Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I have already talked about our general support for clause 3, as well as some of the issues around the geography, content and cast lists of the teams, which brings me on to funding. On Tuesday, we asked the Local Government Association about the new burdens doctrine and whether there would be clarity on funding for these new requirements. The Government do not plan to commence this clause until 2027, so will local authorities be appropriately resourced to meet these demands? In its summary of the Bill, the Department for Education says:

“Later commencement allows more time to secure funding and resources and workforces will have more time to engage and prepare for change.”

Do the Government know roughly how much extra funding will be required? As Ruth Stanier from the LGA said in her evidence to us on Tuesday,

“the new burdens doctrine must be applied in the usual way. There are a number of measures in this Bill for which additional funding will be required, for example the new multi-agency units.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 13, Q21.]

We are talking about those multi-agency units here. What are the Minister’s rough estimates of what will be required, and at roughly what point will that be agreed? Again, the DFE notes on the Bill say that it will be

“set out in regulations how the multi-agency child protection teams will carry out their day-to-day activities.”

That will be extremely specific; for example, it says:

“The new provisions will include a power for the Secretary of State to set out in regulations requirements for the practitioners who are nominated to be part of the multiagency child protection teams. This might include examples of the types of ‘minimum qualifications or experience’ that they will need, which have not been included in the legislation as this will require discussion with the relevant work forces, including police, health and education, to understand what would be relevant”.

The big question is: how much will this roughly cost, and when will the Government agree that with local government, so that we can fulfil the requirements of the new burdens doctrine?

I would like to turn to amendment 19. I have come to believe very strongly, in public services, in the importance of setting up self-improving dynamics whenever that is possible. The Japanese talk about the principle of “kaizen”, or continuous improvement, and really that is the spirit of our amendment. Everybody supports the idea of the new multi-agency meetings, and we are all supportive of the principle of trying to make that happen really well. We do not want just a meeting, or that the letter of the law is followed, but the spirit of it is. We really want to do this as well as we can, and that is what our amendment is about.

There are very different ways of making these things work, and they work in very different places already. There is lots of scope to learn from each other at the local level, and central Government have scope to learn from them all. The amendment is self-explanatory, so I will not go through it, but it is basically looking for a report on all the different aspects of the ways in which this clause plays out on the ground. I am keen to press it to a vote, and I hope it is one that the Government might accept, at least in some form.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is very good to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I think everybody agrees with the principle of this clause, and there is undeniable valuable in having all the relevant agencies working together. I am afraid it is invariably a conclusion of reviews that, when things go badly wrong, part of the issue is that working together has not functioned as well as it could. The Bill does not invent multi-agency working—that is not a new thing—but it does write something very specific into primary legislation, and that is welcome.

Amendment 19 is good and important and requires reporting back on the work and impact of multi-agency teams. What we need to focus on is actual practice. It is one thing to set out that so-and-so must talk to somebody else—no one would argue with that—but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said, there is quite some variety in the way these things happen. Will there be more guidance in terms of operations to stress the importance of following process and procedure, but also recognising the centrality of professional curiosity and taking ownership of problems through to their solution?

I am keen to understand better from the Government the extent to which what the clause proposes is different from multi-agency safeguarding hubs, commonly known by their acronym, MASH. Is it the same, or is it for a subset of higher level cases? Are we drawing a distinction between safeguarding and child protection?

MASHs themselves have worked in quite different ways. I said that these things are not new—I remember that in 2012, when I was on the Education Committee, we did an inquiry in this area. We visited a couple of different MASHs and had a couple of local authorities, one from Devon and one from Leeds, at a Committee hearing. One of those authorities had a MASH; the other had actively decided not to because it felt that there were better ways of achieving some of the same aims. That highlighted the importance of what is done operationally and what is done in practice. We were frequently told about the advantages of physical colocation —simply being in the same room facing each other across the desk—but that does not guarantee that people will work as well together as they could. Relationships are incredibly important, and so is the willingness to appropriately share information, and these days that can arguably be done without colocation in ways that it could not in the past.

As far as I can make out, the clause does not adopt the principle from what we used to call the troubled families programme, which is now the supporting families programme, of having a designated key worker for each family. Can the Government say why that is, or if it is their intention that that should be the case? More generally, it would be interesting to hear how this programme works with the supporting families programme—probably still better known to many as the troubled families programme.

The creation of that programme straddled the previous change in Government: it started in pilot and research form before 2010 and came into being fully after 2010. Louise Casey is now Baroness Casey of Blackstock and still very involved in incredibly important work. Some of the work of that programme is on the key upstream stage where, sadly, we sometimes end up in child protection territory. Some of the common features identified in Baroness Casey’s report, “Listening to Troubled Families” —abuse, institutional care, violence, mental health problems, drug and alcohol abuse, and so on—are incredibly prevalent in this group.

I hope the Government can say more about how the multi-agency child protection teams and the supporting families programme would work together, particularly since that programme, which used to be in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, is coming or has come—I do not know if it already has—into the Department for Education, so there are great opportunities for good working with children’s services.

[Neil O’Brien]

My right hon. Friend asks a really good question, and I intervene to sharpen that further. He asks whether the new teams are displacing or replacing the MASHs. Does the Government think that the MASHs that exist now will still be running alongside these new teams, or does the one turn into the other?

On the point about continuity of knowledge, which is so important in these cases as often the same family is in trouble for a long time, is it the Government’s expectation that it would be quite normal for people who are currently on one of the MASHs to find themselves on the new teams as well, or is this a new thing? I am just trying to understand the intent.

[Damian Hinds]

I think amendment 19 has a lot of value and I hope it will be agreed.

I want to ask about resourcing. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has rightly asked about cash resourcing—how much there will be—and there is of course the new burdens principle to follow, but I want to ask about staff availability. It is one thing to legislate for people to do a certain thing, but if it is very difficult to hire those people, that is obviously an impediment. To what extent and, if it is possible to quantify, by how much, does this programme create a new human resource requirement? How many more person days per year are we talking about?

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is an honour to have you in the chair today, Sir Edward. Clause 3 requires the establishment of multi-agency child protection teams in every local authority area.

I welcome the focus of amendment 19, laid in the names of the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, on monitoring the impact of the effectiveness of these multi-agency child protection teams and on continuous improvement, as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston put it so well. It is essential that we know how the multi-agency teams are leading to better outcomes for children and that we share that learning right across the system.

It may be reassuring to know that safeguarding partners already have a statutory responsibility to publish annual reports on their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. Once clause 3 comes into force, that responsibility will include reporting on the multi-agency child protection teams.

We are already funding 10 local areas to implement multi-agency child protection teams. From April, we are investing more than £500 million to roll out family help and multi-agency child protection teams nationally. The evaluation of the 10 pathfinders and the national roll-out of the families first partnership programme will inform the operational detail, including reporting, which will then be set out in regulations and updated statutory guidance.

On the question about how the teams will work, local authorities are currently not required to have a multi-agency safeguarding hub. This new duty will impose a specific form of child protection arrangement. The emerging evidence from the 10 local area pathfinders shows that where there is an effective multi-agency safeguarding hub, local areas can build on that existing multi-agency infrastructure and achieve closer multi-agency working relationships, which then creates that multi-agency child protection team.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked about the supporting families programme. That has moved to the Department for Education, and the multi-agency child protection teams will be based on best practice from supporting families. Where there has been good work done in recent years, we are very much building on that and taking it to the next step, to make sure that, as far as we can possibly legislate for, no child is left behind.

The teams will bring together the right people with the right skills, so that support is formed around the child. That is also to ensure that the team can address many types of harm to children, whether that is through criminal gangs or sexual exploitation or otherwise. These new multi-agency child protection teams will build on the expertise and knowledge of local authorities and police forces to make sure that they work on a base of geography and local knowledge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I hope that the Minister does not mind me intervening to ask this question, but I genuinely am not clear on it from reading the legislation and the explanatory notes. Is the multi-agency child protection team replacing or in addition to any multi-agency safeguarding hub that exists today?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The multi-agency child protection teams will be based on those models. We have used robust evidence including the supporting families and strengthening families programmes. It very much follows the recommendations from the child safeguarding practice review panel to make sure that we have a multi-agency child protection unit in every local authority to address a lack of joint working across agencies.

We are already testing this approach with the 10 new pathfinders and working to make sure that safeguarding partners in all areas have a consistent approach nationally. Where we have seen this working well in practice, we will build on that. This clause will ensure that is delivered in every local authority and for every child.

[Damian Hinds]

For clarity, could there be a local authority in which there is both a multi-agency safeguarding hub and a multi-agency child protection team?

[Catherine McKinnell]

This will build on the work of those teams to make sure that it is rolled out nationally and that every local authority has a multi-agency team that can deliver on those—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman mind if I just finish answering?

[Damian Hinds]

I am really sorry. I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, but I do not quite understand. I think we all agree, and absolutely support the hon. Lady in what she says, that of course this should build on the existing best practice in a MASH and everything that has been learnt from supporting troubled families. I am trying to understand whether it will make existing MASHs—although they do not happen everywhere and work differently sometimes—a bit more consistent and give them a new name? Alternatively, is it taking whatever the MASH does—which might be looking out for safeguarding review cases for a broader group of children—perhaps at a slightly lower level, and then adding something new called a multi-agency child protection team, which will exist in parallel? Will it replace an existing MASH or become subsumed into it?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think what the right hon. Gentleman is potentially getting at is how the multi-agency child protection teams will work alongside the MASH teams. To some extent, this is moving existing resource around. This will be in addition to the MASH teams. We recognise that it will require some additional resource, so there will be £500 million coming from April 2025 for the family first partnership programme. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly raised, we need to ensure we have good, qualified, people working in these roles, which is really important to get right. As I said, building on the good work, we are putting in additional safeguards for children through these provisions. We are making sure that, while we have the good work of MASHs happening, we can have a consistent approach to child protection on a national scale by ensuring that we have multi-agency child protection teams working together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

To improve the safeguarding and welfare of children and to stop families and children from falling through the cracks of public services, clause 4 seeks to address long-standing issues that hinder information sharing.

Current legislation permits information sharing to safeguard and protect the wellbeing of children, but user research has identified that practitioners often feel confident only where there are serious child protection concerns. As a result, information is often held by different agencies, and practitioners are left unaware of crucial data that could provide evidence for the whole picture of a child’s wellbeing, health and safety. That gap in knowledge can make it difficult for professionals to support families, and make it harder for families to be aware of their entitlements and to access the support that they need.

The clause gives professionals a clear legal basis to request and share information with other relevant professionals for the purposes of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of a child. It also enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to specify a consistent identifier for children. Agencies specified in regulations will be required to use the number when recording or sharing information about a child for the purposes of safeguarding or the promotion of welfare. The measures aim to ensure that practitioners share relevant information confidently and consistently.

As I mentioned, the Department will pilot the implementation of the consistent identifier and introduce it nationally at a later point. We will test its ability to facilitate the linking of data across datasets. The changes made by the clause aim to ensure that information about a child and their family is shared effectively and that risk is correctly identified and understood.

In response to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, I should say that information sharing is a two-way duty. The duty, along with the consistent identifier, will help to bring together multiple pieces of information so that practitioners can make informed decisions. As I said, it is standard practice to record decision making, regardless of whether information is shared, and we will ensure that that is covered in the guidance.

We are committed to implementing the consistent identifier as soon as possible, but we recognise that it has to be delivered proportionately and where it will have an impact. Before mandating its use by certain agencies, we need to explore information governance, privacy, technology choices, and the associated costs of its implementation and use. We are committed to starting pilot activity from April 2025, subject to the passage of the Bill, and will provide further timings once the pilot findings are known.

In response to the hon. Member for Twickenham, I should say that a disabled child would likely be considered a child in need, and so would benefit from the information-sharing duty and a single unique identifier. We need to ensure that systems can talk together, and that is why we are piloting: so that we can see the full cost of the measure and how it can be put in place so that it is as effective as possible in supporting children.

On the basis of today’s debate, the reassurances and the significant difference that the measure will make to the safeguarding of children, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Damian Hinds]

I rise in support of the clause, for all the compelling reasons that the Minister gave in her rationale. We talked earlier about the value of multi-agency working, and the sharing of information is fundamental to that. As she outlined, there have been too many cases in which the heart of the problem was the lack of a way of identifying that two agencies were talking about the same child. The unique identifier will help to address that. These are never things that we are likely to disagree about on party political lines.

However, the clause raises some big questions, which I hope the Minister will take in the spirit in which I mean them. The first may sound like a semantic question, but I think it is important. It relates to the phrase “Duty to share” on page 6, line 19. The word “share” can mean different things, and its common English usage has probably changed somewhat over the past 20 years or so. “Share” used commonly to mean something held in common between two parties, but more recently—this has a lot to do with social media and the internet—it has come to mean “pass something on to a wider group”. Those are different things. I think that we are using the word “share” in the title of the proposed new section more in the sense of disclosure than of holding in common, but I would be grateful for some clarification. Although it is a semantic question, this will be primary legislation created by Parliament and precision is therefore important.

What is the link or overlap with mandatory reporting? Is what we are talking about today exactly the same as mandatory reporting or something different? The existing statutory guidance on safeguarding says:

“Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should consider whether a referral needs to be made to Children’s Social Care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.”

It is not a legislative requirement, therefore, to report abuse, but there is the expectation that people who work with children will do so, unless there are truly exceptional circumstances. Of course, people in particular roles also have additional codes of conduct set by their professional regulatory body.

The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse of 2022 put forward the mandatory duty—which, to be clear, I support—and in 2023 the previous Government committed to introduce a mandatory duty to report sexual abuse for those working or volunteering with children, although the Criminal Justice Bill then fell with the Dissolution of Parliament before the election. Historically, people have identified problems with the concept of a mandatory duty to report sexual abuse—the same principle applies more generally to neglect and other forms of child abuse—and it has not only been people in government; for a very long time one leading children’s charity had a stance against mandatory reporting, citing the possible effect on the relationship between a child and a trusted adult and on the child’s willingness to open up to that adult, given what doing so might trigger. I am sure that the Government have been through the issue in a great deal of detail, as it is a serious and difficult area, so I wonder whether the Minister might say a little more on that point.

The matter of the practicalities of sharing information takes us back to the semantic question. It is stated in lines 24 and 25 on page 6 of the Bill that the proposed new section applies where a person

“considers that the information is relevant to safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the child.”

There is a question about whether we are talking about disclosing a particular piece of information that is directly and specifically relevant to an individual child—an incident, or an observation made by a social worker or teacher with eyes on that child—or whether we are talking about data more generally. For example, do we mean that if there is a particular indicator in a dataset that is relevant to the question of safeguarding for all children in the local authority area, then the entire dataset should be shared with other agencies?

Assuming it is the former, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has already said, lines 11 to 15 on page 7 suggest that there could be a difficulty in terms of the balance. That part of the text states:

“A duty under this section to disclose information does not operate to require or authorise a disclosure of information which would contravene the data protection legislation”,

but we all know that often when people say, “Such and such wasn’t shared with another agency”, the reason given is data protection. I do not necessarily have the answer to how the Government should do this, but to the extent that it is possible, it would be helpful if they could create some clarity so that that balance could be understood.

My hon. Friend also referred to lines 31-33 on page 6, which mention that

“the duty imposed by subsection (2) does not apply if the relevant person considers that the disclosure would be more detrimental to the child than not disclosing the information.”

That is very difficult for any individual. From the point of view of being inside one agency—in this case a school—making a judgment without knowing what the police or social workers may know is very difficult. But it is helpful that the provision gives the legal basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

We have not tabled an amendment to clause 6, as this is another area where the Government are building on the direction of travel set under the last Government. The role of the virtual school head was already extended on a non-statutory basis from September 2021 to include strategic oversight of the educational outcomes of children with a social worker in a local authority’s area; through this Bill, it is now being extended again to champion the education of children, including children in kinship care.

Educational outcomes for children in need and children in care are still far too low, despite the efforts of successive Governments over the last 40 years to improve them. About one in five children in need and looked-after children achieve grade 4 and above in English and Maths GCSEs, compared with 65% of all children. That is a huge gap.

As the Minister knows, local authorities have an existing duty to monitor child in need or section 17 plans, which I believe is about twice a year. Will the Minister clarify whether the Bill gives us an opportunity to escalate that monitoring? Does it extend to children in kinship care, where a child is falling behind or where their attendance drops sharply? Have the Government considered extending priority school admissions for children in kinship care and making them eligible for pupil premium plus?

I have a question about how a single person can discharge this duty in any local authority, let alone a large one—thinking of dried Birmingham, Kent, Leeds or somewhere like that. What is the Government’s expectation of what the person responsible for delivering this work will be able to do?

[Damian Hinds]

The clause extends the role in legislation of virtual school heads to children in need, previously looked-after children and children in kinship care. The virtual school and virtual school heads concepts are not new. The concept was first piloted in 2006 in Liverpool. It was the Children and Families Act 2014, which we both remember well, Sir Edward, that required all local authorities to administer pupil premium plus.

The Oxford University report on the virtual school heads concept noted that there had been improvements in outcomes at key stage 2 and key stage 4 for looked-after children and a marked decrease in permanent exclusions. However, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, rightly said, there is still a yawning gap in attainment and all manner of life outcomes for this group of children.

Previously, looked-after children were added to the virtual school head cohort in 2018. There was a pilot to include children in need in 2021. From 2023-24 onwards, pupil premium plus was extended to age 16-plus. Once again, this is a policy area where there is no difference between us; the current Government’s work builds on previous Governments’ work, and we welcome that. We also note the successes of the virtual school heads concept.

My question is about the danger of dilution. In terms of orders of magnitude, there are 80,000 or 85,000 children in care—looked-after children, but there are 400,000 children in need, so that is a big increase in number. I note that paragraph 4 of proposed section 23ZZA(4) of the 1989 ACT introduced by clause 6 puts a strategic duty on to virtual school heads; it is not about individual children. The bigger number of children there is, with that dilution effect, there is a risk that some of the benefits of the virtual school heads program reduce. We can counter that, to a degree, by upping the resource. My real question is therefore about what resource will be behind this measure, to make sure that the maximum effect can be felt from virtual school heads.

As we talked about earlier on multi-agency working, it is actual practice that matters. People have been working in different ways, and we can learn from what works in different places, but what work will there be to propagate the best and most effective practice between places across the country?

[Munira Wilson]

I very much welcome clause 6 and the extension of the virtual school head oversight role to children in kinship care. However, I was perplexed to see that the category of children this clause applies to is a subcategory of the definition we have just looked at in the previous clause.

I am not quite sure why virtual school heads are not available to all children in kinship care, but only to those subject to a special guardianship or child arrangement order, as set out in proposed new section 23ZZZA(4)(d), on page 11, lines 29 to 35. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that. Having just passed a definition of kinship care, it seems that we are immediately undermining it by extending provision of educational support only to a subset of the group that we have just agreed qualify as children in kinship care.

We see the same with allowances in the roll-out of the pilot; again, it is very much a subset, and I think that undermines the value of having just agreed in law a definition of children in kinship care. We know that there are higher levels of special educational needs among children in kinship care compared with the wider population. It is really important that the group of children eligible for this support is drawn as widely as possible. I also very much welcome the shadow Minister’s comment that he would like to see pupil premium plus and priority admissions extended to children in kinship care. I hope that means he will support new clause 28 and 29, when we get to them towards the end of Committee.