Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

Q Good morning. The first question is to you, Carol. On introduction of the Bill, Coram said:

“This Bill presents a new opportunity for services and agencies supporting vulnerable children to work together and make this a reality.”

Will you outline the key measures that you feel support that in the Bill?

Dr Homden: Clearly, there are a number of ways in which the Bill seeks to do that. Quite often what we are looking for here is a strengthening of approaches that reinforce integrated working in local arrangements. There is a question in our mind, which you have clearly considered, about whether it is essential for education to be treated as a core partner in safeguarding. Our consideration is that under article 4 of the European convention on human rights, schools have a protective duty, but this should not diminish the clarity and reinforcement of the importance of roles being defined locally and of the activation of best practice in those circumstances.

I repeat that in many areas, and especially in relation to school exclusion, where it is particularly critical that the roles of schools are appreciated in relation to criminal exploitation, our suggestion to you is that direct access to advocacy for these young people may be a more timely and potentially more sufficient approach, to complement local arrangements in supporting young people’s safeguarding.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q What consideration have you given to the impact that creating a duty for safeguarding partners to make arrangements to establish multi-agency child protection teams will have?

Dr Homden: Having a duty most generally would be reinforcement of the fact that these arrangements are expected and required. The duty does not in itself necessarily prejudge the nature of those local arrangements, but it does place a really clear focus on the need to have those arrangements and to make sure that they are functioning properly. We would be pleased to send you some additional reflections on that, if that would be helpful.

I do want to raise one point in relation to safeguarding, which is that we are concerned because the Bill does present an important opportunity, potentially, to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement for children, and in our view, this opportunity should not be missed.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q Anne, the Centre for Young Lives has welcomed the Bill, stating:

“It addresses issues we have been very concerned about over many years, including vulnerable children falling through the gaps and into danger.”

Will you elaborate on how you feel the Bill better protects children and keeps them safe?

Anne Longfield: I am pleased to say that safeguarding does clearly run through the whole Bill. Engagement in the kind of activities around school in the community is one of the ways that children will be safeguarded. The register is something that I campaigned for and has been committed to for some time, so I am very pleased to see that in there. It is not a silver bullet when it comes to children who are out of school, because they are often out of school for a reason and that does not divert from the root causes. But none the less, that is a very welcome move.

On the link between poverty and non-attendance in school, in our experience there is a great link to parents being very worried about not being able to afford branded uniform. That, again, is supported in the Bill. There are various measures around children’s social care as well, including the partnerships that we have just discussed.

There is a clear reset around early intervention, which we very much welcome, and around a much greater co-ordination and relationship between schools—whatever their structures—and local partners. That can only add to the safety of children. There is a lot of interest in the potential to add a wellbeing measure, which would further strengthen the Bill’s ability to be able to identify those children who are vulnerable, and enable those partnerships and services to be able to respond. That would be a very welcome addition.

That would also support the whole ambition around belonging for children. For those children who are falling through the gaps, it would give them an opportunity to have their voices heard. I am thinking, for example, about the almost a million children who end up NEET—not in education, employment or training. None of us wants to see that for them at that early age. Their involvement in advocating for their own experience of careers and other services would be very welcome. That is part of the engine that would drive many of the ambitions in the Bill, so that addition in itself would be very much welcomed.

Dr Homden: I would support that. Coram also supports the introduction of the register for home-educated pupils as the critical protection to children’s right to education and safeguarding. That should include children with special educational needs and disabilities, since all too often, home education feels like the only option available in the context of risks to the child from their anxiety, self-harm or bullying and, where appropriate, school places being not available or, commonly, not resourced.

We would also further support the reintroduction of the national adoption register to ensure that all children waiting receive a proactive matching service without sequential, geographical or financial decision making being involved in that.

I reinforce and support what Anne said about the importance of measurements of wellbeing. It is clear from our research that young people’s wellbeing is associated with being included in decision making. That needs to be thought about in relation to the family group decision-making process for older young people. It gives them a much greater sense of traction and optimism for the future.

[The Chair]

My main objective is to try to get all the Back Benchers in, so we want crisp questions. It is very important that everybody feels they can get in. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

Q What do you think the problem is that that measure is trying to solve?

Julie McCulloch: In our view, it is right that there should be a core national entitlement curriculum for all children and young people; we think that is the right thing to do. The devil is in the detail—we are going through a curriculum review at the moment. Our view is that that entitlement is important—on the ground it might not make an enormous amount of difference, but it is still important.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q When it comes to school admissions, do you think the measures in the Bill will help local authorities to fulfil their statutory duties? Could you comment on how you think it will impact on children and schools?

Paul Whiteman: We do think it will help local authorities—we think there has been a gap in terms of their ability to ensure that their admissions duty is fully met. To that extent, the difficulty of some parents to find the school that their children really should go to has been fettered. Therefore, we think these provisions are broadly sensible and to be welcomed.

Julie McCulloch: We agree. The more join-up we can have between local authorities and schools on admissions the better; there are some areas where that is working really well already, and there are others where that statutory duty might help.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q Great. From your experience, do you think it is important that a school’s individual circumstances are taken into account when you are determining the best and appropriate action to drive school improvement where a school may be under--performing, such as whether it is a maintained school? Do you consider that conversion to an academy by default might not always be in the best interests of every school and the children within it?

Paul Whiteman: It is important to preface my answer by saying that the success of academies can be seen, and the improvement is very real, but it is not always the only way to improve schools. We have held that belief for a very long time. With the extent to which we rely on data to support one argument or the other—of course, it has been the only option for so very long, and the data is self-serving in that respect.

Academisation is not always a silver bullet, and does not always work according to the locality, status or circumstances of the school. We absolutely think that different options are available. The introduction of the Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence teams to offer different support and different ways of support is to be welcomed to see if that is better. Academisation has not always been a silver bullet, but it is really important to preface by saying that that is not an attack on the academy system—there are very good academies and there are excellent local authority maintained schools as well, and we should make sure that we pick the right option for the schooling difficulty.

Julie McCulloch: I would start in the same place. It is important to recognise the extent to which the expertise and capacity to improve schools does now sit within multi-academy trusts—not exclusively, but that is where a lot of that capacity sits at the moment. It is important to make sure that we do not do anything that undermines that, but our long-standing position is that accountability measures should not lead to automatic consequences, and that there does need to be a nuanced conversation on a case-by-case basis about the best way to help a struggling school to improve, which we welcome. There are some challenges. I think some members have raised some questions about whether that slows down a process to the detriment of the children and young people in those schools who most need support; clearly that would not be a good place to find ourselves. However, in principle that sort of nuance is welcome.

Paul Whiteman: It is worth adding that we do have examples of schools that are in difficult circumstances where an academy chain cannot be found to accept them, because the challenge is too difficult for an academy to really want to get hold of them.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Leaving aside the register, looking at the schools part of the Bill—and knowing the challenges your members up and down the country face—do you think it has the right priorities in terms of the issues we need to be tackling across schools and colleges?

Julie McCulloch: I think it has some important priorities, and the ones you highlighted are first among them—the register, for example. There are certainly other issues that our members would raise with us as being burning platforms at the moment. SEND is absolutely top of that list, with recruitment and retention close behind, and probably accountability third. Those are the three issues that our members raise as the biggest challenges. There are some really important measures in the Bill that talk to some of those concerns. Certainly, there are some things in the Bill that might help with recruitment and retention. But it is fair to reflect the fact that our members are keen to quickly see more work around some of those burning platforms.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

It will help if those Members who wanted to ask a question last time but were not called indicate if they want to ask a question in this session.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

Q Is Ofsted pleased to see the measures in this Bill, in the round?

Sir Martyn Oliver: Yes, absolutely. We very much welcome the introduction of the Bill, which will deliver some of the important legislative asks that Ofsted has made for a long time, especially to keep the most vulnerable safe and learning. That includes removing loopholes that enable illegal schools to operate, improving Ofsted’s powers to investigate unregistered schools that we suspect may be operating illegally, enabling Ofsted to fine unregistered children’s homes for operating unsafe and unregulated accommodation for vulnerable children, introducing a register of children not in school—I could go on. We are very happy with large parts of the Bill.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q You have already set out the impact that the Bill will have on Ofsted’s powers. I imagine that you spend a large proportion of your time worrying about the most vulnerable children in society. What do you think will be the impact of the Bill on those children who are most in need?

Sir Martyn Oliver: Our top priority is the most disadvantaged and vulnerable. The ability to look at illegal or unregistered settings, unregistered children’s homes and illegal schools is hugely important. When they are out of Ofsted’s line of sight, it causes us great concern. I think that this Bill or a future Bill could go further and look at unregistered alternative provision, because all children educated anywhere for the majority of their time should be in sight of the inspectorate or a regulator. I do think that we will see significant issues with addressing the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, especially in part 1, on children’s social care.

[Munira Wilson]

Q You talked about the additional powers that you are being given, and you mentioned AP as an area where you would like it to go further. Is there anywhere else where you would like it to go further? Importantly, do you feel that Ofsted has the capacity and capability to deliver on all this? When I talk to local government, I often hear that there are quite a lot of delays with Ofsted.

Sir Martyn Oliver: We think that there are grey areas where the legislation will help us get it right, but we do think that we can go further. For example, the feasibility and administrative costs of carrying out searches of illegal schools and the requirement of getting a warrant would be very burdensome for Ofsted, and we will need additional resource to manage that. It is massively important. We will always use those powers proportionately and with care. For example, in a commercial setting, the ability to have different powers that allow us to search without a warrant would be far more reasonable. Obviously, in a domestic setting, I would expect safeguarding measures to be in place and to require a warrant, because forcing an entry into somebody’s private home is entirely different from doing so in a commercial premises. There are resources there, but I am assured that my team, particularly my two policy colleagues here, have been working with the Department for quite some time on these asks. We have been building our measures and building that into our future spending review commitment as well.

Yvette Stanley: To build on what Martyn has just said, from a social care perspective we would like to go further on the standards for care. National minimum standards are not good enough; the standards should apply based on the vulnerability of and risk to children. A disabled child in a residential special school should not be getting a different level of support: the same safeguards should be in place whether they are in a children’s home or in a residential special school.

We would like to go further on corporate parenting. That is something to be addressed. We would also like to look at regional care co-operatives and regional adoption agencies. Those things tend to fall out of our purview as an inspectorate. There is a range of really detailed things, but to echo what Martyn says, we are working actively with our DFE policy colleagues to give our very best advice through the Bill process to strengthen these things wherever possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We do not want to go too far into the curriculum today, because it is not really part of the Bill.

Paul Barber: I will keep my remarks brief. We have a very clear understanding of what a curriculum is in a Catholic school. It is very much a broad, balanced and holistic curriculum in which there are no siloes and the curriculum subjects interact with each other. There is of course the centrality of RE, which you mentioned. We are hopeful that the review will provide a framework within which we will be able to deliver alongside other views of curricula in other schools.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q Thank you for being here today. What is your assessment generally of the impact of the Bill on faith schools?

Nigel Genders: The Church of England’s part of the sector is very broad in that of the 4,700 schools that we provide, the vast majority of our secondary schools are already academies, and less than half of our primary schools, which are by far the biggest part of that number, are academies. We would like to see the system develop in a way that, as is described in the Bill, brings consistency across the piece. In terms of the impact on our schools, my particular worry will be with the small rural primary schools. Sorry to go on about statistics, but of the small rural primary schools in the country—that is schools with less than 210 children—the Church of England provides 65%.

The flexibilities that schools gain by joining a multi-academy trust, enabling them to deploy staff effectively across a whole group of schools and to collaborate and work together, is something that we really value. What we would not like to see is a watering down of the opportunities for that kind of collaboration. We set out our vision for education in a document called “Our Hope for a Flourishing School System”. Our vision is of widespread collaboration between trusts, and between trusts and academies. The diocesan family of schools is one where that collaboration really happens.

We want to ensure that this attempt to level the playing field in terms of the freedoms available to everyone is a levelling-up rather than a levelling down. I know that the Secretary of State commented on this in the Select Committee last week. I also know that the notes and comments around this Bill talk about those freedoms being available to everybody, but, for me, the Bill does not reflect that. It is not on the face of the Bill that this is about levelling-up. In terms of risk to our sector, I would like to see some reassurance that this is about bringing those freedoms and flexibility for innovation to the whole of our sector because we are equally spread across academies and maintained schools.

Paul Barber: Equally, we have a large foot in both camps. Slightly different in shape, we are involved in all sectors of the school system but the vast majority of our schools are either maintained schools or academies. Currently academies make up just over half. Because our academy programmes are led by dioceses in a strategic way, we buck the national trend in that the number of our primary schools, secondary schools, and academies is almost identical. I agree with what Nigel said. This is a jigsaw of many parts. What we need is an overall narrative into which these reforms fit. It was good yesterday to be able to sign the “Improving Education Together partnership”, to collaborate with the Government in a closer way to create that narrative.

[Munira Wilson]

Q I want to pick up on the faith cap issue that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston raised. The 50% faith cap for all new free schools was a policy put in place by the coalition Government. There are concerns that the provisions in this Bill to allow other providers to open new schools would mean that the faith cap does not apply to them. Nigel, I know you are on the record as saying that Church of England schools should be inclusive and serve the whole local community. What do you think will be the impact of losing that faith cap, and should we be putting in an amendment to ensure that the cap is in place for all new schools?

Nigel Genders: I have a couple of things to say on that, if I may. I think where this Bill makes a statement in terms of legislative change is in the ability for any new school not to have to be a free school. That opens up the possibility of voluntary-aided and voluntary-controlled schools as well as community schools and free schools. In each of those cases, you are right, our priority is serving that local community. It is an irony that there is a part of the Bill about new schools when, actually, most of the pressure is from surplus places rather than looking for more places. In particular areas of the country where there is rapid population and housing growth, or in areas of disadvantage and need, we would be really keen to have every option to open a school. I am concerned to ensure that local authorities are given the capacity to manage that process effectively, if they are the arbiters of that competition process in the future.

For us, opening a new school, which we do quite regularly as we are passionate about involvement in the education system, is done with the commitment to provide places for the locality. Where schools can make a case for a different model, and in other faith communities as well, which I am sure Paul will go on to say, is for them to do. Our position is that a Church school is for the whole community and we will seek to deliver that under the 50% cap.

Paul Barber: As I understand the Bill, it removes the academy presumption, so if a local authority runs a competition, there has to be a preference for academies. The provision for providers to propose new schools independently of that has always existed, currently exists and is not being changed, as I understand it, in this legislation as drafted.

In terms of the provision of new schools, we are in a slightly different position because we are the largest minority community providing schools primarily for that community but welcoming others. Our schools are in fact the most diverse in the country. Ethnically, linguistically, socioeconomically and culturally, they are more diverse than any other type of school. We provide new schools where there is a need for that school—where there is a parental wish for a Catholic education. We are very proud of the fact that that demand now comes from not just the Catholic community, but a much wider range of parents who want what we offer. We would not propose a new school, and we have a decades-long track record of working with local authorities to work out the need for additional places.

Admissions is one half of a complex thing; the other is provision of places. Our dioceses work very closely with local authorities to determine what kind of places are needed. That might mean expansion or contraction of existing schools. Sometimes, it might mean a new school. If it means a new school, we will propose a new Catholic school only where there are sufficient parents wanting that education to need a new Catholic school. The last one we opened was in East Anglia in 2022. It was greatly appreciated by the local community, which was clamouring for that school to be opened. That is our position on the provision of new schools. We will try to provide new schools whenever parents want the education that we are offering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

Q What I am getting at is that we need to change the Bill as it is currently drafted by officials, in order to achieve those things.

Leora Cruddas: Yes, I would say that was true.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q I want to ask a question about admissions initially, which can go to any of you. Do you think it is important for schools to at least co-operate with local authorities on school admissions and place planning, in your experience?

Rebecca Leek: I can only tell you, from my experience, that there is a lot of collaboration where I work. We have Suffolk Education Partnership, which is made up of local authority representatives, associations, CEOs and headteachers. Admissions are not really my area, in this Bill, but my experience is that there is collaboration. We are always looking to place children and make sure that they have somewhere if they are permanently excluded. There is real commitment in the sector to that, from my experience where I work.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q Do you think that is important?

Rebecca Leek: Yes, I do.

Jane Wilson: I agree with that completely. We work with our local authorities and follow the local admission arrangements in all of them. We think it is really important, and we obviously want children to get places in school very quickly.

Leora Cruddas: The duty to co-operate does that. We really welcome that duty.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q This question is probably more for you, Leora, but if other people have comments, they are perfectly welcome. I understand that many small trusts are free to follow the school teacher pay and conditions document without variation. Does that indicate that the current pay and conditions framework is working for those trusts?

Leora Cruddas: Thank you for that important question. Our position as the Confederation of School Trusts is that we must not just think about the practice as it is now, but consider what we want to achieve in the future. The freedom, flexibility and agility that Rebecca talked about is important if we are to ensure that leaders have the flexibility to do what is right in their context to raise standards for children. It is also important in terms of creating a modern workforce. We know that we have a recruitment and retention crisis. We know that there is a growing gap between teacher pay and graduate pay, and that the conditions for teaching are perhaps less flexible in some ways than in other public sector and private sector roles. So it is incumbent upon us to think about how attractive teaching is as a profession and think in really creative ways about how we can ensure that teaching is an attractive, flexible, brilliant profession, where we bring to it our moral purpose, but also create the conditions that the workforce of the future would find desirable and attractive.

[Munira Wilson]

Q May I start with you, Leora? I want to ask the same question that I asked the academy leaders who came before you. As a membership organisation representing academy trusts, were you consulted on the provisions in the Bill relating to academies, either formally or informally?

Leora Cruddas: The conversations that we would be having with any Government prior to a policy being announced or a Bill being laid are typically quite confidential. There is also something about what you mean by the term “consultation”. We did have conversations with the Government, and those conversations were constructive and remained constructive. I would say that CST is committed to continuing to work with the Government to get the Bill to the right place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

Q What is the problem?

David Thomas: I have worked with some fantastic people—generally late-career people in shortage subjects who want to go and give back in the last five to 10 years of their career—who would not go through some of the bureaucracy associated with getting qualified teacher status but are absolutely fantastic and have brought wonderful things to a school and to a sector. I have seen them change children’s lives. We know we have a flow of 600 people a year coming into the sector like that. If those were 600 maths teachers and you were to lose that, that would be 100,000 fewer children with a maths teacher. None of us knows what we would actually lose, but that is a risk that, in the current system, where we are so short of teachers, I would choose not to take.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q You have previously written about the value of ensuring that teachers can do some of their work from home, specifically marking and planning, so do you support the Government’s direction of travel in ensuring that greater flexibility and flexible working is available to more teachers and more schools?

David Thomas: Yes. I find it very odd how little flexibility lots of teachers are given. As a headteacher I remember teachers asking me questions such as, “Am I allowed to leave site to do my marking?” and I thought, “Why are you asking me this? You are an adult”. I absolutely agree with that direction of travel, but I do not see that reflected in the wording of the Bill, so I think there is an exercise to be done to make sure that that is reflected in the Bill. Otherwise, the risk is that it does not become the actual direction of travel.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q You said some months ago that deciding what to teach is a value judgment, and reasonable people would teach different things, because they value them differently. Is that still a view you hold, and therefore do you also hold that it is not unreasonable to ensure both that there is a common core national curriculum and that that curriculum is periodically updated?

David Thomas: I absolutely still hold that view. I think that, as I said earlier, a core purpose of education is to ensure that people have a core body of knowledge that means they can interact with each other. That is really important. I think that we should update the curriculum and not hold it as set in stone.

My concern would be that the legislative framework around the national curriculum does not ensure that the national curriculum is a core high-level framework or a core body of knowledge. It is simply defined in legislation, which I have on a piece of paper in front of me, that the national curriculum is just “such programmes of study” as the Secretary of State “considers appropriate” for every subject. We have a convention that national curriculum reviews are done by an independent panel in great detail with great consultation, but that is just a convention, and there is no reason why that would persist in future. I would worry about giving any future Government—of course, legislation stays on the statute book beyond yours—the ability to set exactly what is taught in every single school in the country, because that goes beyond the ability to set a high-level framework. I agree with the intention of what you are setting out, but there would need to be further changes to legislation to make that actually the case.

[Amanda Martin]

Q I have a question in two parts, but before I ask it, when we come to this Committee, we have to make declarations of interest. Can I confirm that you were the Conservative party candidate for Norwich South in the last election?

David Thomas: Yes, that is correct.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Hayes]

In that case, can Mr O’Brien remind me of his constituency? [Interruption.] The acoustics in this room are quite bad, so I did not catch all of that, but I will write the constituency down next time; I apologise, Sir Christopher. I have listened carefully to what the Opposition spokesperson said, and take his point about wanting to assess the number of children who will no longer be in care as a result of these measures.

Let me broaden the debate out. A significant reason for care proceedings is that parents are experiencing mental ill health, so making progress on tackling some of the major reasons why parents in our society have mental ill health will bring significant benefits. In my experience, those reasons tend to fall into three categories: employment security, housing security and income security. The measures this Government are introducing on housing security will see a significant improvement in the families’ conditions, and the Government’s measures on employment security will see a significant improvement in families’ security. The measures to tackle the cost of living crisis that people are experiencing, such as the Bill’s provisions on free school breakfasts and the cap on uniform items, will help families with some of their cost of living concerns.

I do not agree with the amendments. The measures in the Bill are satisfactory. I will leave it there.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

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 their experiences or concerns through the dedicated preparation time for those meetings. The facilitator will take further action where they think it may be required if they think that there are safeguarding concerns, and we are confident that local authorities will continue to be guided by what is in the best interests of the child. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask the hon. Member for Twickenham not to press her amendments.

Amendment 18 has been tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. I thank him for the spirit in which he presented his amendments and put on record his concerns about the situation that children find themselves in and wanting the best outcome for them. The amendment relates to the 26-week rule for children subject to family court proceedings. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Children and Families Act 2014 introduced the 26-week limit on courts to complete care and supervision proceedings when they are considering whether a child should be taken into care or placed with an alternative carer. I reassure him that we prioritise reducing unnecessary delay in family courts and securing timely outcomes for children and families.

Clause 1 relates to a specific and critical point before court proceedings are initiated. It gives parents or those with parental responsibility the legal right to a family-led meeting when they are at the point of the risk of entering into care proceedings. There is robust evidence to show that strengthening the offer of family group decision making at that crucial stage will in fact reduce applications to the family courts and prevent children from entering the care system at all.

As much as we acknowledge the concern raised, we are confident that no provisions in clause 1 would result in an extension to the statutory 26-week limit for care proceedings, which starts when the application for a care or supervision order is made. We think it is right that families are given the time and support to form a family-led plan. By strengthening the offer of family group decision making for families on the edge of care, concerns about children’s safety and wellbeing can be addressed swiftly, with the support of skilled professionals, and avoid escalation into potentially lengthy care proceedings. We want to avoid missing those opportunities for children to remain living safely with their families, so the child’s welfare and best interests are very much at the heart of clause 1.

If the local authority believes that the child’s circumstances or welfare needs might have changed at any point during pre-proceedings and it would no longer be in their best interests to facilitate the meeting, the court proceedings can be initiated immediately. The local authority should always act in accordance with the child’s best interests. Indeed, that family work can continue throughout court proceedings being initiated, and family group decision making can also continue. For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston not to press his amendment.

Amendment 49 is in the name of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Clause 1 gives parents or those with parental responsibility the legal right to the family-led meeting at the specific and critical point, which I referenced, when they are at risk of entering into care proceedings. As I said, we have the clear evidence to show that involvement of the wider family network in planning and decision making at that pre-proceedings stage can divert children from care and keep more families together.

Although clause 1 focuses on the critical point at the edge of care, we already encourage local authorities to offer these meetings as early as possible and throughout the time that the child is receiving help, support and protection, including as a possible route to reunification with their birth parents or a family network where appropriate. We are clear in guidance and regulations that, where a child is returning home to their family after a period in care, local authorities should consider what help and support they will need to make reunification a success and set it out in writing. We will continue to promote the wider use of family group decision making, including by updating statutory guidance where appropriate and through best practice support. We believe that this legislation is a transformative step change that will be helpful in expanding these services for the benefit of children and families right across the country.

I turn to some of the specific questions that have been raised by Members, some of which I have addressed in my comments.

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

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. 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.

[Ellie Chowns]

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?

[Catherine McKinnell]

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.

[Neil O'Brien]

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?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I believe I can, but I will check and report back in this afternoon’s sitting. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s request.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Okay, so that does not matter.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Inclusion of childcare and education agencies in safeguarding arrangements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Catherine McKinnell]

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.

[Neil O’Brien]

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 day, do they have to ask the parents who leave their children with them to find their own childcare? How do we make it easier for these organisations, particularly in relation to really small, really vulnerable children, to take part in this process? We do not doubt that they will want to contribute; we just want some reassurance that the Department is thinking about how that will work well in practice.

The Government argue that education should not be a fourth safeguarding partner because, unlike with other safeguarding partners, there is not currently a single organisation or individual who can be a single point of accountability for organisations across the whole education sector and different types of educational institutions. I understand the Government’s argument, but there are other views. Barnardo’s says in its briefing that

“the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care recommended that the Department for Education make education the fourth statutory safeguarding partner, highlighting that the Department should ‘work with social care and school leaders to identify the best way to achieve this, ensuring that arrangements provide clarity.’

However, the new Bill falls short of this recommendation, mandating only that education providers should always be considered ‘relevant partners’. This should improve the recognition of the importance of education providers in safeguarding arrangements, but we believe that this does not go far enough to protect children at risk.

We recognise that the diverse nature of the education sector could pose a practical challenge in identifying a relevant senior colleague to represent education as a statutory partner. Education settings have a wealth of experience in working with children to keep them safe and we believe it is vital that options are explored to ensure they are able to fully participate in…the planning and delivery of local safeguarding arrangements.”

I want to hear what the Government’s response to those arguments is. As the Minister said, this is a rare legislative moment, so we want to ensure that these important contributions and questions are heard and answered.

Turning to a slightly different question, I understand that there might not be a single point of accountability—which is why this Government, like the previous Government, are not pursuing education providers as the fourth safeguarding partner—but to make this work well, a single point of contact for education might be sensible. Can the Minister confirm that, to support the successful operation of this provision, every local authority currently provides childminders in particular with a line they can call to discuss any concerns, both specific and more general? Schools generally know where to go, but is that true at the moment of nurseries and childminders?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Just to be helpful, last time you said you wanted to speak after the debate had closed. What you could have done was to participate again in the debate before it ended. It is open to anybody who is a member of the Committee to speak more than once in a debate—there is no limit on the number of times you can speak in a debate, but you cannot speak after the question has been put.

If you wanted to tell the Minister that you were dissatisfied or that you wanted to have a meeting, then the time to have done that would have been during the debate. At the end, you could have caught my eye and you would have been able to participate. I am trying to help people so that nobody feels that they are being excluded, because I know how difficult it must be for new Members who have not got the support of an established network in this place.

[Catherine McKinnell]

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, but it is important that we ensure that no child is left out.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Multi-agency child protection teams for local authority areas

[Catherine McKinnell]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out

“the director of children’s services for”.

This amendment and Amendment 2 make minor changes relating to local authority nominations to a multi-agency child protection team.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

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.

[Neil O’Brien]

I have nothing to say about these amendments. I will reserve my comments for our amendment, which is in a different group. I completely understand what the Minister is doing.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment made: 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 36, leave out

“the director of children’s services for”.—(Catherine McKinnell.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.