Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 4, page 7, line 37, after “welfare” insert “or wellbeing”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 43, in clause 4, page 8, line 20, at end insert—

“(11A) The Secretary of State may, by regulations under subsection (10), require every designated person to use a consistent identifier in relation to all children.”

Amendment 45, in clause 4, page 8, line 23, leave out lines 23 to 26.

[Munira Wilson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward.

For clarity—after some mix-ups this morning, for which I apologise—these are probing amendments that we are not seeking to press to a vote today. We have tabled them to get on record some responses from Ministers about how the single unique identifier will be used.

As the shadow Minister has pointed out, there is widespread agreement that clause 4 is absolutely necessary and long overdue. Failure to share information effectively has been identified, over many years, as one of the key barriers to keeping children safe, to providing joined-up support to meet their needs and to conducting research across the children’s system. Professor Jay’s report on child sexual abuse brought that, and the failure of agencies across the system to share data, into stark relief. In the Committee’s evidence session on Tuesday, the Children’s Commissioner cited the same example as Professor Jay gave me when I met her last week: teenagers in a particular area had a very high prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases and that data was not shared with relevant agencies, although it clearly should have put up a red flag.

I strongly welcome the clause and pay tribute to the Children’s Charities Coalition, which has done a lot of work and research in this space. Amendment 44, in my name, would expand the criteria that require a designated person to use the consistent identifier in the information that they process. As the Bill stands, it requires consideration of

“safeguarding or promoting the welfare of”

the child. As we have all said, those criteria are vital, but they could be interpreted as relating only to acute risk. We want to insert the word “wellbeing” into the Bill to seek to ensure that the broader needs of the child would be taken into account when considering the provision of joined-up support across the children’s system.

Will the Minister explain why the Bill limits the use of the consistent identifier only to “safeguarding” and “welfare”, and state how broadly she envisages those being defined? For instance, would sharing information about a disabled child with health and educational needs but no social care needs fall into this category? Will she also give an indicative timeline for when local services will be required to start using the consistent identifier in their systems?

Amendment 43 seeks to provide clarity where we think there may be ambiguity in the Bill, by ensuring that all babies, children and young people are assigned a consistent identifier regardless of whether they have been identified with any safeguarding or welfare concerns. I think that is the intent of the Bill, but the amendment seeks to clarify it. We know that, for years, professionals, charities and commissioners have called for this measure, and we need it across all our systems to be able to manage the interactions between the different services and to share information efficiently and securely. I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation on that point.

Amendment 45 would enable the use of a consistent identifier for research and commissioning purposes. The subsection that would be deleted by the amendment appears to explicitly exclude the use of anonymised cohort data for those purposes. This probing amendment questions why that use is being ruled out. I recognise that I, and many others, have always raised concerns that data sharing should be done safely and in an appropriate way.

I worked for a brief period in the organisation formerly known as NHS Digital; I used to walk around with a lapel badge that said, “Data saves lives”. Data does save lives and is so important for not only safety but research and commissioning. If data is de-identified and shared safely, we can use it for certain cohorts of children who are at risk of poor outcomes, such as children with special educational needs, looked-after children or children missing from education. It would allow commissioners and researchers to analyse such children’s needs, risk factors and outcomes across different services, and provide a much more complete picture of the needs of children and young people, identifying gaps in provision and interventions that could be used. It would also support the development of new, qualitative indicators to measure impacts. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the Government’s rationale for the Bill’s specifically not allowing that use.

I have one final comment on the use of the single unique identifier: it will work only if there is investment in the systems so that they are able to share that data. I know from talking to my own local authority about the barriers to sharing information. Sometimes there is an unwillingness among agencies to share information, but sometimes it is just that the systems cannot talk to each other. We now have the technology to be able to do that. In order to implement it and use the single unique identifier to the best effect, we have to provide the agencies with the means to share information for the safety, welfare and wellbeing of our children and young people.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the spirit in which the probing amendments have been proposed. Amendment 43 would provide the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations, providing that each designated person must attach a consistent identifier to the records of every child without being limited by a particular purpose. I absolutely share the desire of the hon. Member for Twickenham to ensure that as many children as possible are able to benefit from a consistent identifier. We are very conscious of the need to ensure that the identifier has complete coverage, from birth to 18.

On timelines, I appreciate the urgency with which Members wish to see the consistent identifier come into play. Obviously, it is not yet legislated for—we very much hope it will be. But we are piloting the use of the NHS number, which is assigned to all UK-born children at birth or, for children born outside the UK, when contacting the NHS, so we deem it to be universal. The exact services, systems and data shares that store and move the number will have to be developed during the piloting. Regulations will stipulate the agencies that must use the number when recording and sharing information for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. I will give a little more information about the timeline of the pilot and intentions on implementation when I move the clause stand part, because I am conscious that the Opposition spokesperson also raised those concerns.

I turn to amendment 44, which seeks to amend the scope of the duty by including a reference to promoting the wellbeing of children. The legislation will enable statutory guidance to be issued, which relevant agencies must then have regard to. That will outline the type of information that may be relevant to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, including information that relates to their wellbeing, so that practitioners are able to more easily apply the legislation in practice. The legislation has very much been framed to co-exist with other child social care legislation, so “welfare” would cover the wellbeing of the child.

Amendment 45 seeks to remove the stipulation that a consistent identifier must be used when it is likely to facilitate safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children directly. I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern that it limits the use of a consistent identifier, in particular for research purposes; I know that stakeholders have been calling for that. The measures make provision for the Secretary of State to specify which agencies must use the consistent identifier. When it is introduced, it is intended that it could still be used for research purposes if that is authorised in accordance with UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act.

We have purposely prioritised linking use of the consistent identifier with safeguarding and welfare functions, and will be testing the benefits and implementation of that through our pilot. If additional benefits are realised, we can obviously explore the provisions further. For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the hon. Lady will be happy to withdraw her amendment.

[Munira Wilson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I totally accept that Members’ comments have all been made with a view to making sure that the legislation can be as effective as it needs to be, and that we all share the desire to ensure that it serves to safeguard children.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked whether the information-sharing duty is the same as mandatory reporting. The duty in the clause and the mandatory reporting are intended to address different problems. The information-sharing duty underpins how existing multi-agency partners, along with schools and early years providers, can share—I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s philosophical reflection on the word “share”—and request information among themselves so that they can build a full picture of a child. They can then use that to assess risk and put in place appropriate support and intervention.

The mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse is due to be introduced in Home Office legislation. It will impose a duty on professionals to report instances of child sexual abuse, and will also impose criminal sanctions on those who prevent others from reporting abuse. The duty in the clause and mandatory reporting have different purposes and different legislative frameworks.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked about the terminology and the meaning of the word “share”. In this context, the sharing of information covers the exchange of knowledge, data or insights with others, and it can happen in a number of ways.

On the specific question of whether information about an individual child or dataset is relevant, we intend the duty to be about supporting individual children day to day, to ensure their safeguarding and to make sure that they and their families get the support they need.

The right hon. Gentleman thoughtfully raised a range of important questions and kindly acknowledged that I would not be able to respond to them all in this debate. We will take them away and work them through, and that will feed into how we pilot this idea and test the system so that we get this right, as he rightly highlighted.

The single unique identifier in the NHS system will apply to children up to the age of 18. The right hon. Gentleman asked what would happen to a child without an NHS number; that will have to be considered as part of the pilot, which is why we are undertaking one. This is an important change. We do not underestimate the challenges of delivering it, but we are determined that it will make the difference to children and to safeguarding.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Information: children in kinship care and their carers

[Munira Wilson]

I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 5, page 9, line 20, at end insert—

“(e) financial support;

(f) legal support;

(g) family group decision making.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 22, in clause 5, page 9, line 37, at end insert—

“(8) In fulfilling its duties under subsection (7) a local authority must annually consult and collect feedback from children in kinship care and their carers about its kinship local offer.

(9) Feedback received under subsection (8) must be published annually.”

This amendment would require local authorities to consult children and carers when assessing their kinship care offer.

Amendment 39, in clause 5, page 9, line 38, at end insert—

“(8) A local authority must from time to time publish—

(a) comments about its kinship local offer received from or on behalf of children, kinship carers and others with lived experience of aspects of kinship care;

(b) the authority’s response to those comments, including details of any action the authority intends to take.

(9) Comments published under subsection (8)(a) must be published in a form that does not enable the person who made them to be identified.

(10) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make further provision about—

(a) the information to be included in an authority’s kinship local offer;

(b) how an authority’s kinship local offer is to be published;

(c) the parties who are to be involved and consulted by an authority in developing, preparing and reviewing its kinship local offer;

(d) how an authority is to involve children, kinship carers and others with lived experience of aspects of kinship care in the development, preparation and review of its local kinship offer; and

(e) the publication of comments on the kinship local offer, and the local authority’s response, under subsection (8)(b), including circumstances in which comments are not required to be published.”

Clause stand part.

[Munira Wilson]

I strongly welcome clause 5. I am delighted that we are finally putting a definition of kinship in statute and that we are requiring all local authorities to publish their kinship offer. That is long overdue and an absolute testament to the tireless campaigning of many groups—not least the Family Rights Group—the kinship carer community and young people. The Minister may remember that in 2022 I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill that sought to put a definition of kinship into law. It also had a number of other provisions, which we will come to in the new clauses later in Committee.

Amendment 38 seeks to add to the list of services that local authorities must publish and offer to assist children and their kinship carers. It would add financial support, legal support and family group decision making to the list of items that should be included in the local offer.

Ministers are aware that kinship carers turn their lives upside down to take children in, even though their own financial situation may be unstable. Around half of kinship carers are grandparents who rely on their pension savings. We know that financial support is variable throughout the country, which is why I will seek to address that variability through a new clause to ensure parity of allowances across the country. As that is not included in the Bill—I suspect Ministers will not accept my new clause because of Treasury constraints—at the very least it should include information on whatever financial support is available in the local offer.

We are concerned about the omission from the list of information about legal support and family group decision making. Those categories already appear in statutory guidance but are not mentioned in clause 5. We have considered clause 1, on family group decision making, so I am not sure why it was left off the list. I look forward to the Minister’s comments as to why it was.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Her point is noted.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the Minister for her response on the point about legal support, which is in amendment 38 along with financial support and family group decision making. I intended to push the amendment to a vote, but, given her assurances that this will be in statutory guidance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and not push it to a vote.

On her point about connected persons, we need some clarity. As she says, the term “relative” is in the Children Act 1989, but it does not cover cousins. Practitioners on the ground and families would like clarity for those other arrangements. Whether or not that is in guidance, it needs to be spelled out further. Nevertheless, based on the assurances the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Promoting educational achievement

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

[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.

[Ellie Chowns]

I, too, welcome the extension of the role of virtual school heads outlined in this provision. I would like to ask the Minister whether she has, or will consider, the opportunity in clause 6 to consider children who have been recently bereaved or are facing bereavement, particularly of a parent or sibling, as a group that has particular educational support needs. That is a surprisingly large group of people. Best estimates are that one in 29 children of school age have lost either a parent or a sibling, and there is clear evidence that those bereavements have impacts on educational achievement, as measured by GCSE results. Would the Minister consider the opportunity to use the Bill to improve support specifically for bereaved pupils? I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I am pleased to move amendment 12 to clause 7, on extending Staying Put for children in foster care to the age of 25. This group of amendments seeks to address the potential two-tier system that the Bill will create by extending provisions for Staying Close but not Staying Put.

Many care leavers face a cliff edge in care at the age of 18. Staying Put is a scheme that has been introduced to enable young people in foster care to stay with their foster carers until the age of 21 to support them into adulthood, whereas Staying Close is for young people in residential care. In the UK, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to reach independence at the age of 21. In fact, the Office for National Statistics published a report last year showing that the average age at which young people move out of the family home is 24. The independent review on children’s social care recognised the disparity between young people in care and their non-care experienced peers, and it recommended that both Staying Close and Staying Put be extended to the age of 23.

It appears that the Bill has responded to that recommendation by putting in place provision to extend Staying Close to age 25, but it does not do the same for those in Staying Put arrangements. I tabled this probing amendment to ask the Minister to explain the justification for that disparity and for the effective creation of a two-tier system for young people in those situations.

Evaluations of Staying Put have found that it significantly reduces the risk of homelessness for care leavers. The care review found that it would contribute towards savings of £84 million over five years, mostly due to reduced homelessness. Of course, the financial savings are not the primary motivation; it is about what is best for young people and ensuring that they have the best possible opportunity to successfully transition into adulthood. Foster carers and young people consistently report that the extension of Staying Put would result in better outcomes for young people, providing them with the choice—not insistence—to remain in the family environment.

In the words of a foster carer who recently spoke to the Fostering Network:

“The increase in the age for staying put would be of amazing benefit to care leavers. At the age of 21 many young people who have had the opportunity to go to university are just obtaining their qualification and then have to face negotiating their next huge step, the job market, and to find that they are possibly homeless due to leaving their placement. This is a catastrophic step backwards.”

I warmly urge the Minister to consider ensuring that there is parity in the Staying Close and Staying Put schemes, given that foster care and a family environment have the best long-term outcomes for young people in care transitioning into adulthood.

[Munira Wilson]

I wish to speak briefly in support of the amendments. I was talking to the director of children’s services for the London borough of Richmond upon Thames earlier this week, and he told me that we use Staying Put quite a lot in a borough like Richmond, where housing costs are astronomically high and social housing is barely available. We all know that there is a housing crisis across the country, but it is particularly acute in London. Extending this provision would allow young people who are already in care, where there is a strong family relationship, to stay with those family connections. I appreciate that there is a cost attached to this, but actually for many local authorities it is cheaper than trying to find housing for these young people, who will almost always struggle to find housing on their own. I urge the Minister to seriously consider the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.

[Catherine McKinnell]

On amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, and the comments by the hon. Member for Twickenham, I recognise the case that has been made, but we want to prioritise the young people, often with the most complex needs, who are leaving residential or similar care placements at 18. The existing Staying Put duty requires local authorities to monitor and support Staying Put arrangements, where former children stay with their former foster parent after leaving care. The duty lasts until the young person reaches the age of 21. This allows them to leave stable and secure homes when they are ready and helps them to enter adult life with the same opportunities and life prospects as their peers.

We remain committed to the Staying Put programme, but it is essential that we prioritise filling the gaps in current support, in particular for young people, often with the most complex needs, who are leaving residential or similar care placements at 18. That is why we have prioritised the introduction of statutory Staying Close duties. Former relevant children, as defined by the Bill, under the age of 25, including those Staying Put or who have left the Staying Put arrangement, will be eligible for Staying Close support. Any eligible young person up to the age of 25 will be able to access the wraparound practical and emotional support package provided as part of the Staying Close duty.

To be clear, we are aware of the financial pressures for young people, carers and families and local authorities at the moment. We are committed to further reforms to children’s social care in future spending reviews to make sure that every child, irrespective of their background, has the best start in life.