|
Mr. Dawson: Given that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to support the clause to the extent of not voting against it, does he share my concern that somebody who can be required or directed to inquire into grave cases no longer has the facility to base their interests on children's rights after the amendments made yesterday?
Tim Loughton: I heard the points that the hon. Gentleman made and we are sympathetic to each other's cases. That is why, for the purposes of getting on to another clause that does not involve the Children's Commissioner—we are almost halfway through the time allocated for this stage of the Bill—I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I reserve the right to return to the issue on Report when we may raise our concerns again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 181, in
clause 5, page 4, line 22, at end insert 'as soon as possible'.
No. 182, in
Column Number: 134
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.
Division No. 5]
AYES
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Fitzsimons, Mrs. Lorna
Hodge, Margaret
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
McDonagh, Siobhain
Mole, Chris
Munn, Ms Meg
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Taylor, Ms Dari
Touhig, Mr. Don
NOES
Brooke, Annette
Dawson, Mr. Hilton
Williams, Mr. Roger
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 disagreed to.
Clause 7
Co-operation to improve well-being
Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
clause 7, page 5, line 22, after 'partners', insert 'to include voluntary organisations'.
At last, we have reached part 2, about halfway through our proceedings. The clause deals with the principle of joined-up approaches between the professionals—the various agencies and bodies involved in child protection and promoting the welfare of children.
Amendment No. 24 is a probing amendment. Many voluntary organisations involved with children's welfare have made representations about the clause, because they feel that voluntary partners should be mentioned in the Bill—as it stands, they are not. I am sure that the Government are mindful of the good work and essential involvement of voluntary bodies in this area. Without them—be it the NSPCC, Barnardo's or any of the wealth of other voluntary bodies—much of what we are trying to achieve would not be possible.
Amendment No. 24 would therefore include the mention of voluntary organisations. I know what the Government will say: that that would give undue preference to a particular body of people. On Tuesday, we were told that even parents would not be afforded any particular recognition; they do not occupy a special place in our attitudes towards children. If even parents cannot get mentioned in part 1, I am not optimistic that voluntary organisations will be included in part 2. However, we keep on trying, because we believe that voluntary organisations play a particularly important role, and that it would be useful for them to be named.
On occasions, conflicts occur between a commissioning local authority and particular voluntary organisations. Local authorities may, on the one hand, view voluntary organisations as merely cheap labour to provide services—they provide those services very well—or, on the other hand, may ignore them if they are not required. Both positions are
Column Number: 135
equally untenable. We believe that including voluntary organisations in the Bill would strengthen it and would also remind the various authorities and agencies of Government that voluntary partners are essential to make the joined-up approach work. That is why I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I welcome you to the Chair, Dame Marion. I am confident in saying that you and I never attended the same school, and equally confident in saying that none of the schools that I attended have ever put up my picture.
I also say to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that, since I am dealing with the clause, he is right not to be optimistic. However, I agree with him about the importance of voluntary organisations: they are vital if we are to deliver on this agenda. They need to be involved not just as providers of services but in commissioning and developing strategy and policy. However, we cannot support the amendment, because to include voluntary organisations in the Bill would be to treat them as a cohesive group, which they are not. If we expected the partners to treat them as such, they would have to choose between them and would find that difficult. In addition, the Bill is a two-way street. It imposes responsibilities as well as rights on the partners.
Under the amendment, voluntary organisations would be expected to fulfil certain duties, but many would not be able to fulfil their part of the bargain, even though they could still make a valuable contribution as part of the overall strategy. That is why subsection (1)(c) provides for the inclusion of voluntary organisations in a sustainable way. We support such involvement and have undertaken to produce guidance that will say clearly that voluntary organisations should be part of the co-operative partnership that we are trying to create. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Tim Loughton: Those are perfectly practical responses to the amendment. The recognition of the importance of voluntary organisations is welcome and probably the most that we can expect at this stage. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Dawson: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in
clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert—
'(d) neighbouring children's services authorities particularly when boundaries between the authorities are crossed by relevant partners.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 23, in
Amendment No. 60, in
Column Number: 136
Amendment No. 215, in
Amendment No. 33, in
New clause 9—Children's services in England—
Mr. Dawson: I am pleased that we have moved on to discuss clause 7, which is an estimable and wonderful clause that I do not criticise in any way whatever.
Tim Loughton: It is too late now.
Mr. Dawson: In lots of senses.
I support the clause, which is fundamental to developing the new world of high-quality, integrated and child-centred children's services that we hope the Bill will bring about, but there are clearly ways in which it could be improved. I am sometimes frustrated when reading Government documents, and that was particularly the case when I read the Green Paper, because many of the references to local government seemed to be to fairly small metropolitan boroughs and boroughs that had the great good fortune of being coterminous with key partners. Unfortunately, life is not like that in large parts of the country.
My aim in amendment No. 59, therefore, is to promote co-operation not only with the authority's relevant partners and other bodies that exercise functions in relation to children in the authority's area but with neighbouring authorities. I am thinking in particular of county councils that share boundaries with primary care trusts or that share a police authority. Just from practical, everyday experience, I recommend the amendment as a sensible move to ensure that there is co-ordination and cohesion between those bodies and that we do not have a body such as Morecambe Bay primary care trust working across a very large rural area and having to relate not only to three districts but to two children's services authorities that perhaps have different priorities and ways of operating. It is essential to try to ensure that there is co-operation.
4 pm
Along the same lines, new clause 9 addresses itself to my local situation. We have a huge county council in Lancashire, which encompasses 12 districts and eight primary care trusts. I have lived in the area and worked for the authority, and I simply do not believe that it is possible to build co-operative arrangements in an area of such a size and complexity and with such different relationships and interrelationships without trying to ensure an effective form of devolution.
Column Number: 137
New clause 9 is an attempt to be helpful and to try and make things work on the ground. It would provide that county councils should publish a plan for the devolution of co-operative arrangements for the key partners to a level that makes more sense to people than the entire county council area. That devolution would be to district level where all the partners are engaged and where, crucially, the children, parents and people working at the coal face have the opportunity to build good relationships on a day-to-day basis.
Without the devolution and co-operation across boundaries that I have been talking about, what we all want to happen—the transformation of children's services—will be much more difficult. That would be the case particularly in the rural areas and shire counties of this country.
|
