Children's Wellbeing and School Bill

The Government did not, in this case, publish the Bill in draft. Nonetheless, the Bill’s timetable could have factored in time for our Committee to come to a considered view on its contents. Although the Minister for School Standards had written to us of her wish to “work closely” with the Committee, no allowance was made for select committee scrutiny in the Bill’s extremely compressed timetable. (Conclusion, Paragraph 7)

The Government has neither followed its own guidelines, nor engaged as productively as we would have liked with our Committee over this Bill. The interval between introduction and Second Reading was not long enough for proper preparation by Members of the House. The publication of the Impact Assessment over a month after the Bill was introduced and halfway through the consideration of the Bill in Committee, shows scant regard for the House. The decision not to involve our Committee in pre-legislative scrutiny, or even to give us prior notice of the Bill’s publication, has made it more difficult for us to conduct proper scrutiny of the Bill. Had we been involved at an earlier stage, we could have fed our findings into the Bill itself and this process would also have allowed the Government to respond to issues raised by stakeholders in advance of Second Reading. (Conclusion, Paragraph 11)

We recommend that the Government undertakes to follow the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation and engage meaningfully, and in a timely way, with select committees as a way of improving policy making and building consensus on important legislation. We further recommend that the Government provide a memorandum to the Liaison Committee demonstrating how it plans to engage with select committees on legislation over the Parliament. (Recommendation, Paragraph 12) 26

We would have liked to dedicate more time to a considered examination of the policy issues in the Bill and the mechanisms by which the Bill seeks to meet its policy aims. However, given the tight timetable the Government has provided for this Bill, and our wish to contribute effectively by proposing changes to the Bill where necessary, we have had to be extremely selective in the parts of the Bill we have examined. We have sought to learn from, and amplify, the voices of the practitioners, families and professionals who will be directly affected by the Bill. (Conclusion, Paragraph 14)

Care leavers face a confusing patchwork of entitlements when they leave care. This is made more complex by the differing offers in each local authority and the fact that they are having to navigate this at a young age, often with little or no support. Our witnesses supported the view that a National Care Offer would help with this. (Conclusion, Paragraph 19)

Young people in care are significantly more likely to have experienced trauma and adverse experiences than their peers, and therefore strong mental health support is crucial. Although local authorities are required to assess the emotional and mental health of children in their care, evidence suggests this does not always happen in practice. Our witnesses were clear that there is scope to strengthen the requirement for the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people in the care system to be assessed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 23)

Despite the implicit inclusion of children with SEND in the Bill’s provisions on breakfast clubs, we consider that express inclusion of the needs of those children on the face of the Bill would be a much stronger safeguard against schools failing—for reasons of cost, convenience and accident—to put in place commonsense measures to ensure that children with SEND have equal access to breakfast clubs. There are also implications for local authorities who fund home to school transport for many children with SEND and who would be required to make transport available on a more flexible basis, potentially at additional cost, to enable children to get to a breakfast club. Strengthening the inclusion requirements of breakfast clubs on the face of the Bill would place the onus on the Department for Education to take account of this requirement when allocating funds for the national roll-out of breakfast clubs and making the case to HM Treasury for those monies in the upcoming Spending Review. (Conclusion, Paragraph 30)

We consider that the arguments for auto-enrolment in free school meals for those children currently eligible are conclusive. In the interests of alleviating hunger in schools and improving health and educational outcomes for the poorest children, auto-enrolment must be brought in without delay. (Conclusion, Paragraph 35) 27

We consider that local authorities should draw on the advice of specialist domestic abuse charities in coming to a decision on whether FGDM is in the child’s best interests where domestic abuse has occurred. (Conclusion, Paragraph 41)

We welcome the additional clarity on teacher pay offered by the Government’s new clause and new schedule brought forward at Committee stage. (Conclusion, Paragraph 47)

We have not had the time or resource to comb through the Bill or take evidence on the delegated powers within it, although we note that the published Delegated Powers Memorandum for the Bill is 75 pages long. We stated at the beginning of this Report that the Bill’s timetable and handling has not allowed us to conduct detailed legislative scrutiny. (Conclusion, Paragraph 65)

We have worked at pace on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to contribute to fulfil our scrutiny role within the parameters set by the Government’s timetable and increase transparency for the benefit of the House and, we hope, those who will be affected by the legislation. We are particularly grateful to those young adults who gave evidence to us on their lived experience of the care system and have reflected their voices in this Report. We have tested the Bill’s provisions with stakeholders and policy experts and produced this Report with the aim of assisting the House at Report stage and Third Reading. (Conclusion, Paragraph 67)

We draw the Government’s attention to the New Clauses and amendments tabled in the name of our Chair which seek to offer practical ways to meet the concerns and put into effect the recommendations we have heard in evidence from witnesses. (Recommendation, Paragraph 68) 28