---

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

My Lords, I beg to move Motion C and shall speak also to Motions D, E, F and F1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, sibling contact, regional co-operation arrangements and deprivation of liberty. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

I will speak to Motion C, relating to Amendment 16, originally tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerning a proposed review of the per-child funding level for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. The Government have confirmed £55 million for the support fund in 2026-27, with continuation into 2027-28. A 12-week public consultation on adoption support is under way, seeking evidence on what best supports adopted children and outlining eight proposals for a future system. Introducing the review proposed in the amendment could potentially inhibit balanced consideration of the consultation responses. We therefore cannot accept this.

Motion D relates to Amendment 17, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. As we have previously set out, the amendment will not alter the duties placed on local authorities. There is already a requirement in regulations for local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between a looked-after child and any sibling with whom they are not living. This is why the Government do not support this amendment.

Instead, we propose Amendment 17B in lieu, to add siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act 1989. This will make clear the expectations on local authorities

to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their whole, half and step-siblings where this is consistent with their welfare: a duty that already exists for contact been children in care and their parents. I acknowledge Liberal Democrat Peers’ constructive engagement, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and acknowledge in the other place the honourable Member for South Shields, Emma Lewell. Both have tirelessly campaigned for many years on the importance of relationships for children in care, and I therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment.

Motion E relates to Amendment 19, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. This amendment seeks to include integrated care boards in regional co-operation arrangements. The Government agree that health partners play a vital role in improving outcomes for looked-after children. However, existing duties under Sections 10 and 16E, 16G and 16J of the Children Act 2004 already require local authorities to co-operate with relevant partners, including ICBs, to promote children’s well-being. These duties will continue to apply to authorities entering into regional co-operation agreements. Following helpful discussions on Report, and with the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, it is clear that these duties could be implemented more consistently.

6 pm

On 5 March, my noble friend Lady Smith and my noble friend Lady Merron, the Minister for Women’s Health and Mental Health, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, setting out the Government’s plan to strengthen collaboration. That includes asking ICBs to confirm in writing their commitment to working with RCCs as a condition of funding. Updated programme guidance issued alongside the expression of interest will set out clearer expectations on joint working; should the House not insist on this amendment, which would otherwise require a different approach, the Government will issue this guidance tomorrow. This builds on learning from the pathfinders in Greater Manchester and the south-east, and officials continue to work with the Department of Health to ensure alignment with ongoing ICB reforms.

I turn to Motion F, which concerns Amendment 21, and Motion F1, which relates to Amendment 21B in lieu, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The Government agree it is imperative that support for children deprived of liberty is fully integrated across social care, health, education and youth justice services. Existing statutory mechanisms already allow local authorities and health partners to pool funding; several areas are using these powers effectively. We strongly encourage all local authorities, integrated care boards and partners to use these tools to improve support for these vulnerable children.

As set out in the aforementioned letter, a multi-million-pound national programme of work is under way, led jointly by the DfE and NHS England. This work has strengthened the evidence base through detailed studies of children’s journeys and needs, as well as a peer collaborative of areas trialling integrated approaches. Following our helpful and constructive discussions on

Report, for which I thank noble Lords, we have launched a national community of practice, giving professionals a single place to explore research, emerging models and training resources. The next phase of work, beginning later this year, will be delivered within regional care co-operatives, with ICB involvement locked in from the outset. It will support earlier intervention, more skilled practitioners, a single and coherent understanding of each child’s needs, and, crucially, a smoother journey between services. This co-ordinated programme is building the foundations of a more coherent, preventive and evidence-based system.

For these reasons, the Government do not consider legislative change necessary and do not support these amendments. I beg to move.