The High Court has just started to hear our case - Article 39 v Secretary of State for Education- arguing that Statutory Instrument 445 was made unlawfully. Wonderful to see so many supporters of the #ScrapSI445 campaign watching the (virtual) hearing. Updates to follow...
Jenni Richards QC from @39PublicLaw starts with discussion of Article 39's work as a small charity fighting for the rights of children institutional settings. Highlights that our concerns are shared by a number of organisations - full list here: article39.org.uk/scrapSi445/
The @ChildrensComm has repeatedly called for the regulations to be revoked & a witness statement from @MindCharity highlights the impact of the regs on the mental health of children in care. Although we are bringing this case, Article 39 is not a 'lone voice' in the sector
Jenni Richards QC going through the emails sent by Department for Education to bodies such as Ofsted, ADCS & Principal Children & Families Social Workers Network. Many of those whom the government claimed to have 'consulted' on the regs later stated that this was not the case.
The 23 April, when the regulations were laid, was the first time that many in children’s social care become aware of the changes. The Department for Education argued that it had consulted 'informally' & the changes had been called for urgently. We dispute this.
Jenni Richards QC highlights the lack of meaningful assessment of the impact on children in care of diluting legal safeguards. Correspondance with local authorities focused entirely on easing pressures on the system and not on the impact on children.
Some of the specific changes to regulations are now being examined - you can find Article 39's full summary of the 65 legal safeguards which were removed or diluted without any public consultation or Parliamentary scrutiny and debate here: article39.org.uk/2020/06/03/65-…
Our legal challenge concentrates on 6 areas in particular:
1) Dilution of duties relating to social worker visits
2) Removal of duty to hold six-monthly reviews of children in care
3) Loss of safeguards for children placed out of area w/ people who are not connected to them...
1) Dilution of duties relating to social worker visits
2) Removal of duty to hold six-monthly reviews of children in care
3) Loss of safeguards for children placed out of area w/ people who are not connected to them...
4) Loss of safeguards in relation to short breaks, particularly affecting disabled children;
5) Loss of independent scrutiny & other safeguards in adoption;
6) Dilution of duty on children’s homes to ensure an independent person visits each month & reports on children’s welfare.
5) Loss of independent scrutiny & other safeguards in adoption;
6) Dilution of duty on children’s homes to ensure an independent person visits each month & reports on children’s welfare.
Judge’s attention is drawn to correspondence between Department for Education and @ChildrensComm about Statutory Instrument 445. DfE refers to 'minor' 'low risk' changes and fails to recognise the importance of these procedural safeguards for children in care.
#ScrapSI445
#ScrapSI445
Jenni Richards QC emphasising that children in care have been repeatedly failed and it’s not sufficient to say that because local authorities should have the interests of children at heart that no other organisations representing children and their views needed to be consulted.
'Urgency' might explain why government would not have had a full public consultation – but if DfE had time to engage with *some* bodies then timing & urgency cannot have been the reason for not consulting with others, such as Children’s Commissioner. This was a ‘secret process’.
Now discussing second ground for challenge – that removing safeguards previously judged as necessary to protect children in care in order to reduce ‘burdens' on local authorities is contrary to the objects & purpose of primary legislation, particularly the Children Act 1989.
The government relies heavily on existance of guidance outlining that local authorities should only use the changes under SI445 when ‘absolutely necessary’ – Judge questions why Department for Education didn't issue ‘statutory’ guidance? Because of the lack of time, apparently
We are now finished for day 1 – hearing will continue tomorrow, as will our updates! Thanks so much for following the case and for all your support – you can read more about why Article 39 brought this legal challenge here: article39.org.uk/2020/07/15/giv… #ScrapSI445
