Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Catherine Atkinson and Ellie Chowns

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

I too absolutely welcome this new duty to co-operate. It is really important in the context of the problems that competition over people’s heads has led to. I am, however, like others, a bit concerned about the vagueness of the way that it is specified in the legislation. I feel that it does not make it clear enough what the duty to co-operate actually means. Would the Minister consider making it more clear, such as specifying that the local authority becomes the admissions authority for all schools in the area? Would the Government also consider reforming the legacy of partial selection that is still there for some schools? Arguably, we should reform aptitude-based tests and other admissions tests, which evidence shows have led to inequalities in admissions.

[Catherine Atkinson]

The Bill represents a really important opportunity to strengthen the partnership working between schools and local authorities. As well as visiting schools across my constituency of Derby North, I visited Derby College and our university technical college—UTC. In looking at the opportunities and benefits that can be brought by better co-operation, would the Minister consider encouraging local authorities to assess fully 14 to 16 provision across all providers, to ensure that any gaps or barriers to accessing all those opportunities are considered? Could there also be potential consideration of offering opportunities for young people to study and train for part of the week in college settings? There is a real opportunity for our young people when we have better collaboration and co-operation on admissions.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Catherine Atkinson and Ellie Chowns

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine Atkinson]

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 note that it was the coalition Government’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 that cut all legal aid for private family law cases unless there are allegations of abuse. Out-of-court or pre-proceeding discussions and settlements, and the involvement of professionals, have therefore become far harder since 2012.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

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 identify solutions, develop a plan and build a network of support around the child. It can empower families to take ownership of the challenges that they face, and foster collaborative work with professionals that promotes the safety and wellbeing of the child while also amplifying the child’s voice. My argument is that that is as important towards the end of a care process as it is at the beginning.

Family group decision making is well established and recognised as best practice by professionals. We already have clear evidence on its effectiveness, and we are awaiting more, as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said. However, the lack of a statutory duty to offer it has led to patchy practice across the country. One third of local authorities do not offer family group decision making at all during reunification. Amendment 49 addresses that gap. It would ensure that every family in England has the opportunity to benefit from that approach. The requirement in the amendment is to offer it; it does not impose any sort of time limit.

Some Members might worry about the practicalities or cost of introducing the duty, but as I have already explained, the breakdown of family reunification is an incredibly costly process, both financially and for the child’s welfare. The amendment is a financial cost-saving measure as well as a child-centred one. Research shows that providing support to meet a family’s needs during reunification costs just £7,857 per child. By contrast, the cost of a single reunification breakdown is £105,000. Amendment 49 would be

The amendment is practical and allows for professional judgment, recognising that every family is different. Where a meeting is not in a child’s best interests, the local authority would be exempt from the duty to make the offer, and that flexibility ensures that the needs of children always come first. The amendment also complements existing provisions in the Bill. It effectively mirrors the duty to offer family group decision making before care proceedings, and therefore offers a coherent support framework at both ends of the care process—effectively bookending it. It brings much-needed consistency to a fragmented system.

With more children in care than ever before, as we have noted, and with children’s services under immense strain, the amendment represents a real opportunity. By embedding family group decision making we can enable more families to stay together, reduce the number of children returning to care, which is an incredibly damaging process, and relieve pressure on an overstretched system, all while delivering better outcomes for those children. This is about fairness, consistency, investing in what works and ensuring that all reunifying families, not just some, are given the help they need. It is about recognising the importance of successful reunification within the care process. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on the proposal and the other questions raised this morning.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Catherine Atkinson and Ellie Chowns

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

Q Clause 8 specifies that local authorities need to set out a local offer. You have talked about the need to avoid fragmentation, and about corporate responsibility across the country and across Departments. Would you like to see the Bill amended to require a national offer of support to care leavers, and what do you think should be in it?

Ruth Stanier: We certainly would want to see corporate parenting duties extended at a national level to Government Departments and relevant public sector bodies. We think that is incredibly important. Otherwise, we are very much supportive of the measures in the Bill in respect of the kinship offer, though we think it is important that there is a clear threshold for that support so that it is realistic and affordable and can be implemented.

Andy Smith: I would support that. A national offer for care leavers is an interesting concept. There should be some absolute minimum requirements we expect in an offer, and I think you would broadly see that in many councils in what is provided for children in care and for care leavers. It is usually co-produced with representatives who were care leavers, and with councils and so on. I think that would be an important reflection within the context of a much broader understanding of corporate parenting.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Q We heard in earlier evidence that spending on early intervention has reduced while crisis costs have significantly increased. What do you think will be the impact of early intervention, including family group decision making, primarily on outcomes but also, in the longer term, on costs?

Ruth Stanier: We very much think that the measures in the Bill will help to pull funding to the left, further upstream into prevention. We warmly welcome the Government’s recent investment in the children’s prevention grant. We think that the measures should help to improve outcomes and reduce costs over the longer term.

Andy Smith: It is absolutely a false economy not to invest in early help and early intervention. We know that the evidence base is so strong on children escalating into higher-cost services. My authority has invested in early help services, and we have an edge of care team that targets children on the edge of the care system. When we are able to prevent them from going into care, we track the cost avoidance, looking at what a typical placement might have cost. We have saved in excess of £5 million over the last three years in cost avoidance.

The case is well argued. The challenge is that councils are at different starting points because of the way in which funding has been eroded over the last 10 years and the fact that many councils have to prioritise the higher-cost services, which often take away from early intervention. It is a false economy. If we can get the funding right, the Bill offers us an opportunity to invest in family help and early help services and start to see impacts much more consistently. We are beginning to see some of that from the 12 Families First pilots that are taking place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

Q Or even beyond 21.

Jacky Tiotto: Well, yes.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Q We have seen the number of children in care rising really significantly. Looking at the child protection measures, the kinship clauses and the family group conferencing, what do you feel the overall impact of Bill will be on the numbers of children in care?

Jacky Tiotto: It is difficult. We have primary legislation in the Children Act 1989 that says that, in this country, we think the best place for children is growing up in their family or with relatives. When the 30-year review of the Children Act happened, people still signed up to that; this Bill definitely reminds us and provokes that intention again.

The difficulty is that the formality around protecting children is burdensome, rightly so. So in my view some of the construction of this has to be a bit more thoughtful about the children who are going to do well in their families and the children who are not going to stand a chance and need, quickly, to move to permanence and to other places.

Residential care is not doing particularly well for children with very special needs. We struggle to recruit foster carers because the resources around them are not there. It is the shape of what is around those other places, not residential care, that needs to be elevated, in order to reduce the number of children coming into care. Just having family group decision-making conferences or kinship alone is not enough; I do not know anyone saying it is.

I do not know how many of you are familiar with the chief social worker paper from a few years ago called “Care proceedings in England: the case for clear blue water”. A very good, strong case was made for, “Don’t come into court with children where it is going to end up either with them back at home or with a supervision order that gives no statutory power to the local authority. Come into court for the kids that really need a care order and protection and to go somewhere.” We could revisit the extent to which that is an effective situation.

A third of children who come into family proceedings now either remain at home or go back home. I make no judgment about that, but a third of children going through family proceedings is expensive. We need to think about what the point at issue was and what was needed at the time. Will the serving of that order deal with the problem at the time? Often, what has gone wrong in child protection will not be solved by just making a court order, particularly a supervision order. I could be here for a long time on that, but that is another Bill, probably another day.