| Children Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mrs. Brooke: I was getting alarmed at the number of amendments in this group, thinking that I was not prepared. Now I realise why there is such a large number—it boils down to the change of one word. Amendment No. 94 calls for a compulsory registration scheme for private fostering. I appreciate that the Government have moved some way towards such an arrangement by trying to strengthen the notification scheme. That is absolutely essential, but most professionals ask: if it is a good idea for a few years' time, why not introduce it now? It is interesting to note that every report that the Government have commissioned in the past five years confirms that privately fostered children can be very vulnerable. A registration system involving the approval of private foster carers would protect their interests better than the current situation, under which private foster carers are required only to notify local authorities about arrangements. The reports include Sir William Utting's ''People like us: The review of safeguards for children living away from home'', which was commissioned in 1997 by the Prime Minister. That report referred to private fostering as a Column Number: 281 potential honey pot for abusers. It was published all that time ago, and the many other reports published since have all come to the same conclusion.While we welcome the power to establish the registration schemes, we do not believe that the proposals are sufficient to provide the protection that is needed for some of the most vulnerable children in the country. As we know, the key dilemmas for policy makers and practitioners are the extent to which it is realistic to impose controls on private arrangements made by parents for the care of their children and the extent to which all the different arrangements that fall into the category of private fostering can be subject to the same treatment. Opponents to the registration scheme often argue that the Government should not intervene in private life and that many families would find that unacceptable. The amendment would simply require keeping a register to be the duty of every children's services authority. There are a lot of objections, and I am sure that the Minister will mention some. However, by passing this simple amendment and with the aid of regulations, which I know that she is keen on using, we could put constraints on the system that would overcome some of the fears. For example, we would need in particular to focus on private foster carers who propose to foster children not previously known to them. When the children are known to them, the new system could be seen as a cumbersome arrangement, but it would exist to assist parents, which is an important point. Parents who need to place their child with a private foster carer want to know that the carer is subject to some form of accountability. Regulations could work with the amendment to ensure that inappropriate burdens are not imposed on carers. Individuals often care temporarily for a child whom they already know in their capacity as a friend, godparent or a member of the extended family, perhaps when there is illness in the family. There are many different circumstances in which the Government would not want to be too heavy-handed. Mr. Dawson: In many of the circumstances that the hon. Lady has mentioned—when there is illness or bereavement in the family, for example—people need to look to friends, neighbours or members of the extended family to take over the care of a child for a short time. Private fostering comes into the equation only when the child has been in such care for 28 days, which is a long time. Mrs. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I am on the defensive at the moment, trying to pre-empt some of the arguments that might be made against the registration scheme, and it is helpful that the figure is 28 days. There is a further concern in my area because there are many language schools. They are concerned because they rely on host families to have young people with them for more than 28 days. I understand their concern, because the checks must be onerous from a business point of view, but in principle the families should be checked. Discussing this issue makes us think more and more about how we did not Column Number: 282 think about those considerations when we let our children go off on foreign exchanges in the past. Now we are more aware of the dangers, we have to reach a balanced point of view.I am aware that there are arguments against the scheme, particularly for the language schools in my area, but I would hope that we could develop a private fostering register. We would have to ensure that it did not catch up people with straightforward arrangements, although that would only be over 28 days. We would also need consultation to see how such an arrangement would affect people brought into the system for the first time, such as businesses, in the way that I have explained. I have tabled a series of amendments that work together, but the fundamental principle remains that, with regulations, it would be possible to develop a private fostering registration scheme that addressed some of people's great fears. We often refer to Victoria Climbie and point out that private fostering was not involved in that case, but a private fostering arrangement was a part of another tragic case—that of Toni-Ann Byfield. We know that there are pitfalls, but I ask the Minister to consider the amendments.
3 pmMr. Dawson: I would be much less defensive than the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole because I cannot honestly believe that the Government are proposing such an inadequate scheme as that expressed in clause 37 and introducing the possibility of a registration scheme only in a sunset clause. No one in this country has the first clue how many privately fostered children there are. In 2001, the Department of Health estimated that there were 10,000 privately fostered children in the country and that 50 per cent. of them had not been notified to the local authorities. Goodness knows where it got that statistic from, because there is no basis on which they could estimate the number not known to the local authorities. Victoria Climbie was privately fostered with a great aunt—that would go beyond the definition of a close relative. The Children Act 1989 states that a child is privately fostered if they stay for more than 28 days with someone who does not have parental responsibility or is not a relative. That is a very long time indeed. The Government are aware of the experience of introducing regulations on child minding. People who cared for children in their own homes for more than two hours a day had to stop doing that in an unofficial capacity and become registered, a condition that has swiftly achieved the broadest acceptance in our society. Now, if parents need a child minder, a list is readily available of people who are police checked, approved and inspected and who can provide a decent service for their children. Worryingly, private fostering is a cultural phenomenon. It is part of the culture in west African countries, especially Nigeria. Many people from west Africa come to this country to work or study, and they seek a private fostering arrangement for their children. Many of the people with whom they wish to leave their Column Number: 283 children will not be known to them, or they may be aware of them through the extended family or through a network back home.Surely, Victoria Climbie's extremely responsible and sensitive parents should have been able, if they had needed their child to be looked after, to check whether the local authority had a list of people prepared to take on private fostering arrangements. If they decided that they wanted to place their child with a particular person, they should have been able to ensure that that person had been thoroughly checked out by the local authority. I do not know why the Government are so resistant to taking the sensible action urged on them by a previous chief inspector of social services, Sir William Utting. One wishes he had urged them to take that action while he was still in post. He suggested that legislation be introduced to require local authorities to maintain a register of private foster carers in their area who are approved as suitable; that it should be an offence to foster a child privately if the carer is unregistered or to place a child with an unregistered carer; and that standards should be published with the criteria against which private foster carers should be assessed for registration. The standards would be based on the current ones for child minders and would include elements of national standards for foster care. I do not understand why the Government are not prepared to introduce such simple legislation now, rather than waiting for the future or perhaps, God help us, for another tragedy to occur in the meantime. We have debated this issue before in considering Bills; we tried to amend the Care Standards Bill in 2000. However, the Government are reluctant to take the issue on, which is extremely puzzling. What I am urging is sensible, straightforward and profoundly in the interests of children and parents. It would ensure child safety. Thousands of children, including, perhaps, some of those from whom we never hear again after they pass through the hands of the immigration authorities at our ports, would become known to us. The measure would support Government policies aimed at defeating the sexual exploitation of children trafficked into this country and the exploitation of children coming into the country for domestic servitude. I suspect that that is a much greater problem than we fully understand. We would see progress on all those matters. A short while ago, there was a meeting of Africans Unite Against Child Abuse. That excellent organisation is rooted in the African community in this country. As part of a week of events that AFRUCA was undertaking, I went to a discussion about child care in the back room of an African restaurant in Dalston. One lady stood up and exhorted everyone present to acknowledge that many people from the community living in London seek, after they have come to this country, worked and acquired some money and standing, to bring a child into the country on a private fostering basis, even though the child will not be looked after properly as a member of the Column Number: 284 household. The child is used as a domestic servant to support the work of the household and to look after the children. The people of AFRUCA are extremely brave in raising such issues at national level. The Government should forget all about amendments to this useless notification scheme, which puts children at risk, and install a proper registration scheme now.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 21 October 2004 |
