3
Conclusion
2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the Committee's criticisms of its engagement and adherence to guidelines, stating it gave due consideration to the legislative process, provided briefings, and that the Bill's timing was in line with guidance for progressing manifesto commitments quickly.
Read full response →
Department for Education
6
Conclusion
2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the concept of a National Care Offer, stating that local authorities are best placed to respond to local needs and a central framework would be bureaucratic. It instead highlights existing legislation and upcoming Bill changes aimed at strengthening care leavers' legal entitlements …
Read full response →
Department for Education
8
Recommendation
2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees on the importance of SEND accessibility but rejects placing express inclusion on the Bill's face, believing it would not alter the intended effect. It outlines existing funding and plans to test and learn from early adopter schools.
Read full response →
Department for Education