Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Hayes]

Q Before the election I visited Linwood school’s Charminster site, and I spoke to a young girl with support needs around SEND. She told me about a meeting with a new social worker, who asked her how her parent was. She had to tell the social worker that her parent had died. That is just one of many examples of social workers who pick up new cases and do not have time to read notes. We have constant churn, and we know some of the human cost. Can you speculate about or estimate some of the financial savings from reinvesting into a permanent workforce the money that would be spent on local agency social workers? How much would local councils benefit from this measure?

Andy Smith: An agency social worker costs around a third more than a social worker on the books of a local authority. You can extrapolate what that would look like from a team of eight or nine social workers to two or three times that. Financially, it is definitely a much better option than having an agency worker. That is not to say that agency social workers are bad—that is not what I am saying—because there could well be, and are, occasions when local authorities need to employ agency social workers to cover sickness or maternity leave, or where there is a particular pressure. But it should be an exception rather than the rule.

It is about creating the conditions that enable social workers to want to stay on the books of local authorities, as well as putting rules around it so that workers have sufficient training and development, and cannot move to agencies too quickly before they have had that breadth of experience. Ultimately, it would be cheaper to the public purse if we had fewer agency social workers and more social workers on the books. It would also be better for children in terms of consistency and stability, because we want to try to reduce the hand-offs and the churn in the workforce.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Q You have mentioned a couple of times the change with elective home education from philosophy to reasons around the provision in schools. Do you have thoughts on what accountability there should be for schools? Ofsted currently inspects the schools, and it does not look at reasons why children might not be in school electively. Is there some mechanism that you see around that?

[The Chair]

We have 30 seconds. We have to stick to the programme motion; I am sorry.

Ruth Stanier: We very much welcome the fact that the Government are now asking Ofsted to look specifically at inclusion. We think it is so important for precisely that reason.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Spencer]

Q How do you see the role of local authorities with multi-academy trusts? Are they just replacing what was already going on?

Paul Whiteman: Unfortunately, local academy trusts looking outside their own boundary does not happen quite as often as we would like in terms of helping schools that are not part of their trust, unless they become formally part of it. What we need is more collaboration across all school types in local areas.

[Ian Sollom]

Q I think I am quoting you correctly in saying that academisation was not a silver bullet. Could you elaborate on the factors that are in play where it has not worked in particular areas?

Paul Whiteman: The data we look at shows quality schools and improvement outside the academy system as well as in the academy system. Where you get particular schools that are very difficult to broker, or have been re-brokered on a number of occasions, we need a different answer. I think it sits with the locality, and the local education networks and economy, to run to the aid of that school and try to improve it. I was also careful to say that my comments are not an attack on academies or the good work they do. It is about finding the answer for the individual school.

[Ian Sollom]

Q What is the difference with the maintained school if that is sitting quite isolated around other academies? It has not got that in-place support around it. How does that work effectively—is it better than re-brokering to another academy?

Paul Whiteman: For me, it is not necessarily about the legal status of the school. It is about the collaboration and support around that school from the rest of the education network and society around it. We have seen some really good work in the last few years in the north-east with the way it has been building those networks around schools that happen to be in trusts and schools that are not in a trust, and making sure that support is delivered. The provisions in the Bill mean that you could make different decisions about the school’s legal status and actually make sure the support is delivered in a way that works for that school.

[The Chair]

I thank our witnesses.

Examination of Witness

Jacky Tiotto gave evidence.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

Family group decision-making

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out “may (in particular)” and insert “should, where appropriate”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 37, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—

“(8) The child in relation to whom the family group decision-making meeting is held should be included in the meeting, unless the local authority deems it inappropriate.”

Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(10) Nothing in this section permits an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings in section 14(2)(ii) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”

This amendment clarifies that nothing in this section should imply an extension to the statutory 26-week limit for care proceedings.

Amendment 49, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“31ZB Family group decision-making at the point of reunification

(1) This section applies where a care order is to be discharged for the purposes of family reunification.

(2) Usually prior to a child returning home, and no later than one month after the discharge of a care order, the local authority must offer a family-group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child.

(3) If the offer is accepted by at least one person to whom it is made, the local authority must arrange for the meeting to be held.

(4) The family-group decision-making meeting should have the purpose of empowering the child’s family network to promote the long-term safety and wellbeing of the child.

(5) The duty under this section does not apply where the local authority considers that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the family group decision-making meeting to be offered or (as the case may be) to be held.

(6) A ‘family network’, in relation to a child, consists of such persons with an interest in the child’s welfare as the authority considers appropriate to attend the meeting having regard to the child’s best interests, and such persons may (in particular) include—

(a) the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child;

(b) relatives, friends or other persons connected with the child.

(7) Where the local authority considers it appropriate, the child in relation to whom the family group decision-making meeting is held may attend the meeting.

(8) In exercising functions under this section in relation to a child, the local authority must seek the views of the child unless it considers that it would not be appropriate to do so.”

This amendment would impose a duty on local authorities to offer family-group decision-making at the point of reunification for children in care, analogous to that proposed before care proceedings are initiated.

Clause stand part.

[Ian Sollom]

Broadly, the Liberal Democrats welcome the new requirement on local authorities to offer family group decision making, which gives those who care for children, including family members, the opportunity to be involved in putting together that plan for their welfare. The provision strengthens the right to hear the child’s voice, which as we heard in the evidence session is important.

We have a few concerns. As the provision is currently laid out, it might be a little ambiguous. There are lots of different models of family group decision making around, so we would like clarification from the Minister about the principles and standards that are set out in regard to what it actually looks like in practice. Cases where there is domestic violence or coercive control can be hard to identify, so we would like guidance on the principles around that.

We would also like to encourage local authorities to probe into what family group decision making should look like and who should be involved. One example that came to us from the Family Rights Group was of Azariah Hope, who was a care-experienced young parent very frustrated about how she was not offered a family group conference because the local authority presumed that she did not have a family or friend network to draw on.

Amendment 36 strengthens the right for the child to be involved, but still gives the local authority the power to decide on the appropriateness of who should be involved. We would like to hear more from the Minister about what those principles and standards should be for taking family group decision making forward.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As this is the first amendment on the first day of our line-by-line consideration, I will briefly say that although the Opposition have lots of serious questions about the second part of the Bill, there is much in part 1 of the Bill that we completely support.

In fact, a lot of the Bill builds on work that the last Government were doing. To quote the great 1980s philosopher Belinda Carlisle, we may find that

“We dream the same thing

We want the same thing”.

It may not always seem like that, because we are going to ask some questions, but they are all about improving the Bill. A lot of them are not our questions, but ones put to us by passionate experts and those who work with people in these difficult situations.

The relevant policy document sets out why it is so important to get this clause right. It highlights the number of serious case incidents, which was 405 last year, and the number of child deaths, which was 205—every single one a terrible tragedy. Around half of those deaths were of very young children, often under 2; they are physically the most vulnerable children, because they cannot get away.

Our amendment 18 seeks to make clause 1 work in practice. It reflects some, but not all, of the concerns that we heard in oral evidence on Tuesday from Jacky Tiotto, the chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The clause states:

“Before a local authority in England makes an application for an order…the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting”.

In general, those meetings are a good thing, and we all support them—the last Government supported them; the new Government support them. They are already in statutory guidance.

However, we have two or three nagging worries about what will happen when, as it were, we mandate a good thing. The first is about pace. As I said in the oral evidence session, I worry that once family group decision making becomes a legal process and right, people will use the courts to slow down decision making, and that local authorities will sometimes worry about fulfilling this new requirement—although the meetings are generally a good thing—when their absolute priority should be getting a child away from a dangerous family quickly.

A long time ago, when I used to work with people who were street homeless, I met a woman who was a very heavy heroin user and a prostitute. She was about to have—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

Children are at the heart of this legislation. The clause makes sure that the offer of a family-led meeting is made only if it is in the child’s best interests. Local authorities must seek a child’s views throughout that transformative process. I hope the Committee can agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Ian Sollom]

I thank the Minister for her response. We have heard from across the Committee how much support there is for the principles of the clause. I hear what Government Members have said about the amendments not giving the relevant social workers and facilitators enough flexibility in their decision making. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham pointed out, there is a risk that without a stronger direction to include the child in those meetings, not enough emphasis will be placed on it. Amendment 36 would insert the words “should, where appropriate”, which leaves the decision in the hands of the local authority, but gives a stronger steer that, where possible, the child needs to be included. That is something that many child-centred charities would support. We will not withdraw the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[Ian Sollom]

I will withdraw it then, sorry; I was not clear on the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

[The Chair]

We are in the middle of a Division now.

[Ian Sollom]

Apologies.