🤔 Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Public Bill Committees

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

The parliamentary session focused on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, specifically discussing amendments to Clause 1 concerning family group decision-making. MPs debated the involvement of children in these meetings, with concerns about potential emotional harm and the need for discretion by local authorities. Amendments were also proposed to ensure the process does not delay care proceedings and to extend family group decision-making to the reunification stage. The session highlighted the government’s aim to reduce the number of children entering care by strengthening family-led planning before court proceedings.

Summary

  • Family Group Decision-Making Enhancement: The Bill proposes a requirement for local authorities to offer family group decision-making meetings to families before care proceedings are initiated. This aims to involve families, including extended family members, in planning for the welfare of children, potentially reducing the need for formal care proceedings.

  • Concerns and Amendments: Several amendments were proposed to refine the definition and process of family group decision-making. These included suggestions to strengthen the involvement of children in meetings, clarify the timing of these meetings, and ensure they do not delay necessary care proceedings. However, these amendments were not adopted.

  • Impact on Care Proceedings: The government believes that family group decision-making will reduce the number of children entering care by allowing families to address issues before reaching the court. A proposed amendment sought to clarify that this process would not extend the statutory 26-week limit for care proceedings, but it was rejected.

  • Support at Reunification: An amendment was proposed to mandate family group decision-making at the point of reunification when children return home from care. This was aimed at reducing the high rate of failed reunifications. However, the minister stated that while this is encouraged, it is not seen as necessary to enforce it through legislation.

  • Role of Education in Safeguarding: The Bill mandates that educational and childcare settings must be automatically included in local safeguarding arrangements to enhance multi-agency efforts in child protection. Concerns were raised about the practicality of this for small childcare providers like childminders.

  • Multi-Agency Child Protection Teams: The establishment of multi-agency child protection teams was discussed, with amendments made to ensure consistency with existing legislation. These teams will consist of representatives from social services, police, health, and other agencies to improve information sharing and response to child protection issues.

  • Calls for Reporting: An amendment called for the Secretary of State to report annually on the effectiveness of these multi-agency teams, detailing their activities, membership, and impact on child protection. This amendment was tabled to ensure accountability and effectiveness in new arrangements but was not pursued to a vote.

  • Further Legislative Discussions: The session paused with plans to continue discussing the Bill, including the role of multi-agency teams and other proposed amendments, indicating ongoing efforts to refine and improve child welfare policies through legislative means.

Divisiveness

The session exhibits notable disagreements across party lines, though not uniformly polarized. Key points of contention include:

  1. Child Inclusion in Meetings: Liberal Democrats (amendments 36, 37) clashed with Labour and Conservatives over whether children should presumptively attend family group meetings. Labour argued that mandating inclusion risks harm, while Conservatives emphasized professional discretion.

  2. Procedural Safeguards: Conservatives (amendment 18) sought to prevent delays in care proceedings, while Labour dismissed the amendment as redundant given existing systemic delays. The Greens (amendment 49) pushed for statutory reunification meetings, which the government rejected.

  3. Multi-Agency Teams: Opposition members raised concerns about implementation (e.g., resourcing, private law cases), while the government defended flexibility. Amendments 1-5 were technical and non-contentious.

  4. Partisan Divisions: Votes on amendments split along party lines (e.g., amendments 36 and 18 defeated by majority opposition), though consensus existed on core aims like reducing care entries. The Greens and Liberal Democrats advocated for broader reforms, while Labour and Conservatives focused on procedural guardrails.

Disagreement was substantial but not absolute, as all parties broadly supported family group decision-making in principle. The absence of maximal polarization (e.g., unanimous opposition) justifies a 4/5 rating.