The Earl of Effingham:

Moved by The Earl of Effingham

69B: Clause 5, page 9, line 12, at end insert—“(iii) kinship families.”Member’s explanatory statementThis 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.

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.

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.

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.