Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle:

Moved by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle

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 statementThis 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.