🤝 Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

• The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill was reviewed in a parliamentary session, focusing on improving children’s welfare and education policies.
• Key discussions included the implementation of a register for home-educated pupils to ensure their right to education and safeguarding, particularly for those with special educational needs.
• The bill proposes a mandatory family group decision-making meeting before local authorities can apply for a court order, aiming to involve families more in child welfare decisions. However, concerns were raised about potential delays in urgent cases.
• Breakfast clubs in primary schools were supported, but there were queries about funding and how they would integrate with existing club structures, as well as the continuation of breakfast programs in secondary schools.
• The establishment of multi-agency child protection teams was discussed, aiming to strengthen local safeguarding arrangements, with a call for adequate funding and resources.
• Witnesses stressed the need for earlier and more systematic wellbeing measurements for children, to identify those who are vulnerable and support their needs more effectively.
• Support for kinship carers was another focus, with suggestions for more consistent and substantial help to encourage relatives to take on caregiving roles.
• There was a call to expand free school meals eligibility beyond the age of 16 and to families receiving universal credit, to address child hunger more effectively.
• Questions were raised about the impact on recruitment and retention of teachers due to proposed changes in qualified teacher status and school pay and conditions.
• There were discussions on the need to ensure consistent and high-quality education for all children, including those in academy schools and those with special educational needs.
• The bill aims to mandate regular reviews for children under deprivation of liberty orders, especially for younger children, to safeguard their rights and wellbeing.
• Witnesses suggested amendments to involve CAFCASS more directly in recommending suitable provisions for children in care, such as Staying Close and Staying Put programs.

The session displayed a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered around specific clauses and potential amendments within the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. While there was a general consensus on the importance and positive intent of the Bill, specific issues were debated, indicating differing views and calls for amendments. Here are the key points of disagreement and the rationale behind the rating:

1. Family Group Decision Making (Clause 1):
   • Disagreement: There was significant discussion about the timing of mandatory family group decision-making meetings. Neil O’Brien expressed concern that mandating these meetings at the point of seeking a court order might be too late and could delay critical decision-making for vulnerable children. Dr. Carol Homden and Jacky Tiotto agreed, suggesting that such meetings should occur earlier in the process to be effective and beneficial.
   • Example: Neil O’Brien questioned whether the clause should be amended so that family group meetings are mandated at the point of initial child protection conversations rather than at the application stage for a court order.
2. Elective Home Education (Clause 25):
   • Disagreement: Concerns were raised about the detailed information required from parents, and the potential impact on children with special educational needs. Andy Smith indicated that while the register was necessary, the level of detail demanded might not be sufficient to ensure safeguarding and could be burdensome for parents and authorities.
   • Example: Munira Wilson and Andy Smith discussed whether the extensive information requirements would genuinely improve safeguarding or merely create administrative complexity.
3. Breakfast Clubs and Free School Meals:
   • Disagreement: The exact implementation and funding for breakfast clubs and extending free school meals were points of debate. Concerns about primary vs. secondary school provisions and the need for clear, sustained funding were highlighted.
   • Example: Damian Hinds and Julie McCulloch discussed the ambiguity surrounding secondary school breakfast clubs and the necessity for secure funding for the holiday activities and food programme.
4. Qualified Teacher Status (QTS):
   • Disagreement: The requirement for teachers to have or work towards QTS was debated, particularly concerning potential impacts on recruitment and retention. Julie McCulloch and Paul Whiteman indicated that while they support QTS, the current crisis might necessitate some flexibility.
   • Example: Neil O’Brien and Julie McCulloch discussed how the requirement might exacerbate the shortage of teachers in certain subjects or areas.
5. Safeguarding and Multi-Agency Teams:
   • Disagreement: The effectiveness and resourcing of multi-agency child protection teams were discussed, with general support but also calls for clearer guidance and resource allocation.
   • Example: Amanda Martin’s question about the impact of creating a duty for safeguarding partnerships to establish multi-agency teams led to discussions on whether this would truly enhance local integration and child-centered decision-making.
6. Funding and New Burdens on Local Authorities:
   • Disagreement: There was a consensus on the need for proper funding for new duties, but disagreement on whether the Bill explicitly addresses this through the new burdens doctrine.
   • Example: Neil O’Brien and Ruth Stanier’s exchange emphasized the importance of the new burdens doctrine and the need for detailed cost estimates before implementation.

The disagreements were not adversarial but rather focused on improving the Bill through amendments and clarifications. The level of disagreement is rated as moderate because the discussions were constructive and aimed at refining the Bill rather than outright opposition to its principles.