|
Column Number: 273
Standing Committee B
Thursday 21 October 2004
(Afternoon)
[Dame Marion Roe in the Chair]
Clause 9
Information databases
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 109, in
clause 9, page 7, line 43, leave out paragraph (g).—[Mrs. Brooke.]
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 37, in
No. 225, in
No. 190, in
clause 9, page 7, line 45, leave out paragraph (h).
No. 218, in
No. 219, in
clause 9, page 7, line 47, at end insert—
'(4A) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsections (1) to (4) must provide that—
(a) where information recorded on any such database is disclosed to another person, the person making the disclosure must notify the person about whom the disclosure is made of the information being disclosed, and provide them with a copy of it; and
(b) where information recorded on any such database is disclosed to another person, and the information relates to a child, the person making the disclosure must notify—
(i) the child if he is of sufficient maturity, and
(ii) his parent, carer and anyone with parental responsibility of the information,
and provide each of these persons with a copy of it.'.
No. 223, in
No. 224, in
Column Number: 274
No. 226, in
clause 9, page 9, line 6, at end insert—
'(12A) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsections (1) to (4) must provide that—
(a) where information recorded on any such database is disclosed to another person, the person making the disclosure must notify the person about whom the disclosure is made of the information being disclosed, and provide them with a copy of it; and
(b) where information recorded on any such database is disclosed to another person, and the information relates to a child, the person making the disclosure must notify—
(i) the child if he is of sufficient maturity, and
(ii) his parents, carer and anyone with parental responsibility
of the information and provide each with a copy thereof.'.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): This is the last leg—what a shame. I was speaking to amendment No. 37 and had just taken the point from the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) about having central guidance. I certainly do not want the Government to impose guidance. I wish the professions to decide on the most appropriate guidance for practitioners in the field to trigger the cause for concern, whatever it will be called, to take their concerns to a higher level. I hope that there would be collaboration between the different bodies of professionals so that they do not operate from entirely different thresholds at a local level.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): I agree that there is an issue about professionals operating at different thresholds. I doubt whether it is possible to solve that problem with guidelines from the national professional bodies. If the hon. Gentleman talks to teachers, social workers and others, they will tell him that either the guidelines will have to be so incredibly detailed that they will be impossible to draw up with any precision, or they will too broad to be useful in individual cases. Basically, professionals want to make these judgments themselves. If we try to impose guidelines either from the Government or from the professional bodies we will have difficulties.
Tim Loughton: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The trouble is that, in the absence of guidelines, there is no guarantee that a GP in his constituency will not operate to a set of values and thresholds that may result in his referring to child protection issues, not because he has not seen any, but because he does not think that they trigger the cause for concern criteria. A GP in my constituency might do the complete opposite.
I should like to know what steps have been taken. Surely these are key bodies in the operation of all these measures in the Bill. That is the point of amendment No. 37. We are unhappy with the cause of concern criteria, but I am trying to put in a replacement. [Interruption.] The Minister is having a bit of a fit at the moment although not at my amendment I hasten to add. We want to be constructive so that we can improve what is already there.
Finally, I want to touch on a couple of the amendments in the name of my lamented Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). His name has cropped up rather more today than when he is present.
Column Number: 275
Amendment No. 225 would add details on the database about who provided the information. This is an interesting point. Surely there needs to be some means of checking the source and therefore the veracity of the information that is being provided and, perhaps more importantly, for that person to be held accountable if the information turns out to be inaccurate or vexatious at a later stage. Amendment No. 224 clarifies what Ministers have been saying: details of the cause for concern should not be released to anyone not otherwise entitled to access it. It would be interesting to hear who the Government think should have that access.
Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I should like to speak to amendment No. 219 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). The Government seem determined to include any cause for concern in the Bill. The amendment probes what regulations the Minister sees as appropriate to safeguard children and young people whose information is recorded on the database and may be passed on to another person. Under the amendment, a child or young person would have the information that was being disclosed, so that they could check that it was accurate and appropriate. The amendment goes on to say that the child should be informed in the first place and, if they are not mature enough, the parent, guardian or anyone else with parental responsibility should have the opportunity to check the information.
It seems to me that if ''cause for concern'' is not well defined, there will be too little information on the database to be of any use. Alternatively, there will be so much that people have no confidence in it. However, confidence that the database is appropriate, accurate and instrumental in looking after the well-being and welfare of children is important for the professionals using it, so it is not appropriate to include any cause for concern on the database.
The Minister for Children, Young People and Families (Margaret Hodge): I shall bring this debate to a speedy conclusion, but if hon. Members feel that I have not touched on what they are interested in, perhaps they will indicate that to me. I shall preface my remarks by saying that all we are talking about is one tool, among many, to achieve better information sharing, because that will mean that people intervene earlier and more appropriately. We hope that, as a result, children will be better protected.
Nothing that we are doing with the database or anything else detracts from or diminishes the importance of the professional judgment of all professionals who deal with children. We are not replacing the judgment of the professional with a bit of ICT; we are simply introducing a database, and all that goes with it, to support better decision making and better professional judgment. It is in that context that we are working.
Column Number: 276
Let me pick up on the issues that people have talked about in relation to cause for concern. We are not talking about a system whereby recording that a practitioner is concerned triggers action to address that concern. The practitioner still has the responsibility to take action and to take the initiative. Having cause for concern indicates nothing more or less than that. If I had cause for concern about a child with whom I worked, all that would be indicated would be that I had cause for concern. That would suggest that I felt that if another professional had a cause for concern, they should talk to me. We would want to share the information about the child so that, between us, we could come to a better decision as to the action that we should take. There would be no information on the system beyond the fact that a professional had cause for concern and wished to speak to other professionals about the issue.
Nothing in the clause changes the way in which common law applies to the decision that a practitioner makes about whether they can discuss a child's case with another practitioner. If a practitioner were approached by another practitioner, he or she would have to have regard to all data protection and confidentiality obligations before deciding to share the cause for concern with the other practitioner.
The indication of a concern enables a practitioner simply to signal to others who subsequently look at the child's record that they have a concern about the child at that time. That would prompt contact—that is all. Then the two practitioners could see whether their observations were related, and that would help them to build a better, early all-round picture of the child's needs.
The database will not hold the detail of what a practitioner is concerned about, so it will always be professional judgment that determines whether an individual practitioner is worried about an aspect of a child's life that others dealing with the child might need to know about. We do not propose a system whereby recording a concern prompts action on a child's case, so there is no need for a common threshold in that sense. It is not a referral mechanism, as current mechanisms are. It should prompt discussion, and that discussion will lead to decisions on action.
|
