MPs vote to reinstate controversial 'exemption clause'

The controversial so-called "exemption clause" was previously removed from the legislation in November following a defeat for the government in the House of Lords.

But members of a committee scrutinising the bill have effectively overturned that decision by voting through amended proposals by 10 to five, despite opposition from Labour MPs.

Speaking during the committee meeting, children's minister Edward Timpson said a range of safeguards have been introduced to the proposals in a bid to allay concerns that they could lead to an erosion of vulnerable children's rights.

He said local authorities would only be granted freedoms if an application has demonstrated clearly it will benefit children or young people in at least one of six ways such as promoting their physical and mental health or wellbeing, promoting high aspirations, or helping them gain access to, or make the best use of services.

He added that the amendments "make absolutely clear that a pilot can only be conducted for the purposes of promoting children's best interests and for no other reason".

The government has also set out six areas of legislation the powers cannot revoke, including the duty to provide appropriate services to children in need, and the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children.

Timpson said the amendments also make clear that the power cannot be used to allow local authorities to contract out functions to profit-making organisations.

He said that the changes had backed by both Barnardo's and The Children's Society who felt that they had addressed previous concerns they harboured about the proposals. He said support had also been forthcoming from, among others, Cafcass, the Association of Directors of Children's Services, and local authorities including North Yorkshire County Council and the Achieving for Children organisation providing services in Kingston and Rochmond.

"I wouldn't be [making these proposals] and asking the government to, as they have done, support them in their entirety, if I didn't have a strong view that their sole purpose and the motivation behind them is to improve outcomes for vulnerable children," Timpson said.

"If I thought there was a better way of dealing with the current system where there are still too many children being failed, I would welcome it.

"We are working to ensure that where there is inadequacy in children's services, we tackle it, and since 2010 we have turned around 34 local authorities children's services, which were deemed to be failing children in their area.

"What I'm not prepared to do is just accept the status quo when I have local authorities who are telling me they could do a better job for children if they were given the opportunity to do so.

"What these clauses are trying to do is provide them with that opportunity but make sure their responsibilities for those children remain as strong as ever."

Labour's shadow children's minister Emma Lewell-Buck spoke at length in opposition of the amended legislation being reinserted into the bill.

"The minister is asking us to approve a power that threatens vast swathes of hard-fought legislation," she said.

"Our most vulnerable children are being used as guinea pigs. This is no exaggeration."

"Do we really want to give our consent to such high-risk experiments at a time when local authorities are facing extreme funding pressures and increased demand?

"Anything that spreads the budget further is going to be greeted with great enthusiasm in county hall, but risks bringing perverse incentives into a system already buckling under great strain.

"To say I'm deeply disappointed the government has chosen to reinsert these measures in a new clause despite their blistering defeat in the Lords, is a total understatement.

"The minister claims he has listened to the views raised by peers and other stakeholders and that he has made substantial changes to these clauses. Well he hasn't and the risks for children and young people have not gone away."

Speaking after the vote, Carolyne Willow, director of children's rights charity Article 39, a member of the Together for Children coalition of organisations opposing the proposals, said: "We expected the clauses to be pushed back into the bill, since the government has a majority on the public bill committee.

"That doesn't take away the sadness and astonishment that children's universal legal protection could be snatched away with such ease.

"All of the evidence published to date by the committee opposes the exemption clauses and the minister was able to name the support of only a very small number of councils, businesses and individuals.

"The Together for Children campaign against these clauses continues to grow and we will not stop pressing for green and white paper consultation.

"That shouldn't be asking for too much, when you consider that this is about the protection granted by parliament over the past eight decades to the most vulnerable children and young people in our country."