Tim
Loughton: I am grateful for the Minister’s
explanation. I thought that she was going to say, “This is a
jolly good amendment, and we will accept it.” That would have
been a turn-up for the books. However, we seem to be on the same
lines.
My concern,
however, is about striking a balance between recognising the particular
vulnerabilities and requirements of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds coming out
of the care system and respecting their transition into
adulthood—as the Minister put it. Local authorities should not
use that as an excuse by saying, “Well, we don’t need to
trample on them.” As I have said, and given evidence on, those
children are much more susceptible to greater problems than their rest
of their cohort. I have some other figures on the health aspect: two
thirds of all looked-after children were reported to have at least one
physical health complaint, and 45 per cent. of those aged five to 17
were assessed as having at least one mental health disorder, compared
with one in 10 of the child population overall. That is an enormous
difference in vulnerability.
As we know,
such problems, particularly mental illness, need to be addressed as
early as possible, and there needs to be a continuum of care until
somebody can stand on their own two feet. All too often, the child and
adolescent mental health services—Cinderella services within the
Cinderella service of the NHS—can be erratic and a postcode
lottery. Certainly, if children in the care system are fortunate enough
to access CAMHS—perhaps through being in a residential home
where, as a result of the high fees charged, they buy in mental health
services, because of the waiting list for, or lack of availability of,
certain talking therapies locally—but then effectively enter the
big wide world on their own, without support from the mental health
services, we have a false economy. It will result only in that person
being less able to stand on their own two feet during the transition
into adulthood, as the Minister
said. My
amendment was a probing one, and the Minister has made some favourable
comments about how we are trying to achieve the same thing. However,
this was a
useful debate in emphasising that local authorities have a duty of care
beyond what is in the Bill. Their duties do not become minimal when
looked-after children leave the care system, and in may cases their
role remains just as important for many years to come. On that basis, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Tim
Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in
clause 8, page 6, line 15, leave
out from ‘State’ to ‘in’ in line 16 and
insert ‘must discharge functions under this
section in a manner consistent with the objectives of safeguarding the
welfare of children as set
out’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 26, in
clause 8, page 6, line 17, at
end insert ‘and to the
provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child.’.
Tim
Loughton: This is one of those annoying little amendments
that usually centres on the use of the word “must”, of
which we have many. However, this is a slight variation. The genesis of
the amendment goes back to debate on the Children Bill 2004, when my
hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who
was helping me on the Front Bench, tabled an amendment to clause 8. The
amendment would have replaced a provision about functions being
discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the
safeguard of children
with 'in a
manner consistent with the objective of safeguarding and
promoting' the
welfare of children, which was rather punchier. “Having regard
to” covers a multitude of sins. It does not necessarily mean
that the agency that is bound to have regard to something has to do
anything about it. It must only acknowledge that there may be a problem
or that a service needs to be delivered. As long as it has regarded it,
it does not need to follow it through. That terminology is too weak,
and I fear that in too many cases it can be used as a get-out clause
for not producing the
goods. 12.45
pm The
amendment is to clause 8(5), which contains the limp language that the
Secretary of
State, “in
discharging functions under this section, must have regard to the
aspects of well-being
mentioned” in
section 10 of the Children Act 2004. We want to replace that with much
punchier terminology that means something, so that the Secretary of
State “must
discharge functions under this section in a manner consistent with the
objectives of safeguarding the welfare of children as set
out” in
section 10(2)(a) to (e) of that Act. Those paragraphs contain the Every
Child Matters imperatives
of “physical
and mental health and emotional well-being; protection from harm and
neglect; education, training and recreation; the contribution made by
them to
society” and “social
and economic well-being.”
Section 10 of the
Children Act is a much more positive promotion than clause 8. It
states: “The
arrangements are to be made with a view to improving the well-being of
children” in
relation to those various factors. We are trying to give the Secretary
of State a bit more vim, stating that he must not just have regard to,
but positively promote, the considerations in that section. I am
therefore sure that the Minister will have no problem in saying that
the amendment is worthwhile and constructive and will strengthen what
the Bill is intended to do. I shall be surprised if she ducks that
challenge.
Annette
Brooke: I, too, look forward to the Minister’s
response to that interesting presentation of the amendment, which
seemed to make a lot of
sense. I
wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 26. It will not be the first
time that I have spoken to such an amendment to legislation on
children. As with our previous debate, we might get there eventually.
It is always interesting to note that the UK played a leading role in
drafting the UN convention on the rights of the child, and that the
previous Government were an early signatory of
it. In
October, the UK’s implementation of the convention will be
examined for the third time by the UN Committee on the Rights of Child.
It is not enough to sign up, it is all about implementation. One of the
committee’s 78 recommendations made in 2002 was that the UK
should incorporate the convention into domestic law. Although the
amendment would not give children new rights that could be tested in
the courts, it would introduce a children’s rights proofing
process that we have not so far incorporated into our policy
development and legislation. The hon. Member for East Worthing and
Shoreham and I were in a meeting about children’s rights not
long ago, and a social worker said that one of the most important
things that would make a social worker’s life clearer and
promote the career would be working to a rights agenda. That was a
telling comment, coming from somebody who actually works with
children. Of
course, there are a number of articles of the convention, and I do not
propose to mention many. However, I shall touch on article 12, which
begins: “States
Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her
own views the right to express those views freely in all matters
affecting the
child”. I
appreciate that the Government have made great moves forward in
listening to children. Nevertheless, there are some issues in the Bill
on which we think the child’s voice could be strengthened, in
certain cases with the support of advocacy. The importance of having a
guardian is another issue. A number of issues perpetually arise that
would be tackled if we incorporated the convention into our
legislation. I
would like to mention briefly that the UK still has a reservation on
article 22 of the convention on the rights of the child, which relates
to the protection of asylum-seeking children. I was quite heartened in
January when the Government announced plans to re-examine that
reservation. I would be interested to hear an update on that alongside
the news that we have had this
morning. Many
of the issues that we are raising through amendments would
automatically come under consideration if we signed up to the UN
convention. It is common
sense that our children’s rights should be respected and that we
should incorporate the convention into all legislation that touches on
children’s issues. I commend amendment No. 26 to the
Minister. Mr.
Kidney: Mr. Pope, let me say that it is a great
pleasure to serve on this Committee under your kindly but hawk-like,
miss-nothing
eye. I
will speak in favour of amendment No. 26. As the hon. Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole has said, this is not an amendment to
incorporate the obligations under the UN convention on the rights of
the child into UK law. In my view, that is a pity because I think that
we should incorporate those rights. We have done some great work for
children since 1997 with the target to eradicate child poverty, the
“Every Child Matters” agenda, the “Quality
Protects” programme for looked-after children, the Children
(Leaving Care) Act 2000 and now the “Care Matters: Time for
Change” White
Paper. With
the children’s plan last year, I think that the time is right to
incorporate the convention into our law. Instead, as the hon. Member
for East Worthing and Shoreham said, the use of the language that the
Secretary of State “must have regard to” is a backsliding
and easy target for him to hit. I hope that my right hon. and hon.
Friends the Ministers do not think it very demanding to expect
Ministers to have regard to the convention’s rights when
carrying out their duty to promote the well-being of children in
England. After all, all Ministers sign up to the ministerial code,
which states that they have an overarching duty to obey the law,
including our international obligations. The UK has signed the
convention. Do
the Ministers think that the amendment is a sensible first step on the
route to the wider acceptance of the rights in the UN convention? When
we agreed clause 7, there was an encouraging sign that we would do
better for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We are going in the
right direction, and this would be another step in that direction. If
there is a clinching argument that my right hon. and hon. Friends the
Ministers will accept, it is that the General Social Care Council,
which was established by the Government to set standards for conduct
and practice in social care, supports amendment No. 26 and thinks that
it should be
passed.
Beverley
Hughes: I hope that no Opposition Member would ever accuse
me of trying to duck issues. I share the spirit of what both amendments
are trying to achieve. I hope I can convince hon. Members that the way
in which we have formulated the well-being duty in clause 8
is intended to achieve the ambitions that they have set
out. It
is important to remember that the definition of well-being in the
Children Act 2004, which we are using as our basis, reflects the whole
range of outcomes that we want for children. It includes their physical
and mental health; their emotional well-being; their protection from
harm and neglect; their education, training and recreational needs;
their contribution to society and their social and economic well-being.
Those are all vital factors in determining whether children have the
enjoyable childhood that we want them to have as well as being prepared
and supported so that they can succeed in later life.
Local
authorities and schools already have a duty to promote the well-being
of children as defined in these terms. In the clause, we are keen
accurately to reflect the Secretary of State’s general policy
responsibilities in a manner that complements the operational
responsibilities of local children’s services and introduces a
consistent focus on children’s outcomes at every level of the
system. The
problem with amendment No. 4, as formulated, is that it would narrow
the Secretary of State’s well-being duty to a focus on
safeguarding alone and disregard the other key aspects of well-being.
Of course, safeguarding is a top priority, and it was a key driver in
“Every Child Matters”, but as I have just outlined, the
outcomes that we want to see under “Every Child Matters”
go beyond safeguarding into various other areas.
The clause is
not phrased in weasel words. It says:
“It is
the general duty of the Secretary of State to promote the well-being of
children in
England.” What
could be clearer? The hon. Gentleman has contributed positively to many
pieces of legislation on children and other areas of policy, and he is
experienced enough to know that the fact that subsection (5) uses the
phrase “must have regard to” before pointing to the
relevant sections of the Children Act means that the Secretary of State
must exercise the specific duty in the clause in relation to sections
10(2)(a) to (e) of the Children Act. It is therefore a little unfair to
suggest that the duty that we are trying to place on the Secretary of
State to promote well-being falls short of our
intention.
Tim
Loughton: I am disappointed so far, but perhaps the
Minister can tell me what weight she places on the phrase “have
regard to”, as opposed to the phrase
“in a manner
consistent with the objectives of safeguarding the welfare of
children”, which
is in the amendment. Does she not acknowledge that the wording of
amendment carries more punch and is stronger than “have regard
to”, regardless of whether it refers to the duty in subsection
(1)? The
wording in the amendment is stronger. Local authorities have had
problems with the interpretation of the phrase of “have regard
to”. Beverley
Hughes: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s
premise. In legal terms, “have regard to” is equivalent
to what he has outlined. Indeed, Opposition Members argued not long ago
for a section 11 duty on the Border and Immigration Agency, so they
were apparently happy to accept that having “regard to”
the need to safeguard children was a strong enough formulation to
impose on that agency and all the agencies listed in section 11 of the
2004 Act. Opposition Members accepted that the wording was strong
enough in that situation, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept
that using the same terminology here—as parliamentary counsel
will—gives us a strong enough formulation of the duty,
particularly in conjunction with subsection (1), which makes very clear
what the duty is.
Tim
Loughton: For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that we
argued for an amendment to the effect that the wording should not be
“have regard to” for all the other agencies on the list,
but the Government defeated us. We are just trying to be consistent in
terms of what goes into the legislation; our current proposals do not
signal any weakening of our intent with regard to the Border and
Immigration Agency.
Beverley
Hughes: I was not a member of the Committee that discussed
the 2004 Act, but Opposition Members need to think whether the phrase
“have regard to” has weakened the pursuit of the
objectives before us by the agencies concerned, because I do not think
that there is any evidence that it has. The wording in the clause is
the normal way in which we express such obligations legally. Taken in
conjunction with subsection (1), it makes clear what our intention
is.
It being
One o’clock, The Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
