Committee stage in the Commons
Committee debated amendments to Clause 1 on child participation in family group decision-making meetings and the 26-week care-proceedings limit, a Green amendment on reunification, Clause 2 on education's role in safeguarding, and government technical amendments to Clause 3 on multi-agency child protection teams.
ISWe broadly welcome the new requirement on local authorities to offer family group decision-making — it strengthens the right to hear the child's voice, which the evidence session confirmed is important. But we have concerns: the provision is ambiguous about what these meetings actually look like in practice, and we need the Minister to set out the principles and standards that will apply. Cases involving domestic violence or coercive control can be hard to identify, so guidance on those situations is essential. We've also heard from the Family Rights Group about Azariah Hope — a care-experienced young parent who wasn't offered a family group conference because the authority assumed she had no support network. Amendment 36 would strengthen the right for the child to be involved while still leaving the local authority discretion over who attends. We want to hear more from the Minister about what those principles and standards should look like.Broadly, the Liberal Democrats welcome the new requirement on local authorities to offer family group decision making, which gives those who care for children, including family members, the opportunity to be involved in putting together that plan for their welfare. The provision strengthens the right to hear the child’s voice, which as we heard in the evidence session is important. We have a few concerns. As the provision is currently laid out, it might be a little ambiguous. There are lots of different models of family group decision making around, so we would like clarification from the Minister about the principles and standards that are set out in regard to what it actually looks like in practice. Cases where there is domestic violence or coercive control can be hard to identify, so we would like guidance on the principles around that. We would also like to encourage local authorities to probe into what family group decision making should look like and who should be involved. One example that came to us from the Family Rights Group was of Azariah Hope, who was a care-experienced young parent very frustrated about how she was not offered a family group conference because the local authority presumed that she did not have a family or friend network to draw on. Amendment 36 strengthens the right for the child to be involved, but still gives the local authority the power to decide on the appropriateness of who should be involved. We would like to hear more from the Minister about what those principles and standards should be for taking family group decision making forward.
Although the Opposition will ask some hard questions about Part 2 of the Bill, there is much in Part 1 that we completely support — a lot of it builds on work the last Government began. On Clause 1, our Amendment 18 addresses one of our main concerns about pace. The Bill as drafted requires the family group decision-making meeting before a care application is made; once this becomes a legal right, families and extended families could use the courts to slow things down. The head of CAFCASS told us on Tuesday that for very young children — babies especially — meetings will be difficult to set up, people won't turn up, and they'll need rescheduling. When a child is at immediate risk, we cannot afford those delays. Our amendment inserts a clause making clear that nothing in this section permits an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings in the Children and Families Act 2014. I also want Ministers to take away the CAFCASS chief executive's suggestion that family group decision-making should be offered earlier — at the point a section 7 welfare report is ordered — rather than only at the pre-proceedings stage. And I'd like the Government to respond to CAFCASS's second proposal: two-thirds of the children CAFCASS works with are in *private* law proceedings, but the Bill is silent on them. Finally, will Ministers share the early findings of the Families First for Children pathfinder pilots? We ran those pilots; the results are weeks away; and it is frustrating to legislate without them. An external randomised controlled trial estimates that rolling out family group conferences nationally would reduce children entering care by roughly 7% — about 2,293 fewer children per year. That's a big effect, and we need research planned now to track both the upsides and any negative consequences.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As this is the first amendment on the first day of our line-by-line consideration, I will briefly say that although the Opposition have lots of serious questions about the second part of the Bill, there is much in part 1 of the Bill that we completely support. In fact, a lot of the Bill builds on work that the last Government were doing. To quote the great 1980s philosopher Belinda Carlisle, we may find that “We dream the same thing We want the same thing”. It may not always seem like that, because we are going to ask some questions, but they are all about improving the Bill. A lot of them are not our questions, but ones put to us by passionate experts and those who work with people in these difficult situations. The relevant policy document sets out why it is so important to get this clause right. It highlights the number of serious case incidents, which was 405 last year, and the number of child deaths, which was 205—every single one a terrible tragedy. Around half of those deaths were of very young children, often under 2; they are physically the most vulnerable children, because they cannot get away. Our amendment 18 seeks to make clause 1 work in practice. It reflects some, but not all, of the concerns that we heard in oral evidence on Tuesday from Jacky Tiotto, the chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The clause states: “Before a local authority in England makes an application for an order…the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting”. In general, those meetings are a good thing, and we all support them—the last Government supported them; the new Government support them. They are already in statutory guidance. However, we have two or three nagging worries about what will happen when, as it were, we mandate a good thing. The first is about pace. As I said in the oral evidence session, I worry that once family group decision making bec…
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
- How common does the hon. Gentleman think that situation is across our constituencies? Does he accept that we recognise it too — we see it in our inboxes and in the families we meet?
How common does the hon. Gentleman think the situation that he describes is across our constituencies? Does he accept our understanding of that situation? We see it ourselves in our constituencies and in our inboxes.
- Lots of us will have seen situations where there is not a minute to lose — including the story I was telling before the intervention, of a woman about to have her third or fourth child where the child would not have been safe with her for a single moment. The priority must be getting children away from people who are dangerous to them, which is exactly what Amendment 18 addresses. I am also asking Ministers to tell us their view on the CAFCASS chief executive's specific suggestion to move the meeting requirement to the point at which a section 7 welfare report is ordered; and her second proposal, that the Bill is silent on children in private law proceedings. The Family Rights Group is worried too — they fear that in practice authorities will hold professionally-led meetings and call them family group decision-making, with family involvement peripheral, unless the legislation specifies what is expected. Will the Government respond to all of these concerns from serious, independent experts?
I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. A lot of us will have seen such situations where there is not a minute to lose. To complete my sentence, the woman was about to have—I think—her third or fourth child. This is not to criticise her, but a child would not have been safe with her for a single minute. The priority has to be getting children away from people who are dangerous to them. I worry about pace, and our amendment 18 makes the importance of pace clear. It would insert: “Nothing in this section permits an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings in section 14(2)(ii) of the Children and Families Act 2014.” I was struck by what the head of CAFCASS told us on Tuesday. She said that the Bill “probably could move” the requirement for the family group decision-making meeting “down to the point at which there are formal child protection procedures starting so that the family can get to know what the concerns are, work with the child protection plan for longer, understand what the concerns are and demonstrate whether the protection can happen.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 31, Q68.] This is the bit of her evidence—she knows a lot more about this than I do—that struck me: “if the Bill were to stay as drafted at the edge of care, I think there are risks for very young children, and babies in particular. The meetings will be difficult to set up. People will not turn up. They will be rescheduled”.––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 31, Q68.] She went on: “For very young children when you are concerned, if they are still with the parents, which is sometimes the case, or even with a foster carer, you want permanent decisions quickly. That does not negate the need for the family to be involved. You can have it much earlier because you have been worried for a while at that point.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools B…
As a former barrister in care proceedings for nearly a decade, I hugely welcome the requirement for family group decision-making: it will mean fewer cases where lawyers need to get involved and fewer families subjected to care proceedings. But I'm concerned about Amendments 36 and 37, which would make the Bill more directive about children being present at these meetings. Of course a child's wishes and feelings must be considered — but that is different from being present. The discussion needs to be frank: family members are often learning, in that meeting, about the risks posed to the child, and a teenager should not be sitting there while adults work through that. As for Amendment 18 — I don't need to be told how important speed in care proceedings is. The 26-week limit in the Children and Families Act 2014 has not been met in over two-thirds of cases in the ten years since it was enacted; we are averaging 41 weeks. The amendment is incongruous: the 26-week clock starts when an *application* is made, but Clause 1 operates entirely *before* any application — so the amendment does nothing to speed things up.I rise to speak to amendments 36, 37 and 18. It has been a number of years since I was regularly involved in care proceedings as a barrister, but I did so for the best part of a decade. I and a number of my former colleagues hugely welcome this requirement for family group decision making to ensure that it can consistently take place and that all kinship options are considered before there is an application to remove a child from their family and place them in care. I anticipate that the clause will mean fewer cases where lawyers have to get involved and where families are subject to care proceedings. I am concerned about amendments 36 and 37, however, which would make the Bill more directive about children being present at family group decision making. The wishes and feelings of the child need, of course, to be considered at that meeting and the voice of the child should, of course, always be heard, but that is different from them being present at the meeting. It is really important that the discussion at that meeting is frank and meaningful—often, in that meeting, family members will be finding out, and coming to understand, the risks posed to a child. The appropriate way for a child to be told about their safety or an issue that parents need to tackle is likely to be very different, and more tailored, from what is appropriate for the adults in the room.
Does the hon. Lady recognise that Amendment 37 only creates a *presumption* of inclusion — the local authority can still exclude the child where it deems that inappropriate, for instance because the child is too young or because of the nature of the proceedings? The problem with the Bill as drafted is that some local authorities may routinely leave children out of discussions, even teenagers who could helpfully contribute.Does the hon. Lady recognise that amendment 37 proposes a presumption of inclusion but, where “the local authority deems it inappropriate”— for example, if the child is too young or because of the nature of the proceedings—the child would not be included? The problem with the Bill as it is drafted is that some local authorities, who do not necessarily respect the voice of the child or ensure that the child is involved, may routinely leave the child out of the discussion, even with teenagers who could be helpfully involved.
- Giving discretion to the local authority is exactly right — but by saying 'should', Amendment 37 tells the authority to start from inclusion and only exclude where it can demonstrate harm. In my view that fetters the discretion in a way that risks pushing children into harmful situations. On Amendment 18: I'd also point out that it was the coalition Government's Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 that removed legal aid for private family law cases, which has made pre-proceeding settlement and professional involvement far harder for over a decade.
Giving that discretion is really important, but by saying “should”, amendment 37 would give a directive to the local authority to first look at including the child, and only reject that in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that including them would be harmful and inappropriate. In my view, that fetters the discretion and pushes things into a potentially harmful situation, especially given the number of children that we are talking about—not younger children, but definitely those at the upper end. In my view, we should not fetter the discretion. I do not think that that kind of directive is helpful in those circumstances. On amendment 18, I do not need to be told how important it is that childcare proceedings are conducted quickly and without delay. At the moment, the 26-week time limit set out in the Children and Families Act 2014 is not met in over two thirds of cases. I think we are averaging 41 weeks—which is better than last year, when it was nearly 45 weeks—and that includes cases where everything is agreed and not contested. My former colleagues are regularly involved in cases lasting over a year and some lasting over two years. I do not think that, in the 10 years since the 26-week limit was enacted, the majority of cases have ever been completed within six months. The amendment is therefore somewhat incongruous given what we have seen over the last 10 years—I think that a number of my former colleagues would consider it brass neck. The amendment does not do anything to ensure that we deal with cases rapidly, because the 26 weeks starts when an application is made, but the whole point of the clause is that family group decision making needs to take place before an application is made. In my view, the amendment does nothing to restrict the time to 26 weeks, because clause 1 does not have an impact on that timescale at all, and it certainly does not prevent local authorities from holding family group decision making earlier. I am somewhat provoked to n…
Amendment 49 would mirror Clause 1 at the *other* end of the care process — requiring local authorities to offer family group decision-making no later than one month after the discharge of a care order, to support reunification. One in three children who return home after care then re-enter the system. Failed reunifications cost £370 million a year — money that would be better spent supporting families in the first place. Research shows that targeted support for reunification costs just £7,857 per child, compared to £105,000 for a single breakdown. Yet 78% of authorities report that their own reunification support is inadequate. The amendment is practical: it only requires the *offer*; it allows professional judgment; it exempts cases where a meeting isn't in the child's best interests. It bookends the care process — the same logic as Clause 1 at the start, now applied at the end. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to speak to amendment 49 regarding family group decision making at the point of family reunification. Reunification—the process of returning a child in care to their family—is the most common route by which children leave care, accounting for 27% of all children who left care in 2023. It is also one of the most sensitive and significant transitions a child can experience. When done well, it can offer children stability, security and permanence at home with their family, but too often the reunifications fail. In fact, one in three children who return home then re-enter the care system, so thousands of children are enduring yet more displacement, disrupted attachments, instability and broken trust. The human cost of those failed reunifications is immeasurable, but the financial cost is also stark. Failed reunifications cost the public purse £370 million annually—money that would be better spent supporting families in the first place. Research tells us that too many reunifications break down because families do not receive the support that they need to make that process successful, tut there is no national strategy for supporting reunifications. Support across the country is inconsistent, and alarmingly, 78% of authorities report that the support that they offer is inadequate—the authorities report that themselves. Amendment 49 provides a clear, practical, evidence-based solution—effectively a mirror to the Government’s clause 1. The amendment would require local authorities to offer family group decision making no later than one month after the discharge of a care order for the purpose of family reunification. Of course, in practice, it is envisaged that the family group decision-making process would be offered before the child returns home to support that return. As the Committee has already heard and discussed, family group decision making is a powerful tool. It brings families together to id…
I entirely support the spirit of what the Government are doing — it follows directly from the 'Stable Homes, Built on Love' strategy. On reunification and Amendment 49, I'm sure Ministers and officials will continue looking at how the reunification process can be improved for all the right reasons. On Amendment 36 and the inclusion of children: what guidance will accompany these new provisions? Professional judgment is trusted, but there may be value in more specific guidance — particularly for children with learning disabilities, who can feel that big decisions are made about their lives without adequate involvement. I'd also ask: why does the legislation not allow for a child to be present for *part* of the meeting? That might be the right answer in many cases.Of course I agree with and entirely support the spirit of what the Government are doing. It forms part of the strand of development intended in the “Stable Homes, Built on Love” strategy; across the House, we share similar motivations on all these matters. On the comments from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on reunification and amendment 49, I do not think an amendment to a Bill is the moment to introduce such a thing, but I am sure that in their continuing work, Ministers and officials will look at how the reunification process can be improved for all the reasons that she rightly gave. I have a couple of questions on the inclusion of children in meetings, which is relevant to clause stand part and to amendment 36. My first question is: what guidance will accompany the new provisions? In some cases it will be obvious that a child should not be present, but beyond that it is perhaps difficult to generalise. Of course we trust professional judgment, but I wonder about the extent to which further guidance may be useful. I am thinking particularly of children with learning disabilities, who sometimes feel that things are done that affect their lives in a big way and they have less of a say than other children, because somebody has made that judgment when perhaps they did not need to. Secondly—this is a minor point in the grand scheme of things—I wonder why the legislation and the explanatory notes do not say that a child may be present for part of the meeting. It may be appropriate to have part of it with the child and part of it without them.
The Bill is genuinely child-centred. Before being elected I ran a mental health and domestic abuse charity, and I know how little empowered local authorities have felt by central Government — yet so much expertise and passion sits at that level. By giving social workers the ability to judge what is appropriate, we're showing we respect their judgment. From embedding caseworkers in social care settings, I know that most children in these meetings will be teenagers, and that most of them should *not* be present — being there would traumatise them, not serve them. That is why I oppose Amendments 36 and 37. On Amendment 18: a significant driver of care proceedings is parental mental ill health, and the Government's wider measures — on housing security, employment security and cost-of-living pressures — will materially improve the conditions that push families into crisis.Thank you, Sir Christopher; that is helpful advice. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, and will speak to oppose proposed amendments 36, 37 and 18. I think the Bill is in fact very child-centred; it is focused on the needs of children. Before I was elected to this place, I ran a mental health and domestic abuse charity, so multi-agency working at a local level is very familiar to me. From that role, I know just how little local authorities have felt empowered by central Government, but so much expertise and experience sits at that level. There is so much passion and knowledge in the social workforce, yet social workers do not feel empowered and trusted to get on with their job. By providing them with the ability to deem what is appropriate and to progress on that basis, we are showing our social workforce that we respect their judgment. On balance, from working with social workers, I know that they are significantly motivated by the interests of the child and they always speak on behalf of the child. The service that I ran embedded caseworkers within social care settings. It was intended to provide support to children in difficult circumstances, often arising from parents experiencing significant mental ill health, domestic abuse, substance misuse—mainly those three things—and other related issues. Most children sitting in the meetings will be in their teenage years. They should not be sitting in those meetings. The meetings would traumatise them. Expecting them by default to attend would not serve the needs of the child, or the needs of those around the child who want to provide wraparound support, have frank conversations and arrive at what is best for the child. That is why I support the Bill. I listened carefully to what Mr O’Brien said, and I take the point that he made about—
- The last Conservative Government invested £200 million in laying foundations for whole-system children's social care reform through the 'Stable Homes, Built on Love' strategy, and £45 million to launch the Families First for Children pathfinder in 12 local areas — testing the very measures in Clause 1 that we're now legislating. Those pilots started in July 2023 and results are due within weeks. It's frustrating that we're legislating before the evidence lands. Will Ministers make those findings available to Members of both Houses before the Bill completes its passage? I'd also like to know what randomised controlled trial the Government have planned to track *negative* consequences of the rollout — a 7% reduction in children entering care per year is a glorious outcome if the RCT holds, but we need to be alert to the children on the other side of that ledger.
Thank you, Sir Christopher. I will include it here—I just wanted to double-check. Although I have asked lots of questions about it, we totally agree with the spirit of the clause. In fact, in February 2023, the last Conservative Government published a strategy and consultation on reforming children’s social care called “Stable Homes, Built on Love”. That was partly a response to reports published in 2022, including the final report of the independent review of children’s social care, which was very ably put together by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). The 2023 strategy said that, over the following two years, the Government would invest £200 million, “laying the foundations for whole system reform and setting national direction for change.” After two years, the Government would refresh the strategy, scale up the approaches and bring forward new legislation, and in a sense that is what is happening now. This Government are doing some of the things that we had hoped to do when we were in government. We are obviously not against new legislation; in fact, as part of the strategy, we provided £45 million to launch the Families First for Children pathfinder in 12 local areas for the following two years. That was going to test some of the measures in the Bill, such as more multi-agency working and early, non-stigmatising help and group decision making. We set up those pilots partly because of one of the measures in clause 1. Those pilots started in July 2023 and, frustratingly, the results are supposed to be out in the next couple of months. Because of the way that things happen in this place, we are in the slightly frustrating position of having done a proper experiment—we have tested the concepts in clause 1 in the pilot—as we always say we want to do as politicians, but we do not get to hear the results, which are potentially just weeks away. Have Ministers had sight of early findings from those pilots? Would they be prepared to make them…
I thank Members for the spirit in which they've discussed these safeguarding provisions. On Amendments 36 and 37: every child's family network is unique, so we deliberately chose not to be prescriptive about who attends meetings. The local authority will determine who it is appropriate to invite, and updated statutory guidance will make clear that authorities should engage with the full scope of the family network. The meeting facilitator will talk to families and the child about how best the child might be involved — including through an independent advocate — but the child's participation must depend on their age, level of understanding and the specific circumstances. In some cases it simply won't be appropriate for the child to attend, but they will always have dedicated preparation time to voice their experiences and concerns. On Amendment 18: Clause 1 operates at the pre-proceedings stage, *before* any application is made, so it has no impact on the 26-week clock under the Children and Families Act 2014. The evidence strongly suggests that strengthening family group decision-making at this stage will *reduce* applications to the family court — so the clause actually helps speed up the system by diverting cases. If circumstances change at any point and it is no longer in a child's best interests to hold the meeting, the local authority can initiate court proceedings immediately. On Amendment 49: we are clear in guidance that, where a child is returning home from care, authorities must consider what help and support will be needed and set it out in writing. We will continue to promote the wider use of family group decision-making throughout a child's journey — including at reunification — through updated statutory guidance and best practice support. I ask the hon. Member for Twickenham not to press Amendments 36 and 37, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston not to press Amendment 18, and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire not to press Amendment 49.It is an honour to serve under you as Chair, Sir Christopher, and to be a part of this thoughtful and considered Committee, which is taking this landmark legislation through Parliament. I thank hon. Members for the spirit in which they have discussed the safeguarding aspects of the Bill. I appreciate the support that has been expressed, and thank Members for their questions, concerns and amendments, which I will seek to address. Amendments 36 and 37 stand in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham but were presented by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. I thank him for his support for the clause and acknowledgment that family group decision making is a family-led process. A family network is unique to every child, so we decided not to be prescriptive about who should attend the meetings. That will be assessed and determined by the local authority, which will consider who it is appropriate to invite, and we will publish updated statutory guidance to make it clear that the local authority should engage with the full scope of the family network. That should take place with a view to supporting the wellbeing and welfare of the child, because the child’s voice and views are an integral part of the family group decision-making process. The process is, by its very nature, child-centric, and is designed with the best interests of the child in mind. The meeting facilitator will talk to families and the child about how best the child might be involved in the meeting. I recognise some of the points made about the extent to which the child should take part in the process, but the child’s participation will clearly depend on several factors, including their age and their level of understanding, and an independent advocate may also be used to help the child to express their views. As has been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, in some cases it may not be appropriate for the child to attend. However, there is time for the child to voice thei…
- On reunification specifically, "Working together to safeguard children 2023" already asks local authorities to consider whether family group decision-making would support a child's transition home from care. While the duty in Clause 1 mandates the offer at the pre-proceedings stage, we encourage authorities to offer it throughout the child's journey and repeat it as necessary — including during and after reunification — because we want a family-first culture embedded at every stage.
I may well be coming to the hon. Member’s question, if I can pre-empt her. If not, she is welcome to intervene again. On reunification specifically, “Working together to safeguard children 2023” was updated to ask local authorities to consider “whether family group decision-making would support the child’s transition home from care, and the role the family network could play in supporting this.” It made it clear that family group decision making cannot be conducted before a child becomes looked after, but that it should still be considered as an option later.[Official Report, 30 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 4WC.] (Correction) Family group decision making should be considered at all stages of a child’s journey in reunification with birth parents and the family network, wherever it is appropriate. Although the duty will make it mandatory to offer that family group decision making at the pre-proceeding stage, as I said, we will also be encouraging local authorities to offer it throughout the child’s journey and repeat it as necessary, because we encourage a family-first culture.
- The Bill is moving from *encouraging* family group decision-making to making it a *statutory requirement* before care proceedings. Amendment 49 asks for the same statutory footing at the end of the process. Why is it right to mandate it at the start but not at the end — especially given that one in three reunifications breaks down? Wouldn't that be entirely consistent, bookending both ends of the care process?
Will the Minister respond directly to the thrust of amendment 49? The Bill is shifting from a position where the consideration of family group decision making is already encouraged to a statutory requirement before starting care proceedings. Amendment 49 asks for a mirroring of that at the potential end of care proceedings. Why does the Minister feel that it is important to move to a statutory footing at the start but not the end, particularly given the statistics that I have referenced on the frequency of breakdown? Would it not be entirely consistent for the Bill to specify this—bookending both ends of the care process?
- Our decision to mandate it at the pre-proceedings stage is based on clear evidence that it reduces the number of children entering care proceedings at all. We encourage family group decision-making throughout a child's journey — including at reunification — but the legislative focus is where the evidence for diversion is strongest. On private law proceedings, the Ministry of Justice offers a voucher scheme worth up to £500 toward mediation costs, which provides a family-first route outside court. The impact assessments will be published as soon as the Regulatory Policy Committee completes its review.
I do think I have responded to the hon. Lady’s specific request, and explained why we are mandating and putting on to a statutory footing the requirement to offer family group decision making at this crucial point before care proceedings. We obviously encourage local authorities throughout their work with children in these circumstances to take a family-first approach and to offer family conferencing. Indeed, family group decision making can be used at any stage of a child’s journey through their relationship with the local authority. However, our decision to mandate it at this crucial point is very much based on the evidence that this reduces the number of children who end up going into care proceedings, and indeed into care. A lot of issues were raised and I will do my very best to cover them. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston raised private law proceedings. The Ministry of Justice offers a voucher scheme to provide a contribution of up to £500 towards the mediation costs for eligible cases, supporting people in resolving their family law disputes outside of court. Similarly to family group decision making, family mediation is a process that uses trained, independent mediators and helps families to sort arrangements out. I take on board the concerns he has raised that all children should be able to benefit from family group decision making where possible. On the impact assessment, as we said in the second evidence session on Tuesday, the Regulatory Policy Committee is considering the Bill’s impact assessments and we will publish them shortly and as soon as possible.
- Will the Minister undertake to get the impact assessments to us while we're still in Committee?
I know that the Minister is trying to get us the impact assessments and is completely sincere about that. Will she undertake to get them while we are still in Committee?
- I believe I can — I'll check and report back at this afternoon's sitting.
I believe I can, but I will check and report back in this afternoon’s sitting. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s request.
- We've heard strong support across the Committee for the principles of Clause 1, and I hear what Government Members say about not constraining social workers' discretion. But without a stronger steer to include the child, there's a real risk that too little emphasis will be placed on it. Amendment 36 inserts 'should, where appropriate' — leaving the decision with the local authority but giving a clear direction that, where possible, the child needs to be included. That's something many child-centred charities support. We will not withdraw the amendment.
I thank the Minister for her response. We have heard from across the Committee how much support there is for the principles of the clause. I hear what Government Members have said about the amendments not giving the relevant social workers and facilitators enough flexibility in their decision making. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham pointed out, there is a risk that without a stronger direction to include the child in those meetings, not enough emphasis will be placed on it. Amendment 36 would insert the words “should, where appropriate”, which leaves the decision in the hands of the local authority, but gives a stronger steer that, where possible, the child needs to be included. That is something that many child-centred charities would support. We will not withdraw the amendment. Question put, That the amendment be made. The Committee proceeded to a Division.
- Clause 2 recognises the crucial role that education and childcare play in keeping children safe. It places a duty on local authorities, police and health services — as safeguarding partners — to automatically include all education settings in their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. That breadth is deliberate: early years, academies, alternative provision, further education. Multiple national reviews have found that, in too many places, the contribution of education is missing from local safeguarding arrangements. Schools and childcare settings must have a seat at the table, and this provision ensures consistent, effective join-up between the statutory agencies and the full range of education and childcare providers.
By strengthening the role of education in multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, clause 2 recognises the crucial role that education and childcare play in keeping children safe. It places a duty on the local authority, police and health services, as safeguarding partners, to automatically include all education settings in their arrangements, and to work together to identify and respond to the needs of children in this area. The clause includes the breadth of education settings, such as early years, academies, alternative provision and further education. This will ensure improved communication between a safeguarding partnership and education, better information sharing and understanding of child protection thresholds, and more opportunities to influence key decisions about how safeguarding is carried out in the local area. Multiple national reviews have found that although some arrangements have worked hard to bring schools to the table, in too many places the contribution and voice of education are missing. Education and childcare settings should have a seat around the table in decision making about safeguarding, so we are mandating consistent and effective join-up between local authority, police and health services, and schools and other education and childcare settings and providers. We know that many education and childcare settings are well involved in their local safeguarding arrangements, but the position is inconsistent nationally, which can lead to missed opportunities to protect children. This change will improve join-up of children’s social care, police and health services with education, to better safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in local areas. It will also mean that all education and childcare settings must co-operate with safeguarding partners and ensure that those arrangements are fully understood and rigorously applied in their organisations. I hope that this clause has support from the Committee today.
- We welcome including education agencies in safeguarding arrangements under Clause 2 — schools are already the second largest referrer of cases to children's social care after the police, and teachers take this issue extraordinarily seriously. But I have specific questions about the smallest providers: childminders are often literally one-person businesses. Can the Government confirm that child protection meetings can continue to be held by video conference to make participation practical? What conversations has the Department had with these tiny organisations about how they'll participate without shutting down for the day? I'd also like the Government's response to Barnardo's argument that education should be made the *fourth* statutory safeguarding partner — the Independent Review of Children's Social Care recommended it. I understand the Government's position that no single organisation can represent the whole education sector, but that argument applies equally to the diversity within health. Can the Minister confirm that every local authority currently provides childminders with a direct line for raising concerns?
The Opposition do not have amendments to this clause, but we do have some questions. This change is generally a very good idea and we welcome it. I have sat where the Minister is sitting, so I am conscious that, even when a Minister wants to answer all the questions posed by the Opposition, it is sometimes impossible—but I hope, thinking about some of the questions in the last part of our proceedings, that she will continue to consider those and see whether she can get answers to them. I know it is utterly impossible to answer all these questions in real time. On the Opposition Benches, we welcome the inclusion of education agencies in safeguarding arrangements. All too often, the school is the one agency that sees the child daily and has a sense of when they are in need of protection or are in danger. Our conversations with schools all underline that. We have heard that they welcome this change and that it is a good thing. Last year, schools were the largest referrer of cases, after the police, to children’s social care, and I know from friends who are teachers just how seriously they take this issue. One of my teacher friends runs a sixth form and she spends her spare time reading serious case reviews, so I know that teachers take this issue deadly seriously, and we want to help them to have as much impact as they can. My questions relate to nurseries, particularly childminders, because this clause is about an extension to education, not just to schools. We understand that child protection meetings can take place via video conference to make them easier to attend. We would just like the Government to confirm and talk about what conversations they have had with those kinds of organisations, which are often literally one-woman bands, about how they will be able to participate, given their very limited staffing and the imperative to look after children in their care effectively. If the childminder has to go off to some meeting and are shutting down their business for…
- The Liberal Democrats strongly support Clause 2 — it is much needed. But I echo the question why education is not being made the fourth statutory safeguarding partner, which the Children's Commissioner and leading children's charities are pushing for.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will say very little on clause 2, because the Liberal Democrats strongly support and welcome it—it is much needed. However, I echo the official Opposition’s question why education and schools are not being made the fourth statutory safeguarding partner. I know that is something that the Children’s Commissioner and the various children’s charities that were quoted are pushing for. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.
- I can confirm that the impact assessments will be produced before the Committee ends, so there will be an opportunity to study them. On education as the fourth safeguarding partner: the education and childcare sector has no single point of accountability in the way that a local authority, health service or police force does — there is no organisation or individual that could take on that statutory partner role. Clause 2 therefore places a duty on the existing safeguarding partners to fully include and represent education at all levels of their arrangements, giving educational settings a clear role in safeguarding locally. The measure deliberately covers the full breadth of settings — early years, all primary and secondary schools, maintained and independent, academies, further education and alternative provision — so no child falls through the gaps. On childcare settings, including childminders: those arrangements will be more formal in some settings than in others, but it is important that we ensure no child is left out.
I thank Members for their contributions, and I appreciate the support—generally speaking—for the change. I can give the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston confidence that the impact assessments will be produced before the Committee has ended, so there will be an opportunity to study them. In response to his question, we are not making schools the fourth safeguarding partner with this measure. As the hon. Gentleman set out and appreciates, the education and childcare sector does not have a single point of accountability in the same way that a local authority, a health service or the police do. There is not currently an organisation or individual that can take on the role of a safeguarding partner. The measure is therefore crucial to ensuring that education is consistently involved in multi-agency safeguarding arrangements across England. It places a duty on safeguarding partners to fully include and represent education at all levels of their arrangements in order to ensure that opportunities to keep children safe are not missed. It gives educational settings a clear role in safeguarding locally. It is a vital step towards consistency in local areas, and sends out the clear message that education is fundamental at all levels of safeguarding arrangements. I appreciate the question that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston asked about childcare settings, and about childminders in particular. We deliberately ensured that the measure includes all educational settings, covering early years, childcare and all primary and secondary schools. It spans maintained and independent schools, academies, further education institutions, colleges and alternative provision. It is important that the measure covers the breadth of education and childcare settings in a local area to ensure that opportunities to help and protect children are not missed. I appreciate that, in some childcare settings, those arrangements will be more formal and practised than in others,…
- Amendments 1 to 5, in my name, make minor but necessary changes to Clause 3 to ensure primary legislation is consistent with the Children Act 2004. References to those who nominate individuals to multi-agency child protection teams should be to the safeguarding partners themselves — not to specific named roles such as the director of children's services — because it is the safeguarding partners who are best placed to make nominations and who carry the required expertise.
Amendments 1 to 5, in my name, relate to the nomination of individuals by safeguarding partners for multi-agency child protection teams. These important amendments ensure that primary legislation is consistent. To be consistent with the Children Act 2004, the reference to those who nominate should be to the safeguarding partners, not to specific roles. It is, after all, the safeguarding partners who are best placed to make the nomination for individuals, and have the required expertise in health, education, social work and policing. We will continue to use the statutory guidance, “Working together to safeguard children”, to provide further information on safeguarding partner roles and responsibilities, which will include nominating individuals in the multi-agency child protection teams. These amendments ensure consistency with the Children Act and set out that safeguarding partners are responsible for nominating individuals with the relevant knowledge, experience and expertise to multi-agency child protection teams.
- We completely understand and support what the Minister is doing with Amendments 1 and 2. Amendment 19 is ours: it would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the work and impact of multi-agency child protection teams — covering membership, activities, best practice, and the impact on information-sharing, risk identification and cross-agency join-up. We also have substantive questions about Clause 3 itself. What does the Government expect these teams actually *to do*, not just to meet and discuss? There is a huge difference between a single unitary authority with 40,000 residents like Rutland and a city like Birmingham — how many teams will there be in a large area, and can there be multiple teams within one local authority? How do these teams differ from existing multi-agency safeguarding hub teams, and will they be resourced to deal with all section 47 referrals? I'm also concerned about the geography: the clause allows two or more authorities to work together, but what about large authorities where a single team would be too thin? What is the expectation on how often these teams should meet — and should the regulations specify it? Finally: is the assumption that the same individuals attend every meeting? Having continuity is broadly right — the social worker or police officer who attends once and never returns cannot join the dots — but appointing specialists risks deskilling the wider workforce and eroding professional curiosity everywhere else.
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 5, line 3, at end insert— “16EC Report on work and impact of multi-agency child protection teams (1) The Secretary of State must report annually on the work and impact of multi-agency child protection teams. (2) A report under this section shall include analysis of — (a) the membership of multi-agency child protection teams; (b) the specific child protection activities undertaken by such teams; (c) best practice in multi-agency work; and (d) the impact of multi-agency child protection teams on — (i) information sharing; (ii) risk identification; and (iii) joining up services between children’s social care, police, health services, education and other agencies, including the voluntary sector.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on the effectiveness of multi-agency child protection teams.