MPs vote against scrapping controversial relaxation of statutory duties
Fiona Simpson
Thursday, June 11, 2020
MPs have voted against a motion to scrap emergency changes relaxing and removing local authorities’ duties to vulnerable children.
Following a debate on the controversial changes to legislation, known as Statutory Instrument 445, introduced in April, a motion to annul the amendments was defeated by 260 votes to 123.
The motion was led by Labour’s shadow education secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey who told the House of Commons: “It is easy to see how a whole generation of looked-after children could be adversely affected during the six months the relaxed duties are in place.”
-
Analysis: Coronavirus – campaigners warn on capacity of children’s charities
-
Blog: Samantha Little partner and head of the children law team at law firm Russell-Cooke explain the legal implications of the changes
The changes were pushed through as emergency legislation just 24-hours after being laid before parliament on 23 April, bypassing the 21-day period of consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.
Changes include the removal of six-weekly visits to looked-after children by social workers, reduced standards of care in children’s homes and speeded up processes around adoption and foster care by relaxing a number of safeguards and checks.
During the debate, children’s minister Vicky Ford failed to answer questions from former shadow children’s minister Emma Lewell-Buck about how many local authorities have used the new flexibilities.
“Not a single local authority has publicly admitted asking for these changes,” said Lewell-Buck, MP for South Shields and former children’s social worker.
“No social workers or local authorities regularly cite protective legislation for children as a block to them carrying out their role. What stops effective children and families social work is the constant barrage of cuts and resource stripping over the past 10 years,” she added.
Ford told MPs: “I have heard directly from many social workers about those challenges; hence we have needed to give them some regulatory flexibilities.”
She said the government needed to respond to “the risk that local authorities may be unable to respond to significant pressures posed by Covid-19”, including staff absences and an expected spike in demand as lockdown lifts.
-
Analysis: Changes to care responsibilities divide opinion among leaders
-
Analysis: Relaxation of statutory duties – what we know so far
Ford added that the legislative changes were being used “infrequently” and that there were “no plans” to extend them beyond 25 September when they are due to expire.
However, she said: “If there is a need to extend these flexibilities this will be on a case-by-case basis and subject to full parliamentary process,” adding that she would report back to the Commons before the summer recess.
The amendments drew opposition from across the sector including children’s commissioner for England Anne Longfield.
Children’s rights charity Article 39 has launched legal action against the Department for Education over the changes.
Carolyne Willow, director of Article 39, said following the debate: “In the short time allotted to each speaker, the detail of what has been done to children’s safeguards, and the risks this exposes them to, was laid bare. The knowledge and passion of MPs who formerly worked in children’s social care was notable.
“It was deeply frustrating that the children’s minister used so much of her speech to talk broadly about her department’s policy and actions in the face of Covid-19. This was the opportunity for the minister to give precise information about why her department considered the global pandemic warranted a behind-closed-doors review of all children’s social care legislation, and why each of the safeguards had to be deleted or weakened. There was no such explanation.
“We always knew that the weight of the Commons favours the government, so any chance of reinstating children’s safeguards required members of Parliament to vote against their party. That didn’t happen yesterday. With the pandemic now making the voting process public, what we saw at times was an unedifying stream of grown adults, mostly white men, roaring ‘no’ into the microphone.”
Katharine Sacks-Jones, chief executive of care charity Become, added: “As other lockdown restrictions start to be lifted, it’s a real concern that the government intends to retain the dilution of these important protections for our most vulnerable young people. It’s vital they tell us more about what monitoring is taking place so that we can understand the impact they’re having on the safety and wellbeing of young people across the country."
