy to galvanise a sustained focus on neglect. For far too long, neglect has been absent from or underplayed in our conversations about supporting children and families. The role it can play is critical in reducing the number of children in care, which will be central to many of our discussions on this part of the Bill. The scale of neglect is significant and its impact on children far-reaching. Neglect is the most common form of maltreatment reported as the initial category of abuse on child protection plans. It was also the main reason for adults reaching out last year to the NSPCC helpline; indeed, new research from the NSPCC underlining this point will be published this week. Neglect has some of the most profound negative and long-term effects on a child’s behaviour, educational achievement, emotional well-being and physical development. It impacts every area of a child’s life. Unaddressed, it prevents children developing their full potential and puts them at serious risk of harm. That it is the very antithesis of well-being, which is what Part 1 of the Bill is all about. However, unlike other forms of maltreatment, there is no national strategy for neglect, and existing practice guidance rarely refers to neglect-specific approaches and models. The NSPCC has reported that professionals have concerns about the lack of a national focus on neglect and how this has left many children without the right support at a time when family pressures are at an all-time high. Requiring the Government to prepare and publish a national neglect strategy, as my amendment would, would make sure that we provide greater protections and support for children and families, better understand and address common drivers of neglect, such as poverty and insecure housing, standardise the use of evidence-based neglect tools to identify and respond to neglect and improve information sharing across agencies. Taken together, that package could be very powerful. While neglect is prevalent in child referrals and assessments, a lack of action being taken to address it has become the norm. Indeed, so commonplace is neglect that it can be easy for professionals to either stop noticing it or become desensitised to its potential severity. Neglect is a complex harm, and it requires a great deal of professional skill to understand and assess its impact. I know that many professionals feel they are simply underprepared and underresourced to do so, and there are limited specialised professionals or interventions for them to draw on. Indeed, research last year found that 83% of professionals in healthcare, the police, children’s social care and education believed that there was not enough service available to provide support for children experiencing neglect. Equipping professionals to identify concerns about neglect early, enabling parents to reach out for support in a non-stigmatising way and ensuring there are available sources to respond effectively to neglect are all vital to reducing the devastating impact it can have on children and—this is absolutely critical—to reducing the number of children going into care, which is currently at an all-time high. With neglect being such a prominent category of abuse and often the earliest sign of mistreatment, surely it should, and indeed must, form the cornerstone of early intervention, which I think we all agree is so important. If we are serious about supporting families and helping children as early as possible, as I know we are, preventing and tackling neglect must become a central plank of our policy response. The need for a national neglect strategy needs to be given very careful consideration. I hope it is possible to do so during the passage of the Bill and I very much look to hearing the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I am very pleased to add my name to Amendment 67, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. For me, this is very much a question of children’s rights. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes it clear that children must be free from violence and that Governments must do all they can to protect them from violence, using all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures. This amendment would ensure that the whole of the UK, not just Scotland and Wales, complies with the UN convention. Moreover, if we are taking children’s well-being seriously, we cannot continue to allow them to be subjected to physical assault. They are the only group, as the noble Baroness said, who are not legally protected from it. Ministers say they are open-minded but want to see the review of evidence from Wales and from a range of voices. But, as already noted, we have ample evidence, from numerous countries, both of the negative impact of physical punishment on children’s well-being and the positive impact of its prohibition in terms of it having the desired effect of reducing the use of physical punishment. If she has not seen it, I would refer my noble friend the Minister to a recent article in Children and Youth Services Review which brings together much of that evidence. As has already been noted, the evidence is sufficient for all the Children’s Commissioners, including from Wales, to be calling for reform. Indeed, they call the current law “outdated and morally repugnant” and reject the argument that it would lead to the criminalisation of parents. Polling shows consistent support among the general public for reform and new polling shows a majority of safeguarding professionals in support of change. Over half of social workers and teachers said the current law makes their work of safeguarding children more difficult. I fear that the “waiting for Wales” argument is becoming a legislative form of “Waiting for Godot”. How long will we have to wait for another Bill that would provide such a perfect opportunity for reform? The Children’s Commissioners and a range of health and social care organisations are calling for urgent action now. Surely, we should be listening to them and stop prevaricating.

My Lords, I rise to oppose this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and its consequent Amendment 505. I believe it is an egregious interference in family life by the state and an intrusion. It is an attack on family rights and it will encourage a childish disrespect for authority. It is disproportionate and heavy-handed and it risks criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children’s services departments. The law as it stands is sensible. It outlaws violence, abuse and unreasonable chastisement. Crown Prosecution Service guidelines are clear that, if the actions of a parent cause anything that is more than transient or trifling, it is unlawful. This has been the law since 2004, when Parliament narrowed the scope of the reasonable-chastisement defence. The reasonable-chastisement defence simply permits parents to use very mild physical discipline, like a tap on the hand or a smack on the bottom, without being charged with assault. By definition, the defence allows only reasonable behaviour. Therefore, if the defence is removed, it is only reasonable behaviour that will become unlawful. “Reasonable chastisement” is common and harmless. The Welsh Government admitted in 2021 that there was “no definitive evidence that reasonable physical punishment causes negative outcomes for children”. Research recycled by activist academics campaigning for a ban fails to distinguish between reasonable chastisement and beatings. The recent press statement calling for a ban by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which appears to have become an annual event, included the claim that “now is the time for this Victorian-era punishment to go”. This kind of highly loaded language must bring into question whether the college was engaging in scientific debate or merely exaggerated polemic. Victorian-era punishment conjures up images of beatings that were outlawed long ago. Either the college is uninformed about the law or it is deliberately exaggerating. Those who defend loving parents who use mild physical punishment within the context of a warm, nurturing relationship are opposed to child cruelty. The reasonable-chastisement defence will never prevent a court bringing in a conviction in a case of abuse. There is not a single reported case where this has occurred. As stated, the legal defence cannot be used where a parent causes anything that is more than transient and trifling. An example of the law in action took place in Torbay in 2018, where a stepdad was successfully prosecuted for smacking his four year-old daughter too hard. He had left a handprint on her bottom and the judge ruled, quite rightly, that he had acted unlawfully. A core objective of the Bill is to address the concern that children at risk of abuse are falling through the cracks of our safeguarding system. However, a smacking ban would exacerbate this wrong by increasing the likelihood that genuinely at-risk children are overlooked. It would be a tragedy if major cases of abuse were missed because vital staff members were needlessly occupied with innocent parents. Those in genuine need will suffer while resources are wasted on cases where there are no real problems. Social workers will be even busier than they are already and, as a result, some vulnerable children will not get the help they obviously need. Everyone wants the state to intervene to protect children who are in danger of abuse, but, if that is to be done effectively, the limited resources available need to be focused on identifying and helping those at risk, not investigating innocent, loving parents because the law of assault has become politicised by activists who do not agree with reasonable chastisement. Making trivial smacks a criminal offence will cause misery for parents and children. Parents will be required to be treated as suspected child abusers by police and social services when they know they do not deserve to be treated in that way. We do not help victims of real abuse by creating injustice in families where there is no abuse. Some children will be removed from their parents; some will have to give evidence in court against their mother or father. This entirely unnecessary and unjust process would be devastating for the child and their parents, and it runs counter to the Bill’s stated aim to keep children and families together wherever it is safe to do so, as set out by the Minister at Second Reading.

17:30:00

Of course, a smacking ban could even be weaponised in divorce cases. In 2019, the Ministry of Justice warned the Welsh Parliament that parents could use a smacking ban

“to further their cause against the other parent in a separation or divorce”,

saying that

“it would be easy for an allegation of smacking to be made which may lead to the involvement of the police and a concurrent criminal investigation”.

The current law recognises children and adults are different. The amendment fails to consider the unique relationship between parents and their children. Children are not adults. Parents do all kinds of things to care for, train and protect their children that they would never do with an adult. If a parent confiscates their child’s phone or sends them to their room, it is not treated as theft or false imprisonment. An adult cannot place another adult on the “naughty step”. Nobody claims the child is being treated “unequally”. It is foolish and wrong to say that the relationship between a parent and child must be treated in law as identical to the relationship between two adults. Criminalising reasonable chastisement represents a fundamental shift in the legal relationship between parents and children, undermining the ability of parents to guard and guide their children.

US professors Robert Larzelere, Marjorie Gunnoe and Christopher Ferguson, regarded as world leaders in smacking research, state that the major meta-analyses on physical punishment of children are not methodologically sound enough to allow for robust conclusions to be made. Polling in Britain has consistently shown that a majority of adults are against criminalising smacking. That is not a surprise, as over 80% of adults were themselves smacked as children but of course do not regard their parents as child abusers.

Sweden has been mentioned in other places over the years. It has banned smacking since 1979. Those in favour of a ban often cite it as a role model. They argue that smacking teaches children that violence is acceptable. If this was true, we would expect the figures to show reduced violence among children after Sweden’s ban. However, figures show the opposite. After the smacking ban, child-on-child violence increased by 1,791% between 1984 and 2010. One study commented that

“trends in Swedish criminal assaults against minors suggest that the way the first spanking ban has been implemented in that country may have increased criminal assaults in that country, in contrast to its intended effect of decreasing violence”.

Psychiatrist David Eberhard published a critique of Sweden’s approach. He argued that the emphasis on a permissive approach, which started with the smacking ban, has left parents unable to correct their children in any way. Eberhard identified several serious consequences for Swedish society, such as a breakdown of discipline in schools, plummeting grades and a rise in anxiety disorders among teens, including suicide attempts.

Mention has also been made of the examples of Scotland and Wales. When the Scottish Parliament debated banning smacking, its proponents said it was

“absolutely not about criminalising parents but about giving them the support they need”—

Jess Asato MP has used strikingly similar language—but as soon as the law change came into effect, the Scottish Government issued guidance which instructed the public to dial 999 if they suspected a parent of smacking a child. They amended official advice in response to public anger. Data is not collected in Scotland on how many parents have been prosecuted for assault as a result of the law change. As mentioned above, Social Work Scotland has highlighted issues the law change has created for its ability to provide support to families.

In Wales, the Children’s Minister pointed out in 2015 that removing the reasonable chastisement defence creates a grey area such that

“a parent who forcibly lifts a misbehaving child”

would meet the threshold for assault.

There are too many imponderables and too many examples of bad practice. I do not think the case has been made for this amendment. I hope that the Minister will follow the example of her honourable friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North in the other place and say that this amendment goes too far. For those reasons, I firmly oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

My Lords, I am very sorry to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I believe he totally misunderstands the point of the amendment so ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Finlay. He used “smacking” quite a lot. I will never use that word myself, because it trivialises what we mean. We are talking about a hit—about a physical assault on a child. The reasonable chastisement defence is only ever likely to be used in a court of law, and it has been. As I think we know, the rationale is that every battery of a child starts with a hit, but not every hit of a child leads to battery. One recent case illustrates the point. On the first day of the trial of the killers of Sara Sharif in 2024, the prosecutor, Bill Emlyn Jones, told jurors that Urfan Sharif called British police, having fled to Pakistan after Sara’s death. He said: “He used what you may think is an odd expression. He said: ‘I legally punished her and she died’”. I wonder where he got that phrase. I can tell your Lordships: it appears in Section 58 of the Children Act 2004, and for the last 20 years, I and others have tried to delete it. The presence of those words in the law sends a message that it can be lawful to beat a little child. Back in 2002, the Adoption and Children Act acknowledged the damage done to children from witnessing violence in the home. So long as the reasonable chastisement defence remains, babies and children who witness violence still have greater legal protection than those who are directly assaulted. Emlyn Jones said that Urfan Sharif also told the police: “I beat her up. It wasn’t my intention to kill her, but I beat her up too much”. An intention to kill is not necessary. An intention to cause serious harm is sufficient for a murder conviction if death ensues. The prosecutor said that a note in Urfan Sharif’s handwriting was found next to his daughter’s body, which read: “I swear to God that my intention was not to kill her. But I lost it”. Sara had more than 70 injuries to her ribs, shoulders, fingers, spine and brain, and a burn from a domestic iron to her buttock. She had numerous bruises, scald marks from hot water, restraint injuries, and human bite marks. These injuries did not occur on one occasion when her father “lost it”. This sort of case is not new. When Maria Colwell died in January 1973, she had black eyes, fractured ribs and brain damage. This was inflicted by her mother and stepfather, William Kepple. Kepple was convicted of Maria’s murder in April 1973, but the charge was later reduced to manslaughter. Officials repeated the mantra: “It must never happen again”. But it has, and it does. Victoria Climbié, who died on 25 February 2000, was rushed to hospital suffering from hypothermia, weighing just three stone and ten pounds and suffering 128 injuries. In arguably one of the most notorious child deaths, Peter Connelly, known in the media as baby P, died in London on 3 August 2007, aged just 17 months, after suffering more than 50 injuries. He had been seen 60 times by healthcare professionals and social workers. On 3 March 2012, four year-old Daniel Pełka died after being severely battered by his mother and her partner. Daniel had suffered 22 injuries, including 10 to his head. Arthur Labinjo-Hughes was murdered after months of abuse in 2020. Arthur, aged six, was tortured to death by his father, Thomas Hughes, and stepmother. After months of horrific abuse, he was starved and poisoned with large quantities of salt. When he died, his skeletal body was covered with 130 bruises and he suffered 93 different areas of injury. On 22 September 2020, Savannah Brockhill caused baby Star Hobson catastrophic injuries after inflicting months of brutal abuse alongside her mother. Medics said that her injuries were usually seen only in car crash victims. Boris Johnson vowed that action would be taken to stop such shocking and heartbreaking tragedies in future, but it has not been taken. Many other fatal cases have hit the headlines, and there have been hundreds of beaten children who did not die but were marked for life by their experience. Briefings we have received from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have made it clear that hitting children is not harmless; it is harmful. Yes, there were serious shortcomings in the actions or inactions of various public services in the cases I have just outlined, but the social workers and police did not kill these children; their parents and carers did. They did it because they thought they could get away with it. Every terrible beating started with a single hit, a single physical assault: the sort of thing that recently lost an MP his seat and his liberty. The reason why these children died was that they did not have the voice or ability to stop it and they were not sufficiently protected by the law. If the early stages of any one of these cases had been perpetrated on an adult, the attacker would have been imprisoned long before the pattern of assault became fatal. The fact is that children do not have equal protection against assault under the law, because of the excuse expressed in the chilling words “reasonable punishment”. These assaults are not reasonable by any measure, and they are not punishment either. No child was ever naughty enough to deserve such abuse. It is not punishment; it is an expression of the anger, hatred and frustration of the perpetrator, leading to actions that should be classed as criminal, without mitigation. These children are calling from the grave to make them so. Let us do it at last by carrying this amendment.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 67 and 505 in the name of my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to which I have added my name and to which she spoke so eloquently. I am afraid that I am unable to comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, because my cerebral cortex received so many messages of complaint that it shut down quite early on. I have lived on this planet for 60 years, I have been a parent for 20 years, a cricket coach for 15 years, a teacher for 10 years and a kinship carer for over a year, and I have never hit, slapped or smacked anybody, except one unfortunate time in a tour game against Tredegar Ironsides, and the opposition scrum-half started it. As has been mentioned, this is the children’s well-being Bill, but it is quietly going on its way without mentioning a fundamental problem of well-being: legalised violence against children. That is what we are talking about. Not a quick clip around the ear, not a short, sharp shock that teaches them right or wrong. Not something that was done to us and we are no worse for it. No, we are grooming our children to believe that violence is acceptable by the powerful against the weak for their own good. That is not an acceptable message. I believe that the results from Wales and Scotland are showing no major increase, if any, in prosecutions. I suspect that, for most people, it will not be a surprise that hitting a child is a bad idea, so a change in the law would remove the defence only for those who really aim to harm children. The rule of thumb is an urban myth. It has never been acceptable to hit women. Why do we still allow violence against children?

17:45:00

My Lords, I am disappointed to be speaking again. The first time was 21 years ago. This time, I speak in support of Amendment 67, again in support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Walmsley, now joined by my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. As such telling arguments have just been made, I will simply emphasise again that, since 2004, when I first spoke, very many more countries have come to the conclusion that children are of equal worth to adults—a view, it seems, not shared by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. It is even clearer that the legacy of physical punishment of children is more violence in society and worse mental health. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, there is no definition of “reasonable punishment”. Surely it is time to agree that physical punishment is the reverse of reasonable and get it out of our common understanding of discipline.

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment and thank noble Lords for putting it forward. This is not a new debate: I called for this change in law many years ago, including when I was Children’s Commissioner for England. I have not changed my view. As we have heard, Sweden outlawed smacking in 1979, and I can remember when the last Labour Government faced the same calls those 20 years ago. We did, of course, banish corporal punishment in schools a long time ago. The moves in Scotland, in Wales and in Ireland over very recent years have all been about closing the loophole, because they all recognise that the defence of reasonable chastisement is outdated and wrong. I believe it is time for England to follow suit: making sure that children have equal protection from adults. I think that we have moved on considerably in this country over recent years on the issue and that views have changed. It is no longer a particularly contentious issue, I do not think. Most parents no longer believe that hitting children is the right way to improve behaviour or to discipline children: it is much better to support and help parents to support their children with positive behaviour. We should not see this as either a complex or controversial issue or debate. It is not the nanny state or the Government interfering in how parents discipline their children. This amendment makes a sensible and long-overdue change that does no more than provide children with the same right as adults not to be the victims of assault.

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 173 and the passionate speech on child neglect by my noble friend Lady Tyler. Neglect can affect a child right through into adulthood, and we need to address this by giving support to the protection of our children. I also support Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who spoke so powerfully, and in the name of other noble Lords. In doing so, I declare my interest as vice-president of Barnardo’s. As we have heard, Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, together with over 20 other organisations, including UNICEF, have called for a complete ban on smacking. Almost 70 countries have banned smacking, leaving no ambiguity in the law: it is never okay to “reasonably punish” a child. It is time to join those countries and end physical punishment against children. There is no evidence that smacking is effective or that it prevents bad behaviour or that it teaches positive behaviour. It can lead to mental health issues in later life and develop a pattern of behaviour of a child learning to use violence to solve problems, to get what they want or even to become a bully. Smacking can damage parent-child relationships and lead to resentment and fear rather than respect. I have spoken to so many adults who tell me how much they hate their father because of the physical violence that they suffered as a child. It is not only fathers whom they hate but mothers who have inflicted violence on their children. It is much better to talk a problem through with a child, reason with a child through role play and set good behavioural examples. The earlier that this starts, the better it is in the long term for a happy childhood experience. I wholeheartedly support this amendment.

My Lords, I support the amendments ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Finlay. They make laws slightly differently in Germany. When a law is made relating to something that affects children, for example, they sometimes insert something in their constitution. I note that in 2000, when the parental right to spank was rescinded in Germany, a new phrase was introduced into the German constitution: “Children have a right to an upbringing free of violence. Corporal punishment, emotional harm and other humiliating measures are not permissible”. That has happened, and similar steps have been taken in 75 countries to date where smacking is not permitted. Many of those countries are in Europe. Almost the whole of Europe forbids smacking. We stand out as an exception in the map of Europe where it is illustrated. Just as Germany, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark are not worse places as a result of the banning of smacking, the same will be the situation in the whole of the United Kingdom when England follows Wales, Scotland and, hopefully, Northern Ireland. Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 is predicated by opposition to smacking, not by encouragement of smacking. As has already been said, it was banned in schools but has been allowed to continue in certain very restricted circumstances in homes. As early as 2007, the Crown Prosecution Service issued a report in which it was opposed to banning smacking altogether but observed that the defence was being used in inappropriate situations and in the wrong kinds of cases. There is absolutely no evidence that the banning of smacking would have any dramatic effect on parents who, like the parents in the countries that I have named, have simply been told, “You can’t smack your children anymore”. I believe that people are ready for that in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in an extremely powerful speech, gave several examples of cases in which the terrible violence that eventually was used against children probably started with the first smack. It is quite wrong that we should allow that sort of situation to develop. I listened with great care—my synapses were operating in overdrive—while the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, was speaking. However, he is now a bit historical in this argument. I treat his points with respect, of course, but I prefer those that have been made by other noble Lords in this House. Between the noble Lord and the Royal College of Paediatrics, I prefer the royal college.

My Lords, the case for Amendment 67 and the associated Amendment 505 has very powerfully been made. I add a couple of additional points that might perhaps inform the House and be useful. I note that more than 30 MPs in the other place supported a similar amendment and that there it was driven by the honourable Labour Member for Lowestoft and my honourable friend the Member for North Herefordshire. It is not that we are suddenly bringing this up in your Lordships’ House—there is strong support in the other place as well for government action here. I moved an amendment along similar lines to end the defence of reasonable chastisement during the Domestic Abuse Bill. I was quite new to your Lordships’ House and learned along the way that many people had been working on this for decades longer than I had been. I heard from the then Conservative Government, “Oh, it’s not the time now; we’ve got to see what happens in Scotland and Wales”. I would very much like to think that we are not going to hear the same thing this evening, although I am not terribly optimistic. Like others, I listened very closely to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I say a couple of things in direct response to the noble Lord. He cited Professor Larzelere, who would best be described as a “controversial” academic. I point noble Lords to an article responding to some of the work of Professor Larzelere in the journal Marriage & Family Review in 2017, “Researchers Deserve a Better Critique” by George W. Holden et al. The authors say that Professor Larzelere had profoundly misunderstood the description of positive parenting and was very misinformed about the whole academic field. You could feel a visible sense of shock around the House when the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, suggested that smacking was harmless. That is a disturbing label to put when we know from the Royal College of Paediatrics that children who have experienced physical punishment are 2.6 times more likely to experience mental health issues. We know what a mental health crisis we have in our society. They are up to twice as likely to experience further forms of abuse, sometimes leading to the cases that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, presented to us so powerfully. The college makes a really important point that children who have experienced physical assault are more likely to believe that violence is accepted and encouraged in society. We want to protect the vulnerable children, but we are also addressing the question of what sort of society we are. We have had a number of international comparisons, but I believe that Thailand is the most recent state to have banned physical abuse of children. I happen to know quite a bit about Thailand. I was technically a Thai civil servant in the 1990s when I was there as an Australian volunteer abroad. I follow Thai politics quite closely and know quite a lot about Thai society. This is a big step for Thailand to take. Thailand has had a great deal of political difficulties in recent years but has regarded protecting its children as so important that it has ensured that there is legal protection. It is interesting when you look at the government announcements around this that this is a need to support parents as well as to ensure the protection of children. I have one final point to make and a question for the Minister. The NGO Article 39 sets out the historic background for the reasonable chastisement offence, which arises from a criminal case in 1860, R v Hopley, about a head teacher found guilty of the manslaughter of a 13 year-old child with learning difficulties. The head teacher had beaten the child with a stick for more than two hours. Looking at the judge’s words on which this whole “reasonable chastisement” is based, the judge said that a parent or schoolmaster “may for the purpose of correcting what is evil in the child inflict moderate and reasonable corporal punishment”. That is the origin of what has got us to where we are today and what we are trying to change with this amendment. It is a reflection of how out of date the current legal situation is. Finally, my question to the Minister arises from the Article 39 briefing. We have all focused on parents, but the briefing says that the defence “has also not been removed from part-time educational settings (including those operated by religious organisations), children’s health settings or supported accommodation for looked after children aged 16 and 17”. Can the Minister—either now or I will understand if she wishes to write to me—set out whether that briefing is indeed correct and there is still that allowance of violence against children in other settings as well?

18:00:00

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—

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.

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.

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.

18:15:00

Amendment 173, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is on neglect. I agree that neglect is both an enormously difficult and an important area of work for children’s social care, and probably one where professionals and others need even more support to be able to identify it and to take mitigating actions. It is vital that children suffering neglect are identified and receive the support and protection they need. Protection from all forms of abuse, including neglect, is a key priority for the Government. Underpinning this is our commitment to an enduring reduction in the number of children living in poverty in this Parliament and as part of a 10-year strategy.

I think the noble Baroness identified that there has perhaps been insufficient guidance and support for professionals in this area. Our statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, identifies the utmost importance of practitioners identifying and responding to neglect. Neglect also features in our recently published Families First partnership guide for local areas, which focuses on our reforms to family help and child protection. This is the cornerstone of early intervention. These reforms will produce a fundamental shift in the way we respond to children and families who need support and protection, including where neglect is happening. For example, one of the Families First pathfinders has established a new family help team focused on welfare, benefits and debt advice to help support families where circumstances could lead to cases of neglect. We know that other pathfinders are rolling out specific training on neglect to their family help lead practitioners and multidisciplinary teams.

Additional measures in the Bill will help to improve child protection and safeguarding. Measures such as improving information sharing between agencies, setting up multi-agency child protection teams and strengthening the role of education in safeguarding will help to make children safer and ensure that the clues about neglect in a child’s life are more clearly brought together so that action can be taken.

We are supporting teachers, social workers and all safeguarding professionals to spot the signs of abuse or neglect more quickly, including with our national children’s social care framework for safeguarding children and by strengthening statutory guidance. We are investing in the recruitment, training and development of child and family social workers to ensure that the workforce has the capacity, skills and knowledge to identify, support and protect vulnerable children, including those subjected to neglect.

The protection of children is critical and the Bill takes important steps to improve safeguarding. I hope I have assured the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about the measures we are taking in the enormously important area of identifying and rectifying the situation that children who are subject to neglect find themselves in. I know that those noble Lords who have contributed to this debate in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will be dissatisfied with my response, but I hope they recognise the enormous range of work being included in the Bill.

I warmly welcome the Minister’s remarks, because at the heart of this debate there seems to be a mischaracterisation and misunderstanding of Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 and a conflation of mild admonition with assault by beating, which obviously should be subject to the full force of the law. For the avoidance of doubt, and just to sum up, would she agree with the words of her colleague the Minister of State, Catherine McKinnell: “As the law stands, quite frankly, any suggestion that reasonable punishment could be used as a defence to serious harm to a child, or indeed death, as has been asserted, is completely wrong and frankly absurd”?—[Official Report, Commons, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, 6/2/25; col. 464.]

I hope I did make that clear earlier, but I am very happy to reiterate. It would be wholly wrong. It would not be in line with the law for the types of cases that we have heard about in this debate to be subject to the defence of reasonable punishment. The Crown Prosecution Service has been clear, as professionals are clear, that that would get nowhere near to this defence. I know that noble Lords will be disappointed, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, with the response of the Government, but I think it is a reasonable recognition of the very strong action taken when children are subject to violence and the need to learn from those who have recently changed the law. That is a sensible and appropriate way to go forward in this case.

My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have who have spoken in support of this amendment. I am slightly disappointed that it leapt straight into the court end of things. I did not recognise being categorised, as was said, as an activist parent. I am not an activist parent, and those who have spoken are not activist parents. One of the problems—and that is why I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett, Lady Whitaker and Lady Benjamin, who have been with me on this journey for such a long time—is that violence and assault against children happens insidiously. Children learn that this is the way to get control over other people, and it escalates. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, parents lose it. When they have lost it, it is often associated with alcohol, drugs or other stresses in the home. They do not deliberately set out to beat up the child; it just escalates, and it becomes more and more common. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for pointing out the change in the constitution in Germany towards children and to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his extensive experience with children. I think his experience may mirror mine. When I was doing paediatrics and admitting children, I was told, “Oh no, I just smacked them and they fell over”. When we investigated further, we found multiple fractures: old fractures, new fractures, all kinds of injuries that nobody had noticed before because they thought this had just been a gentle smack. I have yet to find a family who declare that they are wilfully not a loving family, but loads of families declare they are loving families and they clearly are not, and they have many problems. The emphasis on positive parenting is certainly a theme from this Government. It has been a theme from the Government in Wales. It is terribly important. The last thing that I will say is that I have seen this at first hand with one family where the father certainly smacked his children remarkably often—and when he had had a drink, it was even more often. When he was told by the others in the family, “You can’t do that any more, you’ve got to stop”, his behaviour changed. Interestingly, the children’s behaviour improved dramatically. They went from being quite disturbed and disruptive to being quite well behaved, because of the positive parenting that went with being told why what they were doing was not good rather than just receiving a clout. That is what we are trying to do. The defence is used at the end of the road. For somebody seeing a child who is told “Oh, that was just reasonable punishment”, it is very difficult to unscramble it in the school or the GP surgery as you cannot do a bone scan. You have to take things at face value. I shall just comment on the issue of skin colour. You do not see bruises nearly as easily in highly pigmented skin. That is just a fact. I advise noble Lords to look at a textbook of dermatology. All these things were written based on white skin, and they have finally woken up to the fact that in pigmented skin all kinds of things look different, and that includes injury and so-called “superficial injury”. So to say that you must not leave a mark does not hold water in a country where we have people from all over and a wonderful richness there. So for the moment, I will withdraw the amendment, but I am very tempted to come back to it later, because I am not convinced by what I have heard today from the Government, and I feel much more convinced by my home country of Wales and my other home country of Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 67 withdrawn.

Amendment 68

Moved by

68: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause— “Duty on local authorities to provide family support services for children and familiesAfter section 19 of the Children Act 1989, insert—“19A Duty on local authorities to provide family support services for children and families(1) A local authority has a duty to provide, so far as is reasonably practical, family support services to all children and parents residing in their area. (2) Family support services provided by a local authority must—(a) be provided within the authority area,(b) seek to improve the health and educational outcomes of children in the relevant area, and(c) seek to reduce the number of children in their area who suffer ill treatment or neglect.(3) In this section, “family support services” refer to services which provide children and parents with—(a) advice, guidance or counselling,(b) social, cultural or recreational activities, or(c) accommodation while receiving services provided under subsections (3)(a) and (b).(4) In fulfilling its duty under subsection (1), a local authority must have regard to—(a) the availability of and demand for family support services in its area,(b) the availability of and demand for family support services in its area which are capable of meeting different needs, and(c) the location of family support services and the equality of access across the authority area.(5) A local authority must publish information about family support services—(a) on the authority’s website, and(b) in all public libraries in the local authority area.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision relating to the provision of family support services by local authorities.(7) In this section—“children and parents” means—(a) a child under the age of 18;(b) a young person aged 18-25 who has a diagnosis of special educational needs;(c) the parents of a child or young person;(d) a person who has parental responsibility for a child or young person; or(e) a person who is pregnant.“local authority” means—(a) a county council in England;(b) a district council in England;(c) a London borough council;(d) the Common Council of the City of London (in their capacity as a local authority);(e) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(f) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;””Member’s explanatory statement This new clause would introduce a requirement on local authorities to provide family support services for all children and parents in their area.

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 68 and to speak to Amendment 171 in my name and to Amendment 169, to which I have attached my name. In the interests of time, I am going to constrain myself to those three amendments. Amendment 68 introduces a new clause to require local authorities to provide family support services for all children and parents in their area. This very much follows on from what the Minister was saying on the previous group about the desire to provide support for parents. Unfortunately, that is not what has largely been happening. We have seen a massive increase in spending on crisis intervention services in the past decade. It is up 67%, and £4 in every £5 spent is going into late intervention. At the same time, the number of children in residential care has increased by 79%. Spending overall went up in that decade by 61%, but there was a 46% decline in early intervention services. That is what this amendment seeks to address. We know that investment in early interventions will reduce the demand for high-cost, later interventions. More families can stay together in healthy ways, in stable and loving homes where children can grow up peacefully, and fewer young children will experience neglect, abuse and harm. This amendment is again, I am pleased to say, following the work of my honourable friend the Member for North Herefordshire. She and others made the case in the other place. What I think lots of people are saying about this Bill, with lots of amendments, lots of attempts, is that there is a huge amount in it to deal with improving care for children who need to live with a foster family or in a residential home, and of course that is terribly important. But, to improve significantly the conditions of children in this country, we need to start far earlier, and that is what is lacking in this Bill. I am not particularly attached to the detailed drafting here, but certainly I would like to see some movement from the Government and the intention to make sure that the Bill covers earlier intervention. Of course, the governing party has a proud record in this area with the Sure Start centres that were first established in 1997, and more than 3,500 of those children’s centres were developed. It has been crucial that they have supported families in a welcoming, non-stigmatising way. You do not have to be a problem or have a problem to visit; it is just something that is there to support you. The reality is, and I should perhaps declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, that at this moment we know how incredibly cash strapped local authorities are, and these services are too often seen as a “nice to have” or even a “we desperately want to keep it, but we just cannot find the money” service, and so they have disappeared. I stress that this clause introduces a requirement for local authorities to provide sufficient family support services. I acknowledge that the only way that local authorities would be able to do this is if there was support funding from the centre. If we take, for example, the Welcome to Parenthood programme run by the children’s charity Barnardo’s, it is calculated that the benefits return £2.44 for every £1 spent. We could be saving significant amounts of money here. I move now to Amendment 171, also in my name, which, again, was originally tabled by my honourable friend in the other place. This is to ensure that every school has a bereavement policy. I declare a personal interest here, as I was 23 years old when I was in a car crash in which my mother was killed. I was not a child, but I was a young adult and I know how utterly wrenching and destroying that experience was. Also, at university, I was in a small group of about 20 students, one of whom was killed in a car crash. I know what a shock it was to that group of students.

18:30:00

Surprisingly, we do not have annual statistics on the number of children and young people who are bereaved, but the Childhood Bereavement Network has estimated that more than 46,000 children and young people are bereaved of a parent each year in the UK; that is about 127 each day. If you take a representative sample in any school today, about one in 29 children will have been bereaved of a parent or sibling at some point in their childhood. Some 70% of primary schools have at least one recently bereaved pupil on the roll.

There are all sorts of stats, which, in the interests of time, I will not go through, but this is obviously a huge shock to the child and to the whole school community. It also has long-term effects on people’s GCSE scores and impacts on what happens to people later in life. The death of a parent by the age of 16 is associated with women failing to gain any sort of qualification, and both men and women being unemployed by the age of 30. I have no doubt that some schools manage this very well and have good policies in place but, very often, schools will find themselves suddenly experiencing this situation and thinking, “Gosh, what do we do?” This amendment aims to ensure that that is not the case; it aims to set a standard.

Finally, I will briefly address Amendment 169 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I commend the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment. It addresses a relatively small number of people but such an awful situation: where mothers are pregnant and, having had children taken into care before, there is a risk that their baby will be taken into care at birth.

I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will set this out in much more detail, so I will be brief. Stats from Pause—which, if anyone wants to look it up, is an NGO doing tremendous work in this area—show that a large proportion of children entering care are from families that had previously had a child removed from care. Almost half—47%—of the newborns subject to care proceedings were born to mothers who have previously had an older child also subject to care proceedings. Pause makes it clear that it is possible to intervene to make sure this does not have to happen, to improve the lives of both mothers and babies.

Pause figures from Worcestershire, for example, show that, of 29 mothers at high risk of recurrent pregnancy involved in its programme, eight had met the adopters of their children, 11 had better attendance at family time, and 12 agreed to meet their children’s social worker. They were supported to address housing needs, manage finances and get skills for life, such as learning to use public transport—absolute basics that can equip people to be parents.

I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—as well as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who has also signed this amendment—will speak further on this. It is something so obvious and important to address the needs of some of the most vulnerable in our society. I beg to move.

My Lords, any parent will tell you that raising children is a difficult job. It is important that all families have access to the support they need to help parents be the best they can. That is why early intervention matters; yet, too often, family support services, such as family hubs or centres, are the first things to be closed when funding is tight. Recent analysis by Pro Bono Economics, on behalf of Barnardo’s and other leading children’s charities, shows that spending on Sure Start centres has been reduced by £1.4 billion since 2010, resulting in the closure of over 1,000 centres. This is why I support Amendment 68, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to which I have added my name. It would place a duty on local authorities to provide sufficient family support services, including family hubs, for all children and families. This has been recommended by Barnardo’s and Action for Children, but these charities believe that such a change in the law must be backed by sufficient funding. Otherwise, we will be letting down a whole generation of children and their families, and any hope for their well-being.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 68, 68A, 68B, 169 and 171 in this group. I added my name to Amendment 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because it has been my long-standing position that every community in this country needs preventive family support for social flourishing, in the same way that they need GP surgeries and schools. When the welfare state was founded in the late 1940s, there was a recognition that health and education would not be able to defeat disadvantage without it. Some 80% of children’s educational attainment is determined by pupil-level factors such as family and community, and only 20% by school-level factors. Health-wise, in 2015, Citizens Advice published a report called A Very General Practice, which found that 92% of GPs said that patients raised personal—often family relationship—problems during consultations. This was the top non-health issue they dealt with, and only 31% of GPs felt able to advise at all adequately in this area. In 1949, one of the architects of the welfare state, Michael Young, called for child welfare centres to fulfil Beveridge’s principle of the preservation of parental responsibility and deal with the emotional cost to children of high post-war levels of family breakdown. These costs persist today. Compared to those who do not experience family breakdown, children who do are at least twice as likely to be homeless as adults, to be in trouble with the police or spend time in prison, and to underachieve at school. Young’s child welfare centres began to emerge as family centres in the 1980s. These helped parents of all-aged children, mainly in disadvantaged areas, to prevent the need for social services, or they worked collaboratively with those services. Many were run by voluntary organisations such as National Children’s Home, now Action for Children, and many had significant involvement from local authority social services departments. Promising beginnings led to the requirement in the Children Act 1989 that local authorities should provide family centres. These would have been a base for local authorities to work from in delivering family support. Buildings on their own are not enough but, even in this digital age, there needs to be a focal point in a community where people can find out about the full range of services and support available. Family centres paved the way for the national programme of Sure Start and children’s centres, which began in the late 1990s and focused on the pre-school years. Although children’s centres were immensely helpful to many parents at this life stage, the cut-off at the age of five became increasingly contested, with a greater emphasis on early intervention throughout childhood. Finally, in 2020, family hubs became official government policy. After 70 years, the family support infrastructure envisaged by Michael Young as being so important for families of children of all ages seems to be emerging. I declare here my interest as a guarantor of FHN Holding, the not-for-profit owner of the Family Hubs Network Ltd. I have given this potted history to show that good and well-reasoned intentions several decades ago have been frequently revisited but family support still seems to be on a precarious footing, as we have basically heard already. We await the granularity of the spending review later this week. Moreover, a proper family support system in a local authority is so much bigger than the family hub and the network of buildings, people and services around it. The hub has to sit in a bigger web of relational practice that guides how all support for families, including children’s social care, is run. The Government have made promising progress in implementing the independent review of children’s social care, with the Families First Partnership programme of preventive family support. The programme aims to transform the whole system of help and protection for families so that the right help is there for every family when needed, and it has a strong emphasis on early intervention to prevent crisis. The Families First (FFP) Partnership Programme Guide gives family hubs a good profile as a place where universal services and community-based early help are delivered, and where emerging problems can be identified at an early stage. My aim in supporting the amendment is to get more information from the Government about how they will ensure a rebalancing away from crisis spending towards early intervention across the age range nought to 19, and nought to 25 for those with special needs, and how they will ensure that prevention becomes embedded, cannot be unravelled and is further developed. I turn to Amendments 68A and 68B in my name. In the Family Hubs Network’s work with local authorities, we talk to many people who are locally leading the family hubs and Start for Life programme who say they have been somewhat held up by having to implement Start for Life instead of being able to press on with integrating services across the age ranges nought to 19 and nought to 25, as I have said. One council said the family hub part of the programme gets overlooked as the focus has been on Start for Life and on delivering its tight specifications. Some told us that prior to this programme they were doing well on the early years as a legacy of their children’s centres, many of which are still running, albeit that Start for Life funding has enabled them to strengthen this further. Due to how the funding is structured, some LAs have been in danger of only really shoring up provision in the early years. For family hubs, the greater goal is the provision of family support from pregnancy to 18, 19 or 25 if SEND—as I have said—or care leavers. Boosting family support beyond the early years, vital though these are, must be a key goal, delivered through a range of settings and organisations, the public sector and VCS, with some private sector too, and personal professionals backed by well-trained volunteers. Amendments 68A and 68B would mean that local authorities with a proven track record were granted more flexibility in how they used central government funding to deliver in their family hubs. Implemented well, family hubs involve a transformation in family support through system change, yet the requirements of the current programme do not adequately prompt local authorities receiving funding to implement system change. They put the focus on funding a minimum offer rather than on a system changed to embed new ways of working using an integrated approach. Collocating services, while beneficial, is not the same as system integration. Without system change, what happens when the funding stops? Mainstreaming any of the funded programmes requires system change. Another key aspect of family hubs is using funding more effectively, particularly by combining funding pots. Westminster City Council, a pioneer of the first family hubs prior to central government funding, was able to deploy troubled families programme money to develop family hubs because it had earned autonomy from the tight strictures of that programme’s payment-by-results model. If the Government extend funding for family support to the rest of the country beyond the 75 in the family hubs and Start for Life programme, which I very much hope they will, good learning from the original programme suggests that an earned-autonomy approach would greatly help facilitate the desired transformation. I also support Amendments 169 and 171, already mentioned, as post-removal support for parents to prevent future removals and bereavement support services for children need to be key elements of family support, but they are either vanishingly rare, hard to find or both.

18:45:00

My Lords, Amendment 167 in my name is very much about early intervention, which has been a key theme of this group. I support Amendment 68 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I also want to say how important Amendment 169 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and others is. I remember, in a previous life when I was chair of Cafcass, visiting various Pause projects. I was so impressed with the work they were doing and how it was preventing young mothers who had already had one or more children taken away from them and put in care from repeating that. I remember hearing the story of a mother whose eight children had all been taken into care. It was only when they were part of a Pause project that this terrible cycle stopped repeating itself. I am enormously supportive of that amendment. My amendment is fairly important, if not as exciting as some of the others, because it would basically require local authorities to report annually on early intervention services for children and families in their area and report back to the Secretary of State. Frankly, we have already heard the context. We know that early intervention services are crucial for the healthy development of babies, children and young people, in particular giving them and their families access to the help they need before problems escalate and families reach crisis point. We have heard the figures, so I am not going to repeat them. Local authorities have faced severe financial challenges. They have not been able to deliver nearly as many of those early intervention services as I am sure they would like, because their money has, frankly, been taken up with crisis and child protection services that they are under a statutory duty to provide. We have heard about what has happened over the last decade and the reducing numbers of children’s centres, family hubs, family support services, youth services et cetera, so I am not going to repeat that, but I will just say that I felt the impact of this was starkly and clearly set out in Josh MacAlister’s independent review of children’s social care back in 2022. That review made such a powerful case for a stronger focus on early intervention and on giving families the help they need before problems get out of hand. I was lucky enough to hear Josh MacAlister talk about his review last week, in the context of additional help for children in care and care leavers. Who knows? We may even hear something—I live in hope—about additional money for early intervention in the spending review. Let us wait and see. Both the economic case and the moral case for investment in early intervention are incredibly clear, so I am not going to set them out again. From all the discussions that I have been part of in this Chamber over the years on children’s social care, I know that ensuring that children and young people get the right support at the right time is widely supported across the political divide—I do not think it is a contentious issue politically—so I really hope we hear some welcome news in the spending review. The nub of my amendment is that I contend that too little is known about the services currently available in the field of early intervention. The amendment is really designed to promote data collection on these services to create greater awareness of what is available. It would help the Secretary of State to respond to the needs of local authorities, ensuring that sufficient services were being provided across England, as well as better information on the numbers of families who were accessing them and demographic information about the children receiving support. It would measure how effectively the services were working. Put simply, to understand how we can better support children and target funding to help the most vulnerable, we need to know more about what the current picture really looks like. My amendment would simply be a first step in helping us to ensure that children and young people did not fall through the cracks of ineffective service provision and that they got the right support at the right time.

My Lords, I am grateful for the Bill as an opportunity to address a number of what we call adverse childhood experiences. I suspect that, given the lateness of the hour, we are not going to reach some of my amendments on care leavers that are scheduled for later. This group, particularly Amendment 171, deals with children who have experienced bereavement. Not much has been said about that in this short debate, so I will say a few words. I was in that position. My dad died when I was 14, leaving me, my younger brother and my mum. It made my mum the only wage earner in the house at the same time as she was coping with her huge grief at losing her husband at the age of 43. She had two children—boys of 14 and 11, who are not the easiest to cope with. I still do not quite know how we coped. I think I coped by burying it for the next 10 years; my little brother coped by having stomach pains for the next few years. It damaged his education. I sometimes wonder whether having to go through that at that early age led to me feeling that I had a calling to be a pastor; I may have had a silver lining. But there were no bereavement services to turn to and there was nothing to support me. As the eldest son of the family, I felt I was trying to hold the family together when everybody else was falling apart. I would have so appreciated there being somewhere I could have turned to; some signposting to where I could have looked for something outside the family—for people who were not grieving as I, my mum, my brother, my father’s parents and others were all grieving: somewhere I could have turned to get some support. If the Bill and Amendment 171 can, in a small way, help us create better bereavement services for children so that those who are in the position I was in all those years ago are not left with nowhere to turn, that would be a great thing for us to do.

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 172. I do so in preference to Amendment 169, although I see that both are directed to the same wretched problem of successive removals of children and babies from mothers. Quite simply, much more needs to be done to support parents, particularly mothers, after a child has been removed into care, to reduce the risk of a further child being removed from the same mother. The sad statistics have already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but the fact is that at least one in four women who has already had a child removed will return to court. Too often they have reacted to the removal of their child with an ill-considered or unconsidered decision to have another baby, with all too often the same consequences. These are truly wretched cases for the courts to deal with, particularly if it is impossible for the court to find any real improvement since the previous removal, and particularly if the mother has become mistrustful and finds it difficult to seek and accept help. As things stand, once the previous proceedings finish, the mother may receive no further attention or support from the local authority until the next pregnancy is made known, by which time it may be too late. The evidence collated and presented by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory on the frequency and impact of recurrent care proceedings and removals is compelling, if depressing. The Nuffield Observatory points out that services are available in some areas but describes them as “few in number” and “mostly small in scale”. The work done by the specialist charity Pause—already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—shows that, with the right work and support, the cycle of recurrent removals can be broken. The human cost of successive removals, in terms of misery and grief, is all too obvious. The financial cost to local authorities of successive care proceedings leading to fostering and adoption is enormous and, I would suggest, avoidable. When Sir James Munby was president of the Family Division, he encouraged judges to persuade local authorities in their area to adopt the work done by Pause. Many of us tried to do so, but it was not easy, because local authorities were nervous of the cost, thinking only in terms of the current year’s expenditure rather than the potential budgetary benefits in years to come. Accordingly, post-removal support remains unavailable in more than half of local authority areas. That is why primary legislation is needed. I note that previous attempts in November 2016, similarly presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, were not accepted for reasons that were, I have to say, frankly inadequate. I hope that this Government will do better and accept Amendment 172.

My Lords, I will make a brief intervention in and around Amendments 68 and 167, which are both about early intervention. I know that situations are often different in Northern Ireland, where the local health trusts look after young people and young people’s services, whereas in England it is the local authorities. However, the principle of the issues is the same, and dealing with the young people and early intervention is hugely important. My issue is that it should not be just about early intervention; it should be an ongoing process. The one aspect that is not looked at in the Bill—I wonder whether it could be included at some stage—is around the rights of parents. I have worked with looked-after children for many years and am an adoptive parent. Really significant issues with young people can sometimes manifest into wider family difficulties, particularly when a young person is a refuser. Maybe they refuse to take on counselling or refuse to go to school. Then, because that child or young person will not attend either counselling or school, the pressure of maybe facing a court hearing or legal proceedings returns to the parents. Quite often there is then huge pressure on the family, because the law is on the side of taking the family and the parents to court; that is not often a good prospect for family proceedings and family support. All I am trying to say in this brief moment—I know there are other amendments on the same issue coming up at a much later stage that I will also hopefully speak to—is that, while early intervention is very important, there needs to be ongoing intervention as well.

My Lords, I very much support not only early intervention but intervention at various levels when the family absolutely needs it. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, there is a financial advantage to local authorities—not, of course, short term, but long term, because the more a local authority intervenes in a troubled family, the less the chance, with any luck, that the children will go into care. As has already been said, when one child has gone into care, it is particularly important to make sure that the next child—there nearly always is a next child—will not also have to go into care. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, it is a very sad situation for judges when you really cannot help the mother and her second, third or fourth child—sometimes more—because she has never had any help each time she has lost a child. So there is a genuine financial advantage to stopping children going into care, which is obviously far more expensive in the long term. I will add a short word following on from the sad story of the right reverend Prelate. My son, aged 50, died of cancer, five years ago, with teenage children. Their mother, my daughter-in-law, was brilliant, but the children’s loss of their father at early teenage was absolutely devastating. I am glad to say that they have succeeded extremely well and have coped, but it is a moment when I have no doubt at all that my daughter-in-law—she lives in Los Angeles, so the wider family were unable to help—would have gained enormously, as indeed would the children, if there had been somebody there in a similar situation in this country. This bereavement amendment is particularly important.

19:00:00

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.

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.

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.

19:15:00

Through the family hubs and Start for Life programme, 75 of the most deprived local authorities in England have received funding to set up family hubs with integrated Start for Life services. Additionally, 13 local authorities have received funding to embed family hub models. By joining up and enhancing services, family hubs provide a welcoming front door to support families. There are now more than 500 funded family hubs and, in 2025-26, local authorities are receiving a further £126 million in funding.

The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also raised the question of how we can ensure that we are not only developing services but achieving sustainable system change through the rollout. We believe that the approach that we are taking will enable those changes to be fully embedded so that earlier intervention becomes the mainstream part of provision that it needs to be. In the Families First Partnership Programme Guide, we have encouraged local authorities to take a whole-system approach to reforms, working closely with children and families to redesign services, from universal settings such as family hubs through to social care interventions.

Some of the Families First for Children pathfinders have integrated family hubs and family help to support delivery; for example, using family hubs as the primary co-location space for multidisciplinary family help teams. One such area is Wolverhampton, which has integrated its targeted family help offer within existing family hubs to provide that non-stigmatised place to access a range of services funded through the family hubs, Start for Life programme and the Families First Partnership programme. The noble Lord said at one point that it is not sufficient to co-locate; I agree with him, but it can be an important start. If we bring together the ability to pool sources of funding, and if we work to ensure that the changed way of working is embedded not just within children’s social care but across those services that support families, it becomes far more difficult for it to be unrolled and much more likely that it becomes embedded in the way in which the noble Lord is rightly looking for it to be.

I now turn to Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, which seeks to place a duty on local authorities to report to the Secretary of State on the delivery of early intervention services. I very much agree with her contention that we need to be able to monitor and evaluate the extent to which early intervention is delivered and what the successful methods of doing that are. I am not sure that that requires what I suspect would be quite a burdensome annual report to the Secretary of State, but I wholly agree that we need to be clear about monitoring and evaluation. We need to know more about what is working.

Funding conditions of the programme require local authorities to deliver a range of preventive services, such as parenting classes, housing support and welfare and benefits advice, along with the other elements of the Families First Partnership programme, which has been rolling out nationally since April. We are collecting monitoring data and information from local areas as these reforms embed to ensure that the reforms are supporting children and families effectively.

It is possible under Section 83 of the Children Act for the Secretary of State to collect information on these services from local authorities. Of course, we have Ofsted reviewing the success of what is happening, so I think we have a range of ways in which we can bring together information about the delivery of early intervention services without necessarily going down the route proposed by this amendment, but I completely agree with the noble Baroness and I am sure that the Government will quite rightly be held to account for explaining how the services are developing and the impact they are having.

Amendments 169 and 172 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to ensure that local authorities offer evidence-based support to parents who have had a child of any age removed from their care, in order to prevent repeat removals. I note particularly that Amendment 169 focuses on the important issue of supporting parents who have experienced the removal of a baby. The noble Baroness ably identified the scale of the impact for any individual woman of the repeated taking of children into care and expressed very well what might be happening to a woman who has had a child taken into care that makes having another child seem like the appropriate thing to do, when it is clearly good neither for that woman nor for the child.

Keeping more children safely at home with their families and ensuring that families get the right support at the earliest opportunity are vital. That is why an important part of the family help being rolled out will be to provide support through multidisciplinary teams for all families, including birth parents, adopters and families where children are returning home from care. Pathfinder local authorities are reporting a positive early impact of those reforms. I note that the noble Baroness specifically mentioned therapeutic services. I want to reassure noble Lords that our investments already support the delivery of these services, including taking forward examples from pathfinder local authorities, where senior therapists have been embedded into family help multidisciplinary teams to provide direct therapeutic support to families.

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.

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.

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.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 68A (to Amendment 68) withdrawn.

Amendment 68B (to Amendment 68) not moved.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response to this group of amendments and everyone who contributed to what I think has been a very rich debate marked by a—I was going to say remarkable, but I think I am going to say astonishing—degree of consensus from all corners of the Committee. I am afraid I do not have time to run through all the contributions. I will just very briefly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for sharing their personal experiences.

19:30:00

In responding to the amendment on bereavement services, I acknowledge what the Minister said, but we still feel there are some major gaps. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referred to charities providing lots of services, but not everyone is going to be able, particularly in the moment, to access GOV.UK, and there are still very clearly some gaps in that area.

I will not run through everything, but I will pick up on the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on Amendments 169 and 172, which I think there is a need to come back to. If a woman has had a series of babies removed and no longer has a child, it will be very tempting for local services, since they do not have any statutory responsibility, to see that as not coming under their remit. Unless there is a specific step taken here, it is an awful problem that will keep reoccurring, at great human and personal cost.

On Amendment 68, which I started with, I think I neglected to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for supporting it, so I will do that now. What the Minister said in recounting her experience with Sure Start centres actually provides quite a powerful argument for this amendment and for something to be put in the Bill. The Minister said—as Ministers of all stripes often do—that we are doing this anyway, so it does not need to be put in the Bill. However, we are in an age of great political turmoil and none of us knows what comes next, so it is important to make this a statutory responsibility for local authorities.

I am going to use the “non-stigmatising” word—though I am aware the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, finds it a bit of a mouthful—but it is an important principle that the door to the service is not something that only families with problems walk through; it is a door that lots of families walk through to get support. The non-stigmatising label is terribly important to make sure that everyone is able to access this service and it does not provide any sort of stigma. We know that local authorities have so little funding they are delivering only their statutory responsibilities. If it is not statutory and politics changes, we will see the same see-saw—the same creation and destruction of services—that we have seen before. Surely, we want to get off that see-saw.

Of course, I am going to withdraw Amendment 68 at this moment, but I reserve the right to come back to it on Report.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Amendments 69 and 69A not moved.

Amendment 69AA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 69AB

Moved by

69AB: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause— “Parent-equivalent care by local authoritiesIn section 22 of the Children Act 1989 (general duty of local authority in relation to children looked after by them), after subsection (3)(a) insert—“(aa) to provide care as would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them; and””Member's explanatory statement This amendment seeks to ensure that the nature and level of parental care expected for children within their own families also applies to corporate parents and to the children’s care system. It replaces amendment 146A.

My Lords, I always think there is something rather sad about an amendment that sits on its own and forms a group of its own. It looks almost afraid to speak its name. However, I prefer to think of group 4 today as being small but perfectly formed, and I will speak to Amendment 69AB on that basis. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the same kind of parental care expected within families applies to corporate parents and the children’s care system. In that sense, it has echoes of Amendment 107B, which I spoke to earlier. Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 provides that a court may make a care order in respect of a child only if it is satisfied that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and this is attributable to the care received by the child not being what would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them. There are all sorts of issues, and we have heard many of them this afternoon and evening, about the failures of birth parents. None the less, this amendment would equalise the position of looked-after children and children who live with their parents with no social care involvement. Corporate parents would be required to provide the kind of care which it would be reasonable to expect a parent within the community to give to their child. Surely it is reasonable to expect that the state’s care of children should be at least to the level expected of parents. It should certainly drop no lower. Under the Children Act 1989, a local authority must safeguard and promote the welfare of every child in its care—that is, those who are the subject of an interim care order or a care order—and every child for whom it provides accommodation for a period of more than 24 hours. Amendment 69AB would add the requirement that the local authority—as the child's corporate parent—must provide care that it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to their child. This would strengthen and give legal clarity as to the primary duty of local authorities in their vital and privileged role of corporate parent: to safeguard and promote each child's welfare and to provide care that would be reasonably expected from a parent. Statutory guidance issued in 2018 for local authorities on implementing the corporate parenting principles in Section 1 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 says: “A strong corporate parenting ethos means that everyone from the Chief Executive down to front line staff, as well as elected council members, are concerned about those children and care leavers as if they were their own. This is evidenced by an embedded culture where council officers … do all that is reasonably possible to ensure the council is the best ‘parent’ it can be to the child or young person”. It was the late and much missed Frank Dobson, in his role as Secretary of State for Health, who first articulated the legal and moral responsibility of being a corporate parent. In a letter sent to every local authority councillor in September 1998, he said: “For children who are looked after, your council has a legal and moral duty to try to provide the kind of loyal support that any good parents would give to their children”. That applies no less today than it did all those years ago. Despite many important amendments made to the Children Act 1989 over the years, aimed at improving the wellbeing and future life opportunities of looked after children and care leavers, it may surprise noble Lords that there is still no clear, unambiguous requirement that looked-after children receive the same level of care from their corporate parents as would be deemed acceptable for them had they remained with their birth parents. The High Court in March 2022, in a judicial review brought by the children's rights charity Article 39, found there is no provision in the Children Act 1989 which requires “care to be provided in situ or as part of a placement”. A child can be the subject of care proceedings through the family court until the age of 17 where they have suffered, or are at risk of suffering, significant harm and this is deemed attributable to their parents’ care not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them. Yet once they are removed from their parents and become looked after, there is no express duty on their new corporate parent to provide care within their new placement, which is their new home. How can that situation be defended? I do not believe that it can. It is the equivalent of a local authority saying, “Don’t do as I do; do as I say”, and it must not be allowed to continue. Were that to happen, it would help to transform the children’s care system. If my noble friend cannot give me a positive answer today, I ask that she consider what I have said and perhaps come forward on Report with a proposal. I believe this is a lacuna, which this Bill has the opportunity to fill. I beg to move.

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.

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.

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.

19:45:00

On top of this, all looked-after children must have an up-to-date and detailed care plan setting out the arrangements for the child’s care, covering how a child’s needs will be met and, importantly, taking the child’s wishes and feelings into account. It is through that plan, and the child’s ongoing and trusted relationship with their social worker, that the local authority ensures that looked-after children are receiving the care and support they need.

There are already minimum standards that must be met by those caring for looked-after children. Both the minimum standards for fostering and the quality standards for children’s homes make it clear that children should benefit from excellent parenting and that staff should provide

“nothing less than a good parent would”

for children in their care. This includes the child feeling loved, supported in their personal and emotional development, and supported to pursue their hobbies and interests—things we should all expect from good parents.

In addition, local authorities are corporate parents under the Children and Social Work Act 2017, which means that, in carrying out their functions, they must have regard to the need to seek the best outcomes for looked-after children and care leavers. This includes, among other things, acting in their best interests, promoting their physical and mental health and well-being, and encouraging high aspirations.

From a personal point of view, as a former elected councillor, I note that we took our responsibilities as members of the council extremely seriously. We set up a separate board of councillor representatives to ensure that all our expectations could be measured going forward. That included training for those involved in ongoing conversations to make sure that they actually happened.

We will come on to discuss the new corporate parenting measures in the Bill. They will ensure that government departments and relevant public bodies take looked-after children and care leavers into consideration when designing policies and delivering services. The phrase I would use when I had responsibility for children’s services is that looking after children is everyone’s business. Everyone has a role and a responsibility; the important thing is making sure that it is measured and acted upon. The intention of the new corporate parenting measures is to level the playing field for children in care and care leavers, who do not have, as we have heard, the family support networks that their peers benefit from.

Given the extensive duties and requirements already placed on local authorities and those who care for children, I believe that this amendment would have little to no practical impact. For these reasons, I kindly ask my noble friend Lord Watson to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Her last point—about the proposal in my amendment having little to no effect—carries considerable weight coming from someone with her considerable experience as the leader of one of England’s largest city councils; something which she did with some distinction, to put it at its lightest. Her words carry weight. She also talked about—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman—the addition of further duties. The question is whether those duties are appropriate and whether they fill any void that experience shows must be filled. You can talk in generalities, but there are a number of occasions that have been referred to earlier today about local authorities. I do not doubt for one moment that any local authority sets out to do anything other than its best. But there are situations, such as those I mentioned in the debate on my earlier amendment, where local authorities move children out of their area, separate them from siblings, and, on certain occasions, move them just before they are due to sit GCSEs or A-levels, which can have such disruptive effects, and put them into foster care or adoptive care and then do not provide the resources for that care to be properly effective. There are ways in which councils can say, “We’re doing our best”, but, in actual fact, that might not be enough. I am slightly troubled by the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, that “We’re just adding extra details and duties on to local authorities”. I know she has had experience at Ofqual and Ofsted, but that sounded more like a comment coming from the business part of her career, because it sounded a bit like corporate jargon—not to add on extra duties for the sake of it. The question is, are those duties looking to prevent what can sometimes go wrong in the council’s care of children? I would argue that they can, otherwise, there would not be the sorts of stories that we get all too regularly about local authorities or those funded by local authorities putting vulnerable children in some pretty dire situations. While I bow to the experience of those who have spoken in the debate, there are issues here that need to be looked at further. In introducing this, I asked: why should it be that a local authority can take a child away from their birth parents, become their corporate parents and yet then not have the same responsibilities for them? That just does not seem right. I thank those who contributed to the debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 69AB withdrawn.

Clause 5: Information: children in kinship care and their carers

Amendment 69B

Moved by

69B: Clause 5, page 9, line 12, at end insert— “(iii) kinship families.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would ensure the needs and experiences of all members of kinship families are considered and those family members are able to access the support they need, so children can thrive in safe, loving homes within their family network.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 69B in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, as well as the other amendments in this group. Amendment 69B seeks to ensure that children in kinship care and their carers can be referred to as a “kinship family”. Using the term “kinship families” would allow for the correct dignity, respect and acknowledgement that they are indeed a family unit. Currently, the use of “kinship carers” and “children in kinship care” does not fully recognise that they are a family unit. This amendment seeks to ensure that the whole family is able to access the necessary support, as set out by the local authority. Amendment 71 seeks to ensure that, when a local authority updates its kinship care offer, it proactively consults kinship families. These kinship families play an integral role in understanding the effectiveness of the local offer, as they are the ones in situ who are receiving the support and as such, their opinion and understanding of such delivery is essential to enhance the overall service as and when required. This amendment would also require the offer to be reviewed annually rather than from time to time. We believe that such a vague timescale opens up the possibility for local authorities, which are dealing with a multitude of tasks at any one time, to allow, through no direct fault of their own, such a review to remain unaddressed for a material amount of time without the subject matter being considered, which would negatively affect the kinship families in that local area. To be clear, and as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in the previous group, local authorities are always trying to do their best—that is not in doubt. But this amendment cements best practice to ensure that the kinship care offering can be continually improved in line with feedback. As drafted, the Bill does not make reference to any details surrounding how a local authority must review and update its kinship care local offer, so this amendment provides further detail about how and when such a review must be conducted. Amendment 70, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to include legal support and family decision-making on the list of services a local authority can provide to support the local kinship families. This amendment seems entirely sensible as there may well be situations in which kinship families need these services. When family group decision-making processes are taking place, it is right that the kinship care family should be aware. Amendment 72, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to require local authorities to publish the comments they receive and how they have addressed these comments. It is similar to my Amendment 71 as it recognises the importance of understanding how local families interact with the care offer and their opinions on its effectiveness, which should be a good thing. Amendment 103, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to extend the pupil premium to children in a kinship care arrangement. While we understand that kinship placements are an essential part of the social care system, a decision such as this would potentially involve a significant commitment from the Treasury, and as such would require a full financial impact assessment before further decisions could be made. Amendments 104 and 146 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seek to extend the rights of kinship carers so that they receive an allowance and are able to take leave in a similar way to other employees. It is certainly important that the attractiveness and prospect of becoming a kinship carer is not reduced because of financial difficulty, and it is vitally important to recognise the importance of kinship carers and ensure that the system works in practice. We would urge His Majesty’s Government to consider ways to reduce barriers to entry for kinship carers so that the number of children in children’s homes can be reduced. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 72 in my name and remind the House that I am a kinship carer of twin 13 year-olds. I also thank Kinship for its help in this. The Bill recognises the vital role that kinship carers play and strengthens welcome reforms which improve support for kinship carers. However, some of the Government’s stated policy objectives associated with the Bill’s provisions are unlikely to be realised without additional reform and the Bill ultimately falls short of delivering the vital education on the mental health support that children in kinship care urgently need. Making the kinship local offer a legal requirement through new legislation is welcome. In Kinship’s 2024 annual survey, a third of kinship carers rated the information provided about kinship care by their local authorities “very poor”, and only 7% of kinship carers said in 2023 that they had seen their local authority’s existing family and friends care policy—something local authorities have been required to deliver since 2011. A new legal duty and more comprehensive guidance around the content and delivery of this information should help kinship carers to better understand and access available support. However, as outlined by Kinship’s associate director of policy and public affairs when providing oral evidence to the Education Committee last month, the local offer’s impact will be to magnify the lack of support available to kinship families, particularly those with informal arrangements or where a legal order was made in private proceedings.

20:00:00

The kinship local offer is being introduced in a context different to that of other local offers, for children with SEND or for care leavers, where there are better established systems of both statutory and wider support to signpost kinship carers to. It is vital that the Government and local authorities use the opportunity provided by the local offer requirements to improve the level of financial, practical and emotional support available to kinship families, otherwise,

“there isn’t a huge amount of point signposting to support which doesn’t exist”—

that was a comment picked up by the Education Committee in its own published scrutiny of the Bill.

This is particularly true in the context of the Government’s frustrating decision to reduce the level of support available to kinship families through the adoption and special guardianship support fund. The Bill suggests that the local offer should include signposting to services relating to health and well-being, and information about the ASGSF is the only specific content included in the therapeutic support section of information on the kinship local offer within kinship care statutory guidance. As such, the very support which local authorities are expected to signpost to is now being eroded.

A comprehensive definition of kinship care in legislation is welcome to improve visibility and clarity, but this will not in isolation improve the negative experiences which many kinship carers face in engaging with services and professionals without additional awareness-raising and training. In itself, a definition will not deliver better support for kinship families, nor is it an essential condition for this. In addition, most government action to improve support continues to target specific groups of kinship carers such as special guardians or those raising children who were previously looked after, undermining the definition’s value.

These amendments would improve the visibility of, and access to, kinship care. They would greatly help the Government’s stated aim to improve the quality of local kinship offers, but there is more work to be done.

My Lords, I rise in support particularly of Amendments 69B and 71. From my experience—and it is an experience that some others in this Chamber would have—kinship care arrangements are often needed as the result of an emergency situation. It is often sad, leaving the young person involved feeling particularly vulnerable. The fact that the proposed kinship carer or carers already have a relationship with that person for whom the kinship care is being considered could help them at a time when they need it, not least because the carer might be experiencing and sharing exactly the same situation. However, it should be noted that, due to the nature of kinship care, it is unlikely that the proposed kinship carer would have been seeking to take on the role. Therefore, there would not be the same lead-in time that you might have to prepare them as you would with a foster carer. Dependent on the circumstances, there is also the potential for conflict with an original parent as well as an impact on the wider family of the kinship carer. This situation means that appropriate support might be required at speed for the proposed kinship carer and their wider family for the benefit of the young person. That support probably would not be the same as for fostering arrangements, due to the uniqueness of the situation, and that makes these amendments important. On Amendments 104 and 146, I am sure that your Lordships will not be surprised to hear what I am about to say. It is worth noting that kinship allowance and kinship leave, while they make sense, would be an additional cost to the local authority. As my noble friend said earlier, there would need to be consideration by the Government as to how they might be funded, but I support the amendments.

My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 69B, 70, 71 and 72 in this group. It is terrific that kinship care will be defined in legislation for the first time. It is a significant step, and one that we should admit is long overdue. I could never understand why kinship care was always so overlooked when it is very often the best solution to a child’s care. When I say, “best solution”, I mean that very much in the sense of the interests of the child, for one other thing that is overlooked—and underestimated—is the huge sacrifice that family members and friends make when they take on such a responsibility. While many do so willingly, the system does not exactly make it easy for them. That is why Amendment 69B, in the names of my noble friends Lord Effingham and Lady Stedman-Scott, is a sensible one in that it acknowledges the role of the whole family. I also hope that the Government will consider Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Another significant step in this Bill is the duty for local authorities to publish a kinship local offer. However, there is an error of omission in that there is no reference anywhere to the different forms of kinship care. We know that different frameworks have different levels of financial, health and therapeutic support, depending on whether you are kinship fostering or have taken on responsibility via a special guardianship order, and whether the child you are taking on has or has not been in care previously. The only problem is that, very often, the potential kinship carers—for the reasons explained by my noble friend—do not have a clue about any of this. Why would they? I will give some examples of what this means in practice, and this is courtesy of the very good charity, Kinship. Fiona’s grandson was taken into foster care at birth, and she was told that, unless she applied for a special guardianship order to look after him, he would stay in the care system. She said she felt pressured and pushed into this, because she did not have a clue what her options were. As she says, “I took social services at their word that this was the best for me and my grandson”. That was six years ago, and she was then 59 years old. She had to give up a well-paid career, and now survives on benefits and relies on food banks, eating only child-sized meals herself to get by. She has also struggled to get her grandson the assessments and support he needs, which would have been much easier had she been a foster carer. Similarly, Sue, a former social worker, now 60, took care of her three granddaughters and one grandson. She was told by the local authority that she had to sort out all the court work and pay for all the solicitors’ fees to arrange the care of the children and get a special guardianship order. She and her husband were on benefits, but as guardians, they were means-tested and they received £17 per week per child. Sue, now a widow, had to complain to her local councillor, the Children’s Commissioner and the ombudsman before receiving an uplift. Finally, Rebekah, 63, is raising her two grandchildren on benefits after the death of their mother, but what she did not realise was that she would not get any support from the local authority because the children had not been in care. She is now struggling and in debt. As she says, “Fortunately I’m resilient and resourceful, but it’s been a huge challenge. We’ve been flying by the seat of our pants, with no support or guidance or anything”. The upcoming pilot on a financial allowance will, I hope, address some of these inequities, but it seems essential that potential carers are given explicit information on any legal support available. I think we can all see from the examples given that it would have probably helped the three women I have just mentioned. I really hope that the Government will consider Amendment 70, which is a small change but could have a big impact. Can the Minister give us any further details on the pilot, which is an incredibly good thing but obviously comes too late for this Bill? I hope the Government will also consider Amendment 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, which also covers the issue raised in Amendment 71 from my noble friend Lord Effingham. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has said, it would simply put the kinship care offer on a par with other offers, such as for SEN and disability. I am interested in the requirement in both amendments to guarantee the involvement of children and carers in the development of kinship care offers. Working with the Grenfell community, the victims of child sexual abuse and infected blood over the years, it has become clear that local and national government is just not always very good at meaningful engagement. I once asked a civil servant what engagement they had had with regard to a specific policy, and I was explicitly told that there had purposely been no direct communication because it was incredibly important to keep a distance between those developing the policy and those who would be affected by it. Things have improved since then but probably not as much as they should have done, and so I genuinely believe that embedding engagement into legislation, where appropriate, is the only way that we will drive the necessary culture change. We should not forget that a really important benefit of that engagement is that it builds empathy into the system. Too often, empathy is an afterthought—such as when certain television dramas might evoke a public outcry—when really it should be there as a given. So, while explicitly involving children and families in the development of kinship care offers may seem a small matter, I really do believe it would have a far-reaching effect in helping to make the state work better for the people who need it.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 69B to 72, and I declare my interests as a governor of Coram and as a trustee of the Foundling Museum, both of which organisations do a huge amount of work with children involved in these amendments. We do not realise how lucky we are with kinship care. The figures speak for themselves. When you compare the fact that we have 153,000 children being kept in kinship care with the numbers officially in the care system, which is approaching dangerously near 100,000, and the relatively small number of children who are fortunate enough to be adopted, we are incredibly lucky to have kinship care. A lot of the history of kinship care as it has evolved and grown has been really about taking it for granted and assuming that is what families or extended families do—and, to a large extent, being inordinately grateful that they are there to take these children on and feeling that one probably needs to devote slightly less time and attention to helping those kinship carers do the best they possibly can by comparison with, let us say, children who are conventionally going through the care system. That is clearly a major imbalance. A particular sentence jumped out at me from the briefing that the organisation Kinship provided in preparation for this stage: “Given the long and troubling history of poor compliance with kinship statutory guidance, it is imperative that government does not simply take the approach that these matters can be attended to in guidance alone”— tempting as that is. With 153,000 currently in kinship care, we have in theory an enormous amount of data to identify where it is being done well and where it is being done less well. So I did a bit of interrogation of the artificial intelligence tool that we are provided with here, courtesy of Microsoft, and an example that jumps out several times when I interrogated it, as a local authority or city council that has best practice in this area, is the city of Portsmouth. I have no idea whether people knew that, or to what extent the department or the Bill team have looked in detail at what it is that Portsmouth is doing that is clearly shooting the lights out compared with a lot of other cities or local authorities. But it is possible to identify what is being done well now, to learn from that and to try to see the best way to put that either into legislation or into guidance so that we are not effectively reinventing the wheel. This is happening at such a large scale that there must be incredibly rich qualitative and quantitative data that we can learn from. I just hope that during the course of the Bill we can drill down, look at that in more detail, try to identify some of those elements of best practice and perhaps bring that back to the discussion on Report.

My Lords, I will start using the mantra of the Minister: on a number of occasions she has said that it is about getting children and families the right support. I very much agree with that. I will start by talking generally about the care system. I met a young man whose name is Tristan, and when he was a child he was put into care. When I was chatting to him I was genuinely shocked when he told me he had been in nine different care settings throughout the country. Imagine this child going from one care setting to another. I do not know the reasons why, but that happened. He was lucky enough to end the care placements by being fostered by parents in Liverpool, who eventually adopted him as their son. That was the happy outcome after all the trauma that went on before. He is now at Liverpool John Moores University, studying law.

20:15:00

As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, we do not know how lucky we are to have kinship carers. The system of caring would collapse if we did not have them. This priceless asset is probably among the best ways of caring for children that you could imagine. As the Minister said, we should be doing everything we can to get the right support for them.

I just want to respond to what the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, said. Local authority care in many cases is having major problems because of rising costs and finding placements, so local authorities put children into private care providers, and the costs are absolutely enormous. The local authorities do not have the resources themselves, so they go to private providers and the costs keep going up each year. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, quite rightly talks about costs, but he needs to be aware that in the private sector the costs are very expensive.

My figures are slightly different: best estimates suggest that there are more than 141,000 children in kinship care in England and Wales. This is three times the number in unrelated foster care. Grandparents comprise the most kinship carers, but they can also, of course, be older siblings, aunts and uncles, cousins and family friends. A kinship carer provides a stable home life, remaining in their existing family network. It makes sense, therefore, to invest in kinship care and provide reasonable legislation to support those who are providing this care. Kinship care delivers good experiences and outcomes for children and families, as well, as I have said, cost savings for the Government.

We support the statutory funding of kinship care in the Bill, but are critical that it provides merely a definition without practical solutions, including that financial support. My amendments try in some ways to look at how we can give extra support to kinship carers. I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 103 would extend the pupil premium to children subject to kinship care arrangements. Amendment 104 would mean that a person is entitled to kinship care allowance for any week in which the person is engaged as a kinship carer in England. Amendment 146 would introduce an entitlement for an individual to be absent from work on care leave where the individual is a kinship carer.

We need to support this sector of caring. It is probably the best way that we can deal with what some might call the problems of and some might even call a crisis in the care system. I hope that Members will look carefully at all the amendments and how they can enhance what we currently have.

My Lords, briefly, I lend my support to these amendments, particularly Amendments 103, 104 and 146 in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey. As we have heard, it has been a very interesting group about the role that kinship care is playing. Okay, the number is somewhere between 100,000 and 142,000 or 153,000: it is an awful lot of children who, because they are in kinship care, are not going into the care system, with all the costs that we know that can bring with it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said in her very interesting and insightful contribution, kinship carers are often doing this at great sacrifice to themselves. Very often—most times—they are doing it out of love, but they are stepping up at a time of crisis to provide that love and care to children who would otherwise be in the care system. I just want to underline the point that the period when the child moves in can be incredibly difficult and require a lot of support. Often the kinship carer, who would not have planned to have taken on parental responsibilities for one or more children, would have to spend time attending meetings with children’s services, be involved in court proceedings, maybe find a nursery, make arrangements with the children’s school, the GP or whatever. The list just goes on. They are all things that tend to need to be done during the day, during working hours, and they all take time and money, which is why I feel that a kinship care allowance and extending the pupil premium is so important and, most particularly, an entitlement for an individual to be absent from work on care leave at the moment when those arrangements are being set up is critical. When I was looking at the very helpful briefing that I have been sent, I was reminded that a right to paid employment leave for kinship carers was recommended by the cross-party Parliamentary Taskforce on Kinship Care, the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, which we have heard about this afternoon, and indeed by the House of Lords Select Committee doing post-legislative scrutiny on the Children and Families Act, which I actually chaired. I remember that we came forward with that recommendation, and I think it is incredibly important that we take this opportunity to do something about it.

I start by saying how touched I am, and I really want to welcome the comments that have been made about kinship care in the Chamber this evening. It is such an important area, and I think we all have to put our hand on our heart and say that it is a set of relationships that has not been given its due recognition. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, talked about areas of good practice. I think we could all add areas where we know that places are getting it right. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sanderson and Lady O’Neill, talked about the general background and trying to imagine the situation when you know that a family member is getting into difficulties. As they quite rightly say, this becomes a moment of crisis when the risk to the children we are talking about is at its absolute highest. The recognition of the importance of focusing on the outcomes for children and young people is to be welcomed and needs to be at the forefront of everything that we do. From a local authority perspective, we know that too many children are going into care. As we have heard tonight, this can have a detrimental effect on their prospects and outcomes over a long period. It also has an enormous impact on the budgets of councils, in particular where money could be invested into setting up more support networks in this area. We are talking about supporting children to stay within their family and friend network, where that is safe and right for them. This is a priority for this Government. There is a general recognition that the support that kinship families have received to date has not been sufficient. We are working hard to address this. It is quite extraordinary that, until now, there has been no legal definition of kinship care. Changing that is something that we can all come together to welcome. As we have heard, access to information for the families involved can be a postcode lottery. Clause 5 is a significant step towards ensuring greater parity in information on the support that is available to kinship carers by requiring local authorities to publish a kinship offer. Amendment 69B, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, seeks to ensure that information on support for kinship families, and not just children and carers, is included in the duty to publish a kinship local offer. I reassure the noble Earl that there is mention in the Bill of a review. New Section 22H(7), to be inserted by Clause 5, states that local authorities “must review” and keep up to date their kinship information. We agree that a whole-family approach is absolutely vital, but amending Clause 5 as proposed is not necessary. The list of information about services that can be included in a kinship local offer under Clause 5 is non-exhaustive. This has been done for a reason, and it already includes services relating to relationships which will assist kinship families more broadly. The kinship care statutory guidance states that local authorities should empower families by prioritising family-led solutions, working collaboratively with family networks to support parents or carers to make and sustain positive changes, leading, we hope, to de-escalation of need or no further involvement with statutory services. Local authorities should engage with family networks, from early help and at every point through the children’s social care system, as set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023. There are other policies dedicated to families in need of support, which we have heard about already this evening, such as the family help programme, which aims to improve children’s outcomes and respond to needs and the circumstances of the family as early as possible to enable children to thrive and families to remain together. With a stress on family help, multi-agency child protection family group decision-making reforms are being rolled out across England through the Families First Partnership programme, with over £500 million of direct funding for preventive support for children and families. Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is on the categories of information listed under Clause 5. We agree that it is important that a kinship local offer should encompass information about the full range of support that is available in the local area. However, amending Clause 5 as proposed is not necessary, for the reasons that I have outlined. Clause 1 already sets out that family group decision-making will be offered, so to add it here would be unnecessary. As I have mentioned before, the listed categories of information about services for the kinship local offer are non-exhaustive and broad, meaning that local authorities can respond to their local strengths and local circumstances, and bring in services available in their area. The kinship care statutory guidance sets out the expectation that a kinship local offer should set out the legal support that may be available to kinship carers and potential kinship carers, including the eligibility and extent of that support. This involves local relationships—the power of place—and health providers working with local authorities, bringing together all the possible solutions to a particular situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has suggested, practical emotional support is absolutely key. We know that there is more work to be done. We need to look at the areas that are doing it well, learn from their experience, and make sure that it is taken up and expanded in every local authority area around the country.

20:30:00

Amendments 71 and 72, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, relate to the co-production of kinship local offers with kinship carers and children. In my view, nothing could be more important. We have to stress that, throughout everything we do, the voices of children and their families should be absolutely front and centre. Since the intention of Clause 5 is to ensure the publication of a kinship local offer that gives a clear reflection of the services available in the area, consultation on the publication of this information would be of limited value. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, highlighted, working with children and families is absolutely fundamental.

Having said this, and to reassure noble Lords, the kinship care statutory guidance already provides safeguards to ensure that local authorities are seeking the views of kinship children and carers. There is, running throughout, an expectation that children and their kinship carers and parents should be consulted as appropriate. That should include bringing together their local offers and setting out how their views have informed how the offer is developing.

We are mindful of the pressures on local authorities and are committed to avoiding unnecessary burdens. We do not believe it is necessary to place a statutory requirement on local authorities to consult, collect feedback and publish it as part of the kinship local offer. The statutory guidance already sets out an expectation, as we have heard, seeking the views of children and families. We strongly believe this strikes the right balance, making sure that meaningful engagement exists, while allowing local authorities the flexibility to determine how best to do this in their local context.

Amendment 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerns extending pupil premium plus eligibility to pupils in England who are living in kinship care. We agree that it is essential that all children get the support they need in order to thrive at school. This is why we are providing over £3 billion of pupil premium funding to improve the educational outcomes of disadvantaged pupils in England, including looked-after and previously looked-after children. While being in a kinship arrangement is not part of pupil premium eligibility, some children in a kinship arrangement may already attract a higher rate of pupil premium due to being looked after or previously looked after by the local authority.

I have to stress that pupil premium is not a personal budget for individual pupils. Schools can direct spending where the need is greatest, including to pupils with other identified needs, such as children living in kinship care. Pupil premium is a discretionary grant and, although there are no plans to place it on a statutory footing, we will continue to keep eligibility under review to ensure that support is targeted at those who need it most.

Amendments 104 and 146, which relate to the introduction of financial support for kinship carers and kinship leave, were also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. We recognise the financial challenges that kinship carers experience, as well as the difficulties they encounter in trying to work alongside raising a child. That is why the Government in October 2024 announced £40 million of new funding for a kinship allowance pilot. This is the single biggest investment in kinship care made by any Government to date. The pilot is expected to go live in autumn 2025 and will provide a weekly allowance to kinship carers in selected local authorities to support them with the additional costs incurred when taking on parental responsibility for a child. As the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, said, it is crucial that we all recognise the significance of what has been undertaken.

Our ambition is that all kinship carers get the support they need. It is important that we first build the evidence base to find out how best to deliver support for kinship families. Decisions about future rollout will be informed by the findings of the evaluation.

As for kinship leave, some employed kinship carers may already benefit from various workplace employment rights. These include: a day-one right to time off for dependants; the right to request flexible working; and unpaid parental leave for employees who have or expect to have parental responsibility.

By way of example—and we are encouraging more employers to look into this and take on responsibility—the Department for Education employs more than 7,500 public sector workers and recently joined a small number of private sector employers, including Card Factory, Tesco and John Lewis, in offering a pay and leave entitlement to all eligible staff who become kinship carers. This is where the local offer really kicks in: the partnerships that local authorities have with employers can come up with bespoke solutions in local communities. No one area will be the same, but we need to make sure that the drive to achieve this is universal. We have also committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families.

On the special guardianship issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, raised, we recognise the importance of the adoption and special guardianship support fund. The new criteria still allow children to receive an excellent level of support and ensure that more children can access the available funding. We probably all have individual stories that we can relate to and dwell on, and we should spread the word, tell those stories, make sure that this important area is given the attention it needs and recognise those families that do an extraordinary job looking after the children within their remit.

For the reasons I outlined, I kindly ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

I welcome an awful lot of what the Minister said and what His Majesty’s Government are trying to do. My heart sank slightly when I heard the piece about relying on statutory guidance, which was obviously written for her beforehand. I have worked very closely on a variety of Bills over the past four or five years with the Children’s Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. If the Minister were to sit down with each or all of them and ask them about the experience they had of overreliance on statutory guidance, she would get some very mixed messages. Statutory guidance is effective only if the degree to which it is complied with is monitored; it is of no use whatever if the organisations that are meant to carry it out know that nobody is looking over their shoulder or calling them to book if they do not comply. This again comes back to the variation in practice across the country. So I ask the Minister, her colleagues and the department to talk to some of those commissioners, to understand the historical and the live experience they have in dealing with some of the statutory guidance we have put into some of the legislation that has come through the House in the past three or four years, to see how effective it is and what we can learn from it.

I thank the noble Lord for his contribution and reassure him that I was not just reading out a script. I have put a lot of thought into this. I have been in the place of delivering on this agenda, so I do have the experience. We have to be careful that we are not too prescriptive at every level, because that can absolutely confound and take up more resource. But I do acknowledge that statutory guidance has to be adhered to, monitored and dealt with with the same seriousness across the piece and, where it has not been adhered to, it has to be called out. The most important thing that all of us can do is make sure that there is an awareness of the rights and responsibilities of the different organisations involved and that they live up to them and, as we have said all the way through, put the needs of some of the most vulnerable children in our communities at the heart of everything we do.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who made valuable contributions to this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, talked about improving the visibility of kinship care, and he is absolutely right. My noble friend Lady Sanderson talked about acknowledging the role of the whole family in terms of kinship families and gave us three live, worked examples of why this group is so important. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, reminded your Lordships’ Committee that there are 153,000 children in kinship care and that we are so lucky to have kinship carers—which I believe all noble Lords would agree with and which emphasises again why this group is critical. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to kinship carers as a priceless asset and he is entirely correct. I believe several of these issues merit further discussion on Report, but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

Amendment 69B withdrawn.

Amendments 70 to 72 not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

Amendment 73

Moved by

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.

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.

20:45:00

My amendments aim to speed up permanency for children and avoid the unnecessary contesting of a decision by a child’s birth parents through the courts. They aim to remove the unintended consequences of the current rules of creating unregistered placements for the purposes of Ofsted inspections, where a director of children’s services decides that a family member is the best person to care for the child but knows that they will not meet the foster panel’s standards. When most of us imagine an unregistered placement, we—or, certainly, I do—think of a holiday let or a caravan that is being used to house children with agency staff to care for them and not a member of the extended family.

Support for kinship families is highly variable and typically dependent on the type of kinship arrangement and the child’s journey into that arrangement. The type of kinship care arrangement that provides the greatest level of guaranteed financial, practical and emotional support to kinship carers and their children is kinship foster care. This is where the child is placed in local authority care and therefore becomes looked after and their kinship carers are supported as foster carers. Kinship families secured by special guardianship or child arrangement orders have fewer entitlements to support and less security as regards permanence and parental responsibility; this is particularly so if the order is made in private law proceedings and the child was not previously looked after. As such, there is a perverse incentive for children to enter kinship foster care or another local authority care placement, even briefly, to secure their, and their carer’s, future eligibility to additional support and entitlements such as pupil premium plus, the adoption and special guardianship support fund and enhanced access to financial allowances.

When a family group decision-making process determines that kinship care is the best option for keeping a child safe, prospective kinship carers are often encouraged to care for the child through informal arrangements or private legal orders. These options, including private agreements with parents or special guardianship orders, avoid placing the child in local authority care. However, many prospective kinship carers lack crucial information about how different arrangements will affect their long-term support eligibility. Those with informal arrangements or private legal orders may receive minimal support, regardless of any informal promises made by children’s services during the family group decision-making process.

Why does all this matter? The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces new duties such as mandatory family group decision-making without first ensuring comprehensive support across all forms of kinship care arrangements. This approach risks pushing families into arrangements without adequate support. The consequences could be serious: poorer outcomes for families; more legal challenges against local authorities; and increased placement breakdowns. When kinship arrangements fail, children often end up in more expensive, unrelated foster or residential care, which, in turn, raises long-term costs for local authorities and the state. The sequence of reform is vital for achieving the Government’s kinship care goal. Support for all kinship arrangements, including those outside local authority care, should have been secured before introducing new duties that encourage their use.

Currently, the Government’s aim to reduce the number of children in local authority care faces a significant obstacle. Families must enter kinship foster care to access maximum support, and that creates an inherent tension in the system. I am aware of the newly started Law Commission review into kinship care, and I hope that subsequent legislation will set out specific legal pathways to well-supported kinship care arrangements that deliver parental responsibility and permanence, ending the perverse incentive for children to enter local authority care in order to maximise their and their kinship carers’ eligibility for support. In the meantime, my amendments seek to address some specific gaps that we currently face.

Amendment 73 relates to the requirement for kinship carers to go through the same foster panel process and standards as the stranger foster carer. This aims to address the current situation where a local authority director of children’s services decides that a kinship carer is the best person to care for the child but knows they will not pass the foster panel requirements. That might be because of age, mild alcohol misuse or a number of other reasons. The DCS judges that the strength of the relationship with the potential kinship carer outweighs those risks and is in the best interests of the child, rather than placing the child with a stranger foster carer. If they proceed with that, it is technically an unregistered placement for the purposes of Ofsted and they are therefore in breach of the law. My amendment would remove such placements, if signed off by the DCS, from being unregistered placements.

Amendment 74 seeks to secure early permanence for a child with a kinship carer by removing the requirement that they have lived together for a year before being granted an order under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989. It gives discretion to the court to decide what period of time, if any, is needed. That would both speed up the process of securing permanence and help to avoid the decision being contested by the parents, which makes the process acrimonious, stressful and lengthy.

Amendment 75 would remove the need for a kinship carer who had been approved by the DCS to be assessed and approved by the fostering panel, including after approval by a family group decision-making process.

Amendment 76 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a full review of the effectiveness of current pathways for the approval of kinship carers and lay this before Parliament. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations for the approval of kinship carers so that the existing regulations would be updated and overhauled. This acknowledges that the changes proposed by Amendments 73, 74, 75 and 76A respond to the issues thrown up by the increased and increasing use of kinship care. This is an area in need of coherent review, as I set out in my opening remarks.

Amendment 76A would remove the requirement for the local authority to undertake a full assessment of a temporary kinship carer as if they were a foster carer.

These amendments should also be considered alongside my Amendment 17 to Clause 1, which sought to ensure that if a child is going to be looked after by other family members then the local authority takes appropriate action to ensure their safety and welfare.

All these amendments seek to make kinship care work as well as possible in practice, recognise the strengths and weaknesses of family members and improve both the support and the process so that it delivers on the Government’s aspirations. I have made the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, aware of these amendments, since I understand that they would overlap with his responsibilities in relation to the family justice system. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

I support the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend, which, as she set out, aim to simplify the process for approving kinship carers, balancing the importance of robust safeguards with greater flexibility and discretion within the process to speed it up in the best interests of the child. As we heard in the previous group, kindship carers are an essential part of our care system, and their benefits are well known. Research indicates that, on average, children in kinship care achieve higher GCSE scores compared with those in non-kin foster care, and significantly higher than all looked-after children or children in need. Children in kinship care also experience better mental health and overall well-being compared with those in other out-of-home care settings, with the familial environment contributing to these positive outcomes. In addition, children in kinship care are more likely to remain in the same area and school, maintaining continuity in their social and educational environments, and are more likely to experience better long-term outcomes, including reduced involvement with the criminal justice system and improved employment prospects. However, as my noble friend set out in her opening remarks, under the current system, many of those wanting to provide this form of care face significant hurdles because the assessment frameworks for kinship carers are modelled largely on foster care standards and can include checks and interviews that can feel invasive or inappropriate in the context of family caregiving. While, of course, there needs to be a careful balance and assessment made between the benefits of placing a vulnerable child with kinship carers, with whom—as we have heard—they will already have had a long-standing relationship, and a clear-headed evaluation of any potential risks and safeguarding issues, the current approval process can be unduly slow, causing delays in placing children with family during critical early moments. As we have heard, this means children may be placed informally for long periods with no proper support while assessments drag on, creating significant delays and exclusions. Some of the criteria around housing and income in particular can lead to the exclusion of willing, loving relatives being able to provide care for vulnerable young people within their kinship group. With the inclusion of the new kinship offer in the Bill, it is clear that the Government recognise the value of kinship carers and are looking to provide greater support and continuity of support to them. I hope the Minister will carefully consider my noble friend’s amendments, which, taken together, offer a thoughtful, balanced reappraisal of the current process and, I believe, would enhance the impact of the measures already contained in the Bill. Amendment 76, which would require the Secretary of State to carry out a full review assessing the effectiveness of the current pathways for approval within 12 months of Royal Assent, would also provide the Government with the opportunity to look at the practical impacts of these amendments, so that they can be changed or built on, depending on the effects they have had.

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 73, 74, 75, 76 and 76A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to which I have added my name. I am in that dangerous position where I am between your Lordships and supper, so I am going to keep it very short, given that I spoke at length about kinship care in the last group. These are extraordinarily sensible amendments that would speed things up and make it easier for kinship carers to be kinship carers. I heartily approve.

My Lords, I will also speak incredibly briefly to the amendments in this group. Obviously, we need protections in place, but I think that across the Chamber we are all agreed that we want to make kinship care a viable option for as many people as possible. These amendments help to do just that by removing some of the hurdles and hoops, and I am very much in support of them.

My Lords, I do not want to join the competition for brevity, but I will do my best. There is now consensus that preference should, if possible, be given to the placement of children with relatives or those who have some pre-existing connection with the child and are able to offer commitment to care. Kinship carers, like foster carers, are a precious resource, and therefore I support these amendments. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Law Commission has recently undertaken a review of the law concerning kinship care, with a view to improving its efficiency and simplicity. That has become necessary because of the great range and variety of situations in which kinship care can arise and might be required—from the temporary and informal arrangement to the longer-term or permanent that can involve foster care, special guardianship or other forms of order. It has been suggested by some that, rather than have a scattered legislative and regulatory regime, kinship care should now have a separate and distinct regime. That is something that may emerge from the Law Commission. That is not to say that improvements cannot be made to the present piecemeal structures, and that is why I support these amendments. They will make procedures easier for kinship carers or potential kinship carers, without inappropriately cutting corners.

21:00:00

My Lords, I will be even briefer, because much of what I intended to say has already been said. Obviously, I deal with this pretty much on a daily basis, back at the base in Bexley. As explained earlier, kinship care tends to have to be done much more quickly than a foster care placement. A foster care placement can go through a due process that will take much longer and will be very thorough, but kinship care tends to have to be much quicker. There are things that you might need to look at for a kinship care placement that you would not for foster care. Obviously, the kinship carer is seeking to look after a child they know. They are not looking to foster any child, which would mean that they would have to have a wide range of experience and therefore, no doubt, training to go with it. They may already be in a home that they will take the child or children into, so the accommodation might not meet the needs that a foster care panel might want it to. They may have a job, as has been said, and that will need to be worked around. They will not necessarily have made arrangements to take on a child, especially if it is a grandparent at an older age. All these things need to be considered. Frankly, kinship care and fostering arrangements are very different, which is why I support these amendments. This really needs to be looked at in a different way. I promised brevity, so I will now sit down.

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.

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.

Amendments 74 to 76A not moved.

House resumed.