| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We must move to the next debate.
Private Care Agencies
1.30 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire): I am grateful for the opportunity to put on the official record my deep concerns about the regulations surrounding private care agencies, which have grown in number in recent years and are of a weird and wonderful variety.
I was alerted to the problems to which poor regulations can give rise last year, when I received a petition from the residents of Eskbrook in Skelmersdale who were protesting about what they called "a reign of terror" that had been introduced into their quiet area by problem teenagers housed with their carers in a normal family home in their midst. The residents accused the youngsters of openly vandalising cars in the street, incessant abusive language and excessive noise in the early hours of the morning. In general, the residents described a lack of control being exercised by the carers.
I believed at the time that that was a very usual reaction to neighbourhood nuisance, which is a common complaint, and I took the usual steps of making inquiries of the police and the council. During the year, as I investigated the problem, it became obvious that it was much larger and had many more sides. It became clear, too, that the difficulties faced by the authorities, the company and the community had national implications.
The house in question is owned by a private company, Care Afloat, which operates from unit 3a, TPT Training, Railway road, Skelmersdale. I hasten to add that TPT Training has nothing whatever to do with this debate. The company buys or leases relatively cheap houses and advertises itself as
The problem is that, under current regulations, there is no effective supervision or inspection of such homes by social services or other relevant regulatory bodies. Most, if not all, the young people are from other local authorities--sometimes a long way off. The social services department in the contracting authority cannot or does not effectively monitor the progress and condition of the young people for whom it should be responsible; the local authority in which the home is located does not have powers effectively to deal with the situation that it discovers is growing in its bailiwick. Mr. Danny Curran, who runs Care Afloat, says that he has to request the placing authority to visit or inspect, or it does not do so.
I have to hand a despairing memorandum from St. Helens social services--the neighbouring authority to my constituency--referring to another Care Afloat home in Cross Pit lane, Rainford. It says:
Lancashire county council was not informed of the company by the placing authority, but the children and young people have come to its notice following
involvement of the police or me on behalf of affected constituents. The concern of Lancashire social services department has been communicated to other social services departments. Lancashire did at one time use Care Afloat but no longer does so. I know that there are substantial files on the problem at county hall in Preston, which are not accessible to me, but would, of course, be to the Minister.
Care Afloat is, I am quite sure, not alone in the United Kingdom in slipping through the net of care for young people. It generally caters for fewer than four young people in any one home and therefore falls outside the children's homes registration criteria and under the Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991, which put the onus for checking the viability and safety of placements and responsibility for the supervision and welfare of the young people concerned on the placing agency. Care Afloat wants to open a house for four or more children and thus fall, as it were, deliberately into the ambit of inspection.
It is clear that local authorities that are a considerable distance away from--in this case--west Lancashire cannot supervise the home. They may be guilty of an out of sight, out of mind attitude, but whatever is the case keeping a firm grip on such arrangements presents an immense communication problem for the local authorities concerned and there is no doubt that young people can be very much at risk.
My hon. Friend the Minister will want to know why I am making a song and dance about this particular company. I have had substantial correspondence from and conversations with people who have worked for or worked close to Care Afloat. None wishes me to identify them, because they are frightened, so the evidence that I shall present on one side of the argument must be anonymous and anecdotal. Nevertheless, I know some of the informants well and believe that the allegations should be recorded.
I have had conversations with Mr. Danny Curran who runs Care Afloat and will refer to his arguments as I go along, but I must say that the allegations made against Care Afloat--whether exaggerated or not--must be listened to because, at the very least, they demonstrate what is possible under the current regulatory system.
Most of the children with whom Care Afloat deals have extreme difficulties. They are often the victims of abuse of one kind or another, which is presumably why their local authorities are happy that they are lodged as far away as possible. It follows that most of the children under 16 years old do not attend school, although I know of one child who attended a local school where considerable trouble was caused. The school could not deal adequately with the child because nobody was acting in loco parentis. In another case, a child with psychiatric difficulties was placed in the psychiatric ward of Ormskirk hospital. There was trouble and costs to the local authority, which were eventually recovered from the placing authority--in that case, Gloucester.
The young people are placed away from home without any reference to their health needs, which leaves the host health authority to pick up the consequences. Many accusations have been made about Care Afloat. I shall select one or two. There have been accusations of drug taking and of children being taken to parties and getting drunk in public. I must say that Mr. Curran denies that.
There have been accusations that one of the carers is a cocaine user. I must say that Mr. Curran vehemently denies that, but the lack of inspection and control leaves the organisation open to such a charge.
Worries have been expressed about the seaworthiness of the boats that Care Afloat uses. One boat is used to sail the Irish sea and was at one point demasted off the Isle of Man. Mr. Curran tells me that the boats are regularly spot checked by the Royal Yachting Association. The placing authority and Lancashire county council have no locus in that.
I have a list of faults with another of the boats, drawn up by a boat builder and repairer. After 17 or 18 complaints, it concludes:
The greatest concern is the fact that a substantial proportion of the staff have no qualifications or experience. Mr. Curran says that the figure is 25 per cent. and tells me that Care Afloat has put together a training programme to put that right. I spoke this morning to a woman who, as a student, started as a voluntary helper with Care Afloat. From the first day, she was put in charge of a young sex offender who was under a specific work order not to be left with a single carer. She was left alone with him and her complaints were ignored.
In fairness, Mr. Curran has told me that he is entirely in favour of his houses being properly regulated and inspected by the local authority. Furthermore, he believes that the service should be in the public sector. He has represented those views to Lancashire county council. However, the allegations laid against Care Afloat illustrate what is possible, or even likely, in the private care system. It is wrong that any local authority should place its problem children a long way away and neglect proper, regular monitoring. It is wrong that the host authority has no role in checking what goes on in those houses if there are fewer than four children. It is wrong that, if a private care company asks for voluntary registration--as this one did--local authorities cannot undertake that responsibility.
I do not suggest that Care Afloat wishes to damage the children in its charge, but, given the absence of proper controls, it would be remarkable if staff who intended harm did not appear in private care companies. We know how difficult it has been to keep them out of the regulated sector, never mind the non-regulated sector. Those shortcomings must be put right before there is a horrible calamity somewhere.
Care Afloat's case must be heard. It says that it would welcome registration and inspection, which would bring structural support to the business. It has constructed a management strategy emulating the terms of formal registration. The changes to regulations that I seek would help such organisations to discipline themselves properly and become acceptable to their communities.
I note the agenda for action proposed yesterday or the day before by the National Association of Inspection and Registration Officers. It says:
"Specialists in emergency/respite care and personal development at sea".
It secures contracts with local authorities to care for young people with extreme behavioural problems.
"The latter address is a leased property accommodating up to three young people and as such falls outside the children's homes registration criteria. St. Helens Inspection Unit has been in contact with Care Afloat about a number of matters, but the home in Rainford is not registered with this local authority. Responsibility for checking the suitability and the safety of placements at Cross Pit Lane, therefore, rests with placing agencies."
I believe that Care Afloat is operating similarly in Trafford, Salford and Tameside.
"it is my opinion that this boat is unsafe to operate . . . I would strongly advise that the rest of the boat is examined by a qualified surveyor or boat safety examiner with a view to such points as ventilation, labelling, fire extinguisher type and the location and storage of the petrol generator and the full gas bottle--currently to be found in the shower!"
Challenging young people through boating or sailing is an excellent idea in principle, but the inherent dangers are obvious. The care and inspection of that part of the enterprise should be very tight.
"Arrangements should be made to extend the remit of social care regulation to include vulnerable service users of: small children's homes, domiciliary care agencies, day centres for adults and supported housing schemes."
Quite so. I could mount a similar Adjournment debate about private domiciliary care in west Lancashire. NAIRO goes on:
"Clear and consistent guidance must be given on whether the role of regulation is simply to 'police' minimum standards, or whether it has a wider role to develop quality of care and quality of life."
The latter should surely be the goal of this Government of all Governments.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |