Annette
Brooke: I note that my noble Friend Baroness Sharp moved
similar amendments in the other place. When I read that debate, I was
concerned about the second point being made—that things could
drag on
way beyond the five years. That point needs to be addressed this
morning, which is why I partially support the amendment. My worry is
that three years might not give enough time for a robust assessment, so
I want to know how it can be extended if necessary. I share the fears
that have been raised. I can see things dragging on for about ten
years, which would be ridiculous. I therefore seek some assurance from
the Minister.
Kevin
Brennan: The first amendment seeks to limit the piloting
to three years. The other seeks to ensure that the pilot period does
not start until after the powers under clause 1 have been commenced. I
acknowledge that the intention is to seek some reassurance that we will
pilot the approach of social work practices in a timely fashion and
seek further clarification on the timetable for the operation of the
pilots.
The timetable
for piloting social work practice was set out in some detail in the
other place, in the debate referred to by the hon. Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole. However, I shall repeat it because it is
important to understand the rationale behind the timetable and the
five-year period.
Clause 6(2)
allows for clause 1 to be brought into force by reference to a
particular local authority or authorities in order to enable the
selection of local authorities to pilot the social work practice model.
Unless clause 4 is brought into effect within five years of Royal
Assent, clauses 1 to 5 will cease to have effect. We therefore have
five years to establish the pilots, allow them to run, make a thorough
evaluation of them prior to deciding whether to roll out the power to
make arrangements under clause 1 to all local authorities. Five years
is a reasonable period to undertake that work. Reducing it to three
years would compromise the effectiveness of the pilots and risk
disrupting children’s lives by not allowing for the appropriate
transition periods.
The
subsequent timetable for the pilots is as follows. Subject to the
successful passage of the Bill, we will move to identify local
authorities where the pilots will take place. Those local authorities will
begin commissioning social work practices in early 2009, subject to the
Bill receiving Royal Assent—and subject to when it receives
Royal Assent. Detailed contract negotiations will need to take place
between the pilot local authorities and the social work practice
providers, and practical arrangements for transferring cases will need
to be put into
place. The
aim is to have social work practices up and running, with full case
loads, by autumn 2009, and that the pilots then run for two years until
autumn 2011. During that period, evaluation evidence will be gathered.
In the fourth year, 2011-12, the independent evaluation of the pilots
will take place. We will ensure that the evaluation report is made
public, and that there is a full and proper consultation before the
model is made available to all authorities, if that is the desired
option. The full evaluation report will obviously be placed in the
Library of the
House. The
fifth year is a necessary transition period, because if a decision is
taken to make the social work practice model available to all local
authorities, we will have to ensure that we get the regulatory regime
for social work practices right. We will have to consult on that
regime, and give the chief inspector time to prepare the inspection
arrangements. Those local authorities that had run the pilots would need
to commission social work practices for the post-pilot period, and
would need time to do so. If the decision were to not make the model
more widely available, the pilots would remain in place to allow a well
managed and staged transition of staff and children back to the local
authority over that year, to ensure minimum disruption to their lives.
That is an essential part of ensuring that we support the lives of the
children and young people in the pilot authorities, and it is vital to
give sufficient time for
that. I
hope that members of the Committee will see that while the pilots
themselves will not last for the five-year period, we need five years
to do all the things around the piloting, including set-up, evaluation,
ensuring that we have the evidence base needed to take the right
decisions for looked-after children, and consulting on the way forward
before taking important decisions. It is also clear from the Bill that
we will need to move promptly on Royal Assent. I hope that that goes
some way towards explaining why the pilot in the Bill is set at five
years.
Mr.
Timpson: Has the Minister envisaged an extension to the
pilot scheme—currently with nine local
authorities—whereby if, after the first two-year period of more
tightly controlled piloting, sufficient interest is shown by local
authorities, which will undoubtedly have been exposed to the other
pilot schemes by the nature of the cross boundaries between local
authorities, they will be allowed to participate in the scheme during
that five-year
period?
Kevin
Brennan: It is not intended at this stage for there to be
any more pilots than the ones that we will announce. As the hon.
Gentleman says, if this model becomes immediately attractive and highly
successful and is lauded universally, there may be a queue of local
authorities desirous of taking it up at an early stage. However, the
appropriate thing to do is what we have indicated, which is to set up
the pilots that have been funded in the “Care Matters”
implementation plan, and to properly and independently evaluate them
before making them universally available to other local authorities. I
hope that my remarks have explained why we need five years from the
date that the Act is passed. On that basis, and given that I understand
why the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was probing for more
detail, I hope that the amendment will be
withdrawn.
Tim
Loughton: I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful
comments. It is clear that it is not just some five years hence and
then perhaps some after that, but that the Government appear to have a
clearer timetable, which is more rapid and concise than I had
anticipated. That is to be
welcomed. 12
noon
When the hon.
Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole rose to give reluctant support I
thought that she was going to pitch for four years, and split the
difference between three and five.
It is
important that if we are to test the approach as a potential attractive
new model, we should get on with it. The assessment part of the
piloting timetable that the Government appear to have set is relatively
small—not the full five years—and that is helpful. I am
also encouraged
by the Minister’s comments about proper independent evaluation
and consultation in 2011-12 as an essential part of what happens and,
looking forward to the regulatory regime, the need to construct an
inspection regime. That clarification was helpful, and I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Kevin
Brennan: We have had a fairly good kick around on clauses
1 to 6. Clause 6 is, as I said, crucial to our work on social work
practices, because it enables us to test the model. In discussion of
the amendments we have had the opportunity to set out in detail how we
intend to do that.
Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
6 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
7Border
and Immigration Agency: welfare of
children Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Minister for Children, Young People and Families (Beverley
Hughes): I welcome the opportunity to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr. Pope. Having spent a lot of time, as my
hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, developing the White Paper, I
also welcome the opportunity to be a member of the Committee, and to
work with the other members to bring the measure to
fruition. Hon.
Members will be aware that clause 7 was inserted into the Bill by
Members in the other place, to add the Border and Immigration Agency to
the list of agencies that are subject to section 11 of the Children Act
2004. The intention was obviously to extend to the agency the duty of
safeguarding children. I hope that all hon. Members will acknowledge
that safeguarding children has been and continues to be a top priority
for the Government.
The
Government have listened to the thoughtful and powerful arguments that
have been made on this issue about whether those responsible for
running the immigration system should have a legal duty to ensure that,
consistent with the primary duty to secure our borders, they discharge
their functions having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the
welfare of children—the duty set out in section 11 of the
Children Act 2004.
We welcome
the considerable work already undertaken by the UK Border and
Immigration Agency to implement a code of practice to protect children
from harm while they are in the UK. I hope that hon. Members will
acknowledge that the UKBA already has high standards of care compared
with similar bodies, and has worked consistently with the
Children’s Commissioner for England. However, we want to go
further, learning from experience, in introducing the new
code.
Having
considered the arguments fully, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of
State for Children, Schools and Families have agreed that aligning the
UKBA with those agencies that are already subject to section 11
duty is the right thing to do for children and young people. All
agencies working with children and young people should be able to
consider how they can safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
Now is the right time to introduce a section 11 duty as part of a
reformed, streamlined immigration service, working to improve the
United Kingdom’s security through stronger border protection,
while also welcoming legitimate travellers and
trade. We
have until now concentrated, rightly, on getting the infrastructure in
place, focusing first and foremost on implementing the system. However,
the establishment of UKBA now provides an opportunity to bring a
stronger focus not just on the status of children and young people
arriving in the UK, but on their safety and welfare.
It is
important that we make the right legislative provision, to bind the
UKBA effectively into a section 11 duty, while taking account of the
agency’s particular distribution of legal functions, and its
UK-wide remit. The current provision in the Bill does not address the
proposed organisation of UKBA, nor does it encompass that range of its
functions.
Today, the
Government are giving a public commitment to pursue a section 11 duty
for UKBA, but we intend to do so not in this Bill but in the
forthcoming immigration Bill, which will be published in draft in July.
The intention is that it will be introduced in the 2008-09 Session, and
I therefore want to give Members notice of my intention to introduce an
amendment on Report to remove clause 7 from the Children and Young
Persons Bill. It is right that the duty affects the operation of UKBA
not just in England and Wales but throughout the UK. It is also right
that we take the necessary time and effort to work with colleagues to
find a legislative solution that is accepted throughout the UK, works
consistently in the interests of children and young people throughout
the UK, and is consistent with, and obviously does not undermine, the
integrity of our asylum and immigration system.
I hope that
Members will accept the Government’s intentions and the
commitment that I have given today, and will support the way in which
we intend to proceed.
Tim
Loughton: I am grateful for the Minister’s
comments. She did give us slight prior notice of her intention, and
that was helpful. I shall make some comments about why the principle
behind clause 7 is important, and welcome, cautiously, what the
Minister said.
Clause 7 was
added to the Bill in the other House, when an amendment moved by my
noble Friend Baroness Morris of Bolton received widespread support from
all parts of the House and was passed by more than 50 votes. So, there
is widespread support for its inclusion, and those of us who were
around for the proceedings of the Children Act 2004 had a debate then
about whether it should have been included on the list in what is now
section 11 of the 2004 Act. Section 11 contains 13 different agencies
on whom there has been placed a duty to safeguard and promote the
welfare of children, ranging from the obvious, such as
children’s services authorities, to strategic health
authorities, youth offending teams and so on. We had a lot of debate
about which of those should have been added.
Four years on,
this Bill represented the next opportunity to place a duty on the
immigration services, and some would say that it has been four years
too long, that we should not have to wait any longer and that we had
hoped that it would go through in clause 7. However, having said that,
I appreciate that clause 7 is technically deficient. The Minister
alluded to the fact that the Border and Immigration Agency has become
the UK Border Agency, and it cannot be covered because it is a UK-wide
body that the Bill does not therefore deal with. There was a problem
with the way in which clause 7, which was perfectly well intentioned,
was fashioned in the other House. The problem needed to be dealt with,
and clearly, those who supported the inclusion of the clause will need
to see the detail that the Minister has promised to produce in draft
with the Bill in July—before the summer recess, I hope. We are
taking a deal on trust, but one is heartened by the Minister saying
that it is the right thing to do and that she is intent on introducing
the duty in principle.
Importantly,
however, if the provision is to be effective, it must lead to a culture
change in the immigration service. We are dealing with very vulnerable
children who come to this country seeking asylum as refugees, and with
trafficked children. This is a group—in some cases,
unfortunately, a growing group—of very vulnerable children who
desperately need all agencies with whom they come into contact, placed
under a duty to safeguard and promote their welfare, to act in their
best interests.
It would be
useful to firm up the Minister’s commitment that a duty equal to
the weight of that carried in section 11 of the 2004 Act would be
introduced in the new legislation. As there are two Departments
involved—the Home Office, with which the Minister has personal
experience, and the Department of Children, Schools and
Families—it might be useful to know which is to be the lead
Department. In that way, children’s interests will not be
swallowed up in the Home Office and the DCSF will have an ongoing role
in monitoring how this duty pans out, as it has for the 13 other bodies
already covered under the 2004 Act.
Given that
the Bill to be produced before the recess is a draft Bill for the
Queen’s Speech, we are looking at the actual Bill being
published in December. We could be waiting at least another year for it
to come into effect after the passing of the legislation. We could be
looking at a delay of more than five years from the first opportunity
to include the immigration authorities within the Bill in
2004.
Will the
Minister assure us, insofar as she can be responsible for Government
timetabling of Bills, that this will be seen as a priority? Can
anything be done in the meantime in terms of clear guidance from her
Department, or jointly with the Home Secretary—not backed up by
statutory duty yet—so that the immigration authorities can at
least prepare on the basis of a strong likelihood and a firm intention
by the Government that a formal statutory duty will be placed upon them
in the not-too-distant future?
I do not wish
in any way to denigrate or undermine the important processes that
currently happen within the immigration service, greatly under pressure
as it is. We have to balance what is achievable and practical without
placing the service under undue pressures, which might have knock-on
effects.
We are dealing
with perhaps the most vulnerable subsets of children and it is
imperative that this is taken seriously and introduced unequivocally on
an equal basis to the current section 11 arrangements. Everything
possible must be done to speed up its introduction. Any comments from
the Minister on that score would be greatly
appreciated. Annette
Brooke: I congratulate the Minister for Children, Young
People and Families because I am sure that there has been considerable
dialogue between the two Departments. I welcome this as a step
forward.
I
agree with the Minister that the Government have made safeguarding
children a top priority and I have been proud to be a Member of
Parliament during that period. It has to be said, however, there has
been a dual system of safeguarding: one for children who are UK
citizens and then the others. Surely, every child matters and we should
be putting the child first throughout, regardless of
status?
12.15
pm
I agree that
we will need to see the detail before making detailed comments. I hope
that all the organisations will be fully engaged—they come under
the Refugee Children’s Consortium—in determining the
details and the timetable. I, too, must express concern about the time
that this has taken. I remember our discussions in the Committee that
considered the 2004 Act when I joined forces with Hilton Dawson, the
former Member for Lancaster and Wyre, on this issue, as the Minister
will recall. I am sad that it has taken four years; nevertheless the
fact that we have reached the right conclusion is
welcome. I
am aware that a halfway house—“Better
Outcomes”—has been discussed with the immigration
authorities, and I wonder what can be done in the interim between
making the momentous announcement today and the final implementation of
the measures. Because there is a change in culture, we could be doing a
lot more in the pathway to the legislation being passed. I, too,
recognise that clause 7 was technically deficient, but my greatest
regret is the time we waited, plus the long delay for the next
immigration Bill. Overall, however, we are taking a step in the right
direction. Mark
Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): In the spirit of the dialogue
to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole
referred between the DCSF and the Home Office, what discussions have
taken place or will take place with the National Assembly Government in
Wales, not least because we are in the vexed area of a reserved matter,
which is delivered in a devolved context? That also applies to
colleagues in
Scotland.
| 
