| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I congratulate the Members of the other place on their assiduous work on the Bill. They certainly spent many a long hour on it. I particularly mention those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—Baroness Walmsley and her team. As I read the lengthy passages in the Lords Hansard that cover the deliberations on the Bill in the other place, I was struck by the thoughtfulness and responsiveness of the Minister there throughout, so I am disappointed that the Minister is missing from the Chamber now. The cross-party approach on many aspects of the Bill is to be highly commended and has resulted in great improvements in the Bill. I hope that we will work cross-party throughout the Committee to improve it further.
Although the Government may feel that the time spent on the Bill in the other place provides an excuse for allocating such a short time for the House to scrutinise it, the Liberal Democrats believe that a wide range of important issues still require detailed debate, especially if another 15 years pass before there is further major
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1031
legislation on this issue. We support the Government's aim in introducing the Bill, and look forward to making positive contributions to ensure that the legislation will indeed improve children's lives and help to enhance services and support for all young people. Indeed, I hope that we achieve what the Minister outlined: a true transformation in services—over time, of course.
We strongly endorse the aim of achieving the five outcomes for children, as outlined in "Every Child Matters": being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution and economic well-being. It is interesting to see how those outcomes were expressed on Second Reading in the other place and how they have been amended. Education and training did not seem to match with enjoying and achieving, and we welcome the inclusion of recreation.
We also welcome the inclusion of emotional well-being, along with social and economic well-being. Staying safe, of course, involves a proactive, preventive agenda, as some hon. Members have mentioned today. However, we share the Children's Society's concern about how the achievement of those outcomes will be measured. We also believe that equality of opportunity should be considered within the outcome framework and hope that the Government will address that issue. Gaining access to important services is likely to be far more difficult for those with specialist needs.
It is heartening that clause 45, on ascertaining children's wishes, was introduced on Report in the other place, but it is worrying that it was not at the heart of Government thought and included earlier. Even so, despite the Minister's words, insufficient emphasis seems to have been given in the Bill to listening to children and taking on board their views and experiences, which must be seen as important in the context of evaluating the outcomes and, of course, in all the processes. That reminds us that no one appeared to ask Victoria Climbié her views and feelings about her situation.
I recall that, long ago in the Fred West case, early clues were missed because children were not fully listened to. That has happened time and again. We have missed vital clues and we need to put more emphasis in the Bill on that aspect of listening to children. The Children's Society calls on the Government to take the opportunity of the Bill to place a new duty on local authorities actively to seek the wishes and feelings of all children about whom there are child protection concerns. I hope that, when the Minister returns, we will have some idea about whether that is being considered.
A strong, independent champion of children's rights was needed and we particularly welcome the establishment of the children's commissioner. That was a proposal in the Liberal Democrats' general election manifesto for 2001, so we are delighted that, yet again, the Government will implement one of our policies. Of course, we acknowledge that Wales has had a children's commissioner since 2001, and we are lagging behind Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We read the first proposals put before the other House with great disappointment. The cross-party approach there resulted in the now proposed commissioner for England. At least that bit has been endorsed today, and while I am pleased about that, what I am really pleased about is the fact that the
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1032
commissioner will be firmly based on the rights of the child and reflect the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. We certainly would strongly oppose any move by the Government to reverse any of those key changes. We have heard some strong hints today that there will be attempts at reversal. I accept that further clarification is probably needed with regard to the interaction between the four commissioners in the different parts of the UK and look forward to debating that in Committee.
We should like some further amendments to be made, particularly in relation to the Secretary of State's power to direct the commissioner to hold an inquiry. We think it important that the children's commissioner is truly independent of the Government. Of course, the commissioner can always consider a request, but it is important that the commissioner has discretion. A cynic might feel that the Secretary of State—a future one, of course, I am sure—might keep the commissioner so tied down with directed inquiries that the commissioner would have little time left for the priorities, perhaps set by children.
On Third Reading in the other place, the Minister indicated that there might well be a Government amendment relating to the requirement on the Government or others to respond to the commissioner's recommendations. We would greatly welcome that. A requirement for some longer-term monitoring on whether action has taken place and its effectiveness would also be positive. A few other issues were not fully answered during that debate and we shall return to them in Committee.
Concern continues to be raised that schools have not been included in the list of partners who will have a duty to make arrangements to co-operate and to improve children's well-being under clause 7, which is about strategic functions. I can understand the argument for including only local education authorities, but independent schools, city academies and city technology colleges have very limited relationships with current LEAs and the new funding arrangements currently under discussion will further reduce links between schools and LEAs. That issue must be revisited, although we must also be mindful of the extra duties placed on schools. We welcome the proposals on extended schools because they will provide vital further opportunities to support children and families.
As other hon. Members have said, it is important that all children who live in this country are eligible for the same rights. The children of refugees and asylum seekers should have the basic human rights afforded to all children in this country.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Lady referred to extended schools, and there are certainly some imaginative proposals. She says that she supports those proposals, but does she think that local or national taxpayers should pay for them?
Mrs. Brooke: I see schools in the context of the LEAs, and I will look in great detail at where the funding streams will come through to LEAs, but we favour local decision making in implementation.
Refugee children were identified as those in greatest need in "Every Child Matters", yet amendments proposed in the other place were resisted. We certainly
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1033
wish to revisit some of the discussion. We welcome the fact that, under clause 8, the relevant agencies that provide services to children will have a duty to make arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare, but we feel that the relevant agencies must include those responsible for immigration detention centres where children are held, the National Asylum Support Service and those who deal with refugee children at ports. That is urgent, given the concerns about trafficking and the rise in the number of refugee children being detained.
The detention of children will always raise serious child protection concerns. In 2002, the view of the inspector of prisons was that
"the positive development of children was compromised by the secure nature of the facility"—
"and the uncertainty surrounding the length of stay".
She made various recommendations on immigration removal centres, with further recommendations in 2003. What progress has been made on their implementation? In a reply to a recent parliamentary question, I was told:
"The Immigration Service does not routinely collect data on children arriving in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 19 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 74W.]
I know that several measures have been introduced recently to ensure that such children at risk are identified, but surely we must have comprehensive data on children who enter the country because, if we do not, the situation will not fit with the other proposals in the Bill.
I welcome the fact that youth offending teams and governors of prisons and secure training centres are included under the new duty to safeguard and promote welfare, but it is clear from the number of tragic suicides of young people in custody. Between 1990 and the present day, there were 186 self-inflicted deaths among under-21s in prison. How does that make us feel about our society and the system?
Recent statistics show that the number of children assessed as vulnerable and remanded in, or sentenced to, Prison Service custody in 2003–04 was 3,337, which represents a massive increase from 2000–01 when there were only 432 such cases. The recent death in custody of 14-year-old Adam Rickwood highlights the tragic situation that can result from that. I know that the Government have indicated their intention to legislate on youth justice sentencing in "Youth Justice—The Next Steps" and "Every Child Matters: The Next Steps", but the new safeguarding framework in the Bill offers us the opportunity to address concerns about vulnerable children who are sentenced to, or remanded in, custody now—before more of them die.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children raises the important point that the Bill does not adequately address the educational attainment of children in prisons. We know that children in the secure estate have low educational attainment because recent research shows that such children of school age have literacy and numeracy levels below those of children aged 11 and that more than a quarter have a level equivalent to that of an average child aged seven or younger. We also know that educational standards have an impact on reoffending rates, so addressing that matter in the Bill would be a positive step.
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1034
Tackling housing need is central to the welfare of children. Shelter calls for the Bill to go further in two key respects by suggesting that
"Housing need should be included among the key factors to be considered in promoting a child's well being; and . . . Action should be taken to ensure that children's services authorities . . . fulfil their responsibilities to homeless children under the Children Act."
I have long been worried about how well councils—especially when different councils, such as county and district councils, are involved—ensure that housing and social services work together. I know that there are excellent examples of good practice, but it is easy for things to go wrong if those services do not work well together. Is the Minister considering issuing supporting guidance on housing?
We welcome the additional detail that is now provided in clause 9 because we could not have supported the original clause 8 given that its total lack of detail made it a blank cheque. We support the principle of a simple database with objective data. In the case of Victoria Climbié, a simple database would have shown that she was not attending a school. We appreciate that achievements can be made, but we need to know more about the details. Will the database be local, regional or national and will it have a relationship with existing databases?
There remain questions about the proposed flags of concerns on a child's record in the proposed database. The suggestion in the other place of finding an alternative name for those does not overcome our fundamental objections. Different professionals will have different thresholds of concern and, despite the probing amendments moved in the other place, the Government have not produced a more detailed definition of a "cause for concern". Confusion could result from different interpretations of the term. It is possible that those who work with children will tend to flag every minor concern rather than risk accusations of negligence. If the system constantly delivers alerts for trivial issues, any urgent intervention required might be obscured because people cannot see the wood for the trees. Children already at risk of harm might be overlooked.
It is important for different agencies to communicate clearly with each other and to take effective action. The database may be a tool, but it will not be a substitute for professional work. It is estimated that there is currently a shortage of some 2,000 children's social workers, but we must have well-trained social workers. I am aware that funding is available for training at present, but will the Minister assure me that funding streams will continue year on year to ensure that social workers and partners receive support for professional development and multi-agency work in all areas of child protection? All too often, the Government start something and do not continue it. At the moment, local authorities have money for training, but what will the situation be in five years' time? We must plan ahead.
One thing that could be useful would be if sufficient funding were provided for outreach work to access vulnerable families, rather than waiting for vulnerable families to access services: that would mean that people did not become aware of their social services only when they were in difficulty. People involved in the trailblazer
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1035
pilots made it clear to me that knowledge about, and confidence in, the levels and types of data that may be shared under existing legislation was important.
We share the worries of several organisations about the implications for children of having service contact details on their records if the nature of the services that they have accessed automatically infers private and confidential details about their personal situations. Such an inference could be drawn from children accessing HIV, sexual health or abortion clinics, or drugs services. It is critical to ensure that there are tighter access restrictions on details about such sensitive services, because neither parents nor children must be deterred from seeking help or advice. Clarification is needed on how risks to children caused by inappropriate access to data will be prevented.
We are told that consultation is taking place on such matters, and that guidance will be published in due course, but we need more details before the Committee stage. Who will see the database? Who will update the data? Who will remove data when they are out of date, and for how long should they be kept? Where will responsibility lie? And how will common standards be met throughout the country? There are matters relating to voluntary sector organisations now. They are signing service level agreements with local authorities now, and given that there is an assumption that everything in the Bill will go through, they need to know what will happen regarding the data.
I welcome many aspects of the Bill. I am pleased that there is confidence on both sides of the argument that we can change the structure of integrated services while maintaining sufficient accountability. There are questions about how the money will work out for children's trusts and how health priorities will match up with other priorities. A point has been raised with me about the ring-fencing of money for children's services. In my part of the country and throughout the south-west, money invariably has to be poached from adult social services to prop up the children's services budget, so what will happen when insufficient money is available owing to the ring-fencing of money for children's services? Given that the problem is widespread, that is an important consideration.
On private fostering, there is widespread agreement among interested organisations that proposals to amend the existing notification requirements do not address the failings of the current system. Rigorous standards apply to children in day care and to children accommodated by local authorities. However, the system for private fostering only requires the local authority to be notified of the arrangement, and does not require its approval. Once again, we must ask why there is not a compulsory registration scheme, as there have long been concerns about the system of notification. A register of suitable private foster parents would enable the designated local authority official to provide information to parents about the suitability of a prospective private foster carer based on a minimum set of standards, including the question of whether they had been police-checked or had had any of their own children placed in local authority care. Privately fostered children and their parents must be afforded the same standard of safeguarding as children who are looked after by child minders or accommodated by the local authority.
13 Sept 2004 : Column 1036
Looked-after children are a particularly vulnerable group and, as we have heard, the current guidance requires schools to take certain action. The Government's own reports, however, show that the impact of the designated teacher scheme is mixed. Some schools allow non-contact time for designated teachers to liaise with other agencies and to attend planning and review meetings, but others do not. It is more appropriate to place a statutory duty on schools and governing bodies than to rely on further guidance. As an aside, Baroness Ashton, the Under-Secretary for Education and Skills, said in a debate in the other place:
"If children do not have a supportive environment with opportunities to learn and to use computer equipment . . . they can be disadvantaged."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2004; Vol. 663, c. 1490–91.]
It has recently been drawn to my attention that a grant available for a two-year period that has enabled councils to purchase computer equipment for looked-after children has come to an end, and does not appear to have been replaced with other funding. I would be grateful for clarification on that important matter—I am sure that no one in the House wishes to cut back on significant support at a time when we are saying that we will give more support to vulnerable children.
I am anxious about unreasonable chastisement and, although I welcome the Bill overall, I believe that it should be amended to give children the same protection in their homes as adults are afforded under the law on assault. I believe that the amendment introduced on Report by Lord Lester attempts a legal definition of ways in which children can continue to be assaulted, which sends a dangerous message to society about the acceptability of violence towards children. Children who witness or are recipients of violence are likely to repeat that behaviour at other times and in different settings. There is obviously a lack of clarity about what is acceptable: some people bruise more easily, for example. There is also the problem of different coloured skins and the concern raised by a child protection police officer that regular physical punishment may not leave obvious signs on a child's body. Constant severe punishment may be a great cause for concern, but it is not covered by the amendment if it does not leave a mark on the child's body. I accept that the amendment deals with mental harm, but how on earth do we measure such harm or judge its severity?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |