🛡️ Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fifth sitting)

• The Committee discussed amendments to Clause 7 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, focusing on the provision of “staying close support” for young people leaving care. An amendment was proposed to ensure local authorities consider the wishes of young people and keep a record of them when providing support.

• Concerns were raised about the consistency of local authority decision-making on whether to offer staying close support, with suggestions that the assumption should be to offer support unless there are exceptions.

• There was discussion about the identification of a “trusted person” to support care leavers, and whether digital options for communication should be made available to young people.

• The importance of involving local charities with long-term links to care leavers was highlighted, along with questions about funding for such involvement.

• Amendments were proposed to include financial support and literacy, as well as supported lodgings, in the definition of staying close support. These amendments aim to help care leavers understand and access the financial support available.

• The Minister responded by stating that existing statutory guidance already requires local authorities to consider care leavers’ wishes and provide financial support. Further guidance will clarify the implementation of staying close support.

• Clause 8 of the Bill was discussed, which requires local authorities to publish a “local offer” detailing how they will support care leavers in transitioning to independent living, including access to housing and essential services.

• A proposal for a “national offer” for care leavers was discussed, which would detail what support care leavers are entitled to across England. The Minister mentioned that a care leaver ministerial board is working on improving outcomes, including employment opportunities.

• Concerns were raised about the consistency of cooperation between local housing and children’s services departments, and whether the local offer should be standardized nationally.

• Clause 9 introduced the concept of “regional co-operation arrangements” to improve the planning and commissioning of children’s care places. The aim is to increase local and regional sufficiency of care placements and reduce placement of children far from home.

• Concerns were raised about the potential impact on smaller providers and the need for clarity on how these arrangements would differ from existing local authority collaborations.

• Clause 10 focuses on the use of accommodation for the deprivation of liberty of children. An amendment was proposed to ensure that therapeutic treatment is provided to children in secure accommodation.

• Concerns were raised about the increasing use of deprivation of liberty orders, particularly for very young children, and the need for clear legal frameworks and guidance. Suggestions included more frequent reviews for younger children and automatic child protection plans.

• Clauses 11 and 12 aim to strengthen Ofsted’s regulatory powers over children’s homes and their parent undertakings. These measures are intended to enhance accountability and enforcement, including the power to issue monetary penalties for non-compliance.

• Discussions emphasized the underlying issue of a shortage of foster care and the need to increase foster carer numbers to reduce reliance on expensive children’s homes. Suggestions included reviewing the foster carer approval process and exploring mixed care models.

• There were concerns about the proposed improvement plan system potentially becoming bureaucratic and delaying swift action in cases of serious non-compliance. Clarifications were sought on the definition of “reasonable suspicion” and the process for issuing fines.

• The need for accountability of local authorities, as well as providers, was highlighted, particularly in relation to the use of unregistered homes. Suggestions included using fines to fund support for looked-after children.

The session of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fifth sitting) exhibits moderate levels of disagreement, warranting a rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 5. Below is the detailed reasoning for this rating, along with examples of the disagreements observed throughout the session.

1. Amendment Discussions and Votes: There are clear disagreements over several proposed amendments. For instance, Neil O’Brien moved amendment 23, which sought to require local authorities to take account of the wishes of the relevant young person when providing staying close support. This amendment was debated, and ultimately, the division resulted in a 5 to 11 vote, indicating a significant disagreement on whether this amendment should be included in the Bill.

   • Example: “Neil O’Brien: I would like to push amendment 23 to a vote. […] Question put, That the amendment be made. Division 4 […] Ayes: 5 Noes: 11 Question accordingly negatived.”

2. Policy Concerns and Suggested Improvements: Members expressed concerns and suggested amendments to various clauses, reflecting divergent views on how to effectively address the needs of care leavers and children in secure accommodation. While there was consensus on many points about the importance of aiding care leavers, there were differences in opinion regarding the specifics of implementing policies and regulations.

   • Example: Neil O’Brien questioned the provisions in Clause 10 regarding deprivation of liberty for children, proposing amendment 24 to add a duty to provide therapeutic treatment. The Minister responded positively to some aspects of the concerns raised but noted the existing legal duties which made the amendment unnecessary in his view. The amendment was put to a vote and rejected, highlighting disagreement.

3. Interrogation of Regulatory Approaches: Members raised questions about the proposed regulatory changes, such as Ofsted’s new powers to hold provider groups accountable and the use of monetary penalties. There was a disagreement on the effectiveness and potential unintended consequences of these regulatory measures.

   • Example: Neil O’Brien raised concerns about the bureaucratic nature of the improvement plan process proposed in Clause 11 and the potential delays it might cause. He questioned the necessity and efficacy of the new regulatory measures, showing disagreement with the government’s approach.

4. General Support with Constructive Criticism: While there is broad support for the objectives of the Bill, members engaged in a detailed scrutiny of the specifics, with various suggestions for improvements that were not always aligned with the government’s approach. This constructive criticism indicates disagreement over the best strategies to achieve common goals.

   • Example: Munira Wilson expressed support for the intent of Clause 9 but sought more information and safeguards to ensure its effectiveness in keeping children closer to their families. This represents a disagreement over the specifics of how the policy should be implemented.

5. Limited Explicit Conflicts: Despite the disagreements noted, direct confrontational conflicts or highly contentious debates were absent. Members engaged in a cooperative manner, aiming to refine the Bill to enhance child welfare, which is why the disagreement cannot be rated higher.

In conclusion, while the session showed agreement on the broad objectives of improving care for children and care leavers, the disagreements centered around the specifics of amendments, regulatory approaches, and the potential impact of proposed policies. This merits a rating of 3 due to the moderate level of disagreement without extreme conflict.