Mr.
Kidney: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the documents and
will happily lend him my copy in a
moment. Roger Morgan
describes his methodology, which involves a number of interviews across
the country and a number of open opportunities for people to make
comments, such as through a website or by writing in. It covers the
whole of England and so is drawn from across the country. However, he
does not individualise the responses, so it is not possible to see
where in the country each person made their
comments. Lastly, I
want to refer to four of the seven recommendations that Roger Morgan
made as a result of the views that he received from children. First,
all children who have a right to help from an advocate need to be told
about advocacy and how to contact an advocate. That comes back to the
point I made earlier about some children not appreciating that they can
have an advocate to make a complaint. They certainly do not understand
what a representation means and that they can have an advocate for that
reason. Secondly, most
advocates should be independent of the organisation looking after the
child, although children should be able to choose an advocate they know
from their own service if they wish to do so. That is why amendment No.
36 is different from amendment No. 33. Thirdly, children should have a
choice of advocate and should be able to change their advocate if they
do not get on with them. That is a matter of practice, but it requires
a diversity of providers of advocacy services to be available.
Fourthly, children should be able to have the help of an advocate if
they need one to help get their views across and not only in relation
to
complaints. That
is another example of Roger Morgan using his experience to say that
although the law perhaps intended a wider access to advocacy, it is
mostly coming through in connection with the making of complaints.
Therefore, I hope that the amendments can provoke a debate that leads
us to see that some changes to advocacy services will definitely be
needed in the future. Those could be achieved through changing the law
or through the guidance and practice that comes
next. Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Pope. Amendment
No. 35 seems eminently sensible to me. I will wait to hear the
Minister’s reassurance that it is not necessary, but I think
that it addresses some important points. Indeed, I will perhaps
inadvertently touch on some of the points addressed by amendment No.
12, because it seems that the way the position of independent reviewing
officer is being set up will make swaps between local authorities more
likely, which will be
useful. I live within
a unitary authority that is adjacent to another unitary authority so I
know from experience that, with regard to careers, there is a great
deal of movement between the two unitary authorities. Because of their
proximity, it is highly likely that someone in one authority will have
worked for the other. People tend to stay in our area once they have
moved down. It is important to ensure that we are covering all
independent review officers.
The hon.
Member for Stafford made the point about self-employed independent
reviewing officers who might find it difficult to make challenges for
fear that contracts might not be awarded in the future. My concern is
about inhibitions or obstacles on the part of the local authority,
which mean that the case cannot be strongly put for the child receiving
the sort of services that they should receive. The amendment seeks to
ensure that local authorities co-operate with independent reviewing
officers, whatever their status. To my mind, that would ensure that we
have effective challenges on behalf of all looked-after children,
regardless of the independent reviewing officer’s employment
status. I made a note
that on amendment No. 12 I would listen carefully to the arguments
before pronouncing. I shall stick to that so the hon. Member for East
Worthing and Shoreham can be assured that I will be
listening. Amendment
No. 33 was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for
Ceredigion. I have also supported amendment No. 36. As has already been
said, there is a great similarity between the two amendments. There is
a difference in that amendment No. 33 contains a more comprehensive
interpretation of the term independent. There is probably a balance
here: there should be confidence in the independence, but equally it is
important that whoever the person is, they have the total trust of the
child. The important point and the thrust of the two amendments is the
aspect of the independence and the need for
advocacy. I
have been impressed by just how many organisations and professionals
from the whole spectrum believe there is a need for independent
advocacy. Indeed, 30 different organisations have signed the joint
statement on it. I have spoken to professionals right across the field
and they all suggest that there is a need for more advocacy. Perhaps
most important of all, the children themselves want independent
advocacy. Mark
Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): My hon. Friend has mentioned
the extensive number of organisations that support our amendment. Would
she agree that it is also a question of practice across the United
Kingdom and elsewhere? Wales is very much leading the way in terms of
the development of independent advocacy. The Assembly’s Children
and Young People’s Committee has recommended having an advocacy
unit within the Assembly, as well as a national body to provide
advocacy services for children.
Annette
Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister
will be able to touch on that point about equality of service across
the UK. Going back to the many supporters of independent advocacy, it
would be remiss of me not to refer to the famous reference in 1997. Sir
William Utting’s report “People like Us” concluded
that looked-after children needed independent advocacy as a source of
protection and a means of making their voice heard. There is certainly
evidence to suggest that professional advocacy input leads to better
decision making and that children’s outcomes are improved as a
result. Independent
advocacy is made available now through local decision making and there
is also the right to independent advocacy if we get to the complaints
stage. But I believe that children and young people should
have access to advocacy before something has gone wrong. The independent
review officer should inform the child about independent advocacy, what
it means, how it can help and how it differs from the roles of a social
worker and an independent review officer before each review. Following
that discussion, and where the child is clear that he wants an advocate
or the independent review officer feels that the child would benefit
from one, the local authority should be required to provide advocacy
services to that child. Obviously not all children will need or want
advocacy. It is a matter of its being available. At a recent
meeting of the Children, Schools and Families Committee, I asked the
Minister about children with physical difficulties. If a child has such
severe physical difficulties that they are placed quite a long way way
from home in specialist residential accommodation, surely there is a
need for advocacy. It has been drawn to my attention that that might be
a situation where the relationship with the child is an important
determinant of the choice of advocate at that point. Being able to
interpret the wishes and feelings of children who perhaps cannot
communicate fully themselves is such a delicate
thing. I
also mentioned mental disabilities. Sadly, many children who are
brought into care are likely to have been abused in some way or other.
They may have the greatest difficulty expressing their views for that
reason. I was heartened by the Minister’s response, which I
interpreted to be that in such cases as I described, it would be
difficult to think that advocacy would not be needed. I am looking for
at least an acknowledgment that independent advocacy is necessary in a
number of cases. Perhaps we will need a roll-out process, but surely we
should start somewhere by making sure that there is an absolute right
to it. The independent
review officer role has been strengthened and I welcome that, but I do
not believe that the enhanced role meets the needs of more children to
have access to professional independent advocacy. The expression of the
child’s views in the decision-making process by an independent
review officer who is responsible for facilitating its outcomes is
quite distinct from the representation of those views by an advocate
who is independent of the process. Review officers cannot practically
be expected to enable the necessary participation of the child in the
review process, despite the existing requirement in regulations to
ensure that the voice of the child is conveyed to the
review. Children
still tell the various children’s organisations that they do not
feel they are listened to. The hon. Member for Stafford has just given
us some examples. One child said of his experience, “I told the
IRO that I wanted contact with my sister, but that did not come up at
the meeting.” That sounds remarkably odd. Independent review
officers have significant responsibilities in relation to chairing
review meetings, which means that they do not have the capacity to give
young people the dedicated support necessary to ensure that their views
can be clearly represented. Chairing a meeting and putting views
forward are clearly quite different roles. Moreover, the IRO has to act
in the best interests of the child. It is possible that they concluded
that what the child wanted
was contrary to the child’s best interests. In that situation,
would an IRO be able to represent the views of the child as
well? Better
decision making can save money in the end. I urge the Ministers to
think again and to give further consideration to a statutory right to
independent advocacy whenever significant decisions are being made in
the lives of looked-after children, and not just when they have cause
to complain. That would be integral to the whole Government policy of
improving outcomes for children in the care
system. Tim
Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): May I welcome
you back to the Chair, Mr. Pope? I want to speak primarily
to amendment No. 12. I agree with much of what has been said by the
hon. Members for Stafford and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I will
touch on the subject of advocacy at the end of my comments. I agree
that there is a case for a greater use of advocacy before things reach
the crisis stage and something has gone wrong. I certainly agree with
the method behind the hon. Gentleman’s amendment in trying to
tease out the independence of the IRO and argue for greater
independence. I am approaching the matter from that same
angle. I went back
over the Committee proceedings of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,
back in those heady days of 2001-02 when I was in the same role as
today, leading for the Opposition. The current Home Secretary was
leading for the Government. Great things happen to some people and not
to others. That was the piece of legislation that set up the IROs. They
came in on an statutory basis in 2004. In another place, Lord Adonis
made it clear that the primary role of the IRO was to ensure that the
child’s wishes and feelings are listened to. He
said: “The role
of the IRO is central to ensuring that the voice of the child is heard.
Therefore, Clause 11 introduces a specific duty on the IRO to ensure
that the wishes and feelings of the child are given due consideration
in care planning.” He
went on: “The
IRO will support children’s active engagement with the care
planning process, ensuring that there is greater scrutiny of the care
plan for each child in care and making sure that children and young
people are informed about their rights if they consider that they have
been treated unfairly.”—[Official Report, House of
Lords,17 January 2008; Vol. 697, c.
GC581.] None of us would
disagree with
that. 11
am I challenged
the then Health Minister, who is now the Home Secretary, about the
independence of the IRO when debating the Adoption and Children Act
2002. That was an important consideration for many of us when the
legislation first came in. She
said: “It is
vital that reviewing officers are independent of the case management
and perhaps the social services department in the
authority.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2002; Vol.
386, c. 61.] I was making the
case for an IRO being completely disconnected in terms of previous
employment and engagement from the responsible social services
department, which would now be the children’s services
department. That is what lies behind amendment No.
12.
Since the independent reviewing
officers became statutory in September 2004, their functions have been
set out. They are there to monitor the local authority’s plans
for a looked-after child and, where appropriate, to refer the case to
CAFCASS. Will the Minister say how many referrals there have been to
CAFCASS, whether that has put a lot of pressure on it and whether it
has been able to deal with it? Has that even been a
consideration? The
amendment is designed to get around a potential conflict of interests.
I made this point during the passage of the 2002 Act and other hon.
Members expressed similar concerns. There are obviously difficulties
for officers who are employed by the authority and who, in effect, have
to challenge their employers, to whom they are contractually
accountable; whereas officers who are self-employed risk not being
given any further work if they are too challenging and are perceived to
be a thorn in the local authority’s side. There is clear
potential for a conflict of interests and for an IRO “dumbing
down” any criticism of a local authority because it might think
that that officer is a bit of a pain and will think again about whether
to keep on or give him future case
work.
Mr.
Timpson: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the
strengthening and widening of the IRO’s role, the perception of
the independence of that role on the part of parents and children is
important? In the current system, particularly as part of the care
planning process in the court arena, we see parents challenging the
work of social workers. The court then has to employ an independent
social worker from outside the local authority to carry out a further
piece of work, thereby adding to the cost of the process. Is there not
a danger that with the strengthening and widening of the role of the
IRO, the perception of independence will decrease rather than
increase?
Tim
Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and has
clearly seen that happen in his former job. It is crucial that the
independence of the reviewing officer is seen in practice, particularly
by the family so that they have confidence in the whole system. The
burden of proof is on the Government and the authorities operating the
system to show that the IRO is absolutely independent and makes
decisions based entirely on the welfare and interests of the child and
his family, rather than on any subsidiary interests of the employing
authority, for which it might be rather inconvenient if a decision went
the wrong way. It is therefore crucial that we get it right.
When
the IRO was first established, I welcomed it, and we welcome the
widening of that role, but it will not have the necessary effect unless
the IRO’s independence and integrity are kept
sacrosanct.
Mr.
Kidney: Is it not difficult to pursue independence to the
state of perfection? The hon. Gentleman’s amendment seeks to
make authorities pay for outsiders in every case. Clause 12 is about
perhaps setting up a completely independent body, just to do the job.
Does it not get more and more expensive but never achieve what he might
call the perfection of independence? Is not the better solution the
sort of independent reviewing officer that we have now as well as
decent advocacy services for children? That would save us all this
expense and worry.
Tim
Loughton: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman described
my amendments as near perfection—he has certainly not done that
before. I may return to the exact terminology of the amendments and
explain why they are practical rather than
idealistic. In its
brief, the General Social Care Council raises points about the
qualifications and training of the IRO, and reasserts that it is
essential that GSCC registration is a requirement. The council wishes
to be involved in the development of the regulations, and it believes
that IROs should have appropriate training and accreditation. It would
be useful if the Minister commented on that. Clearly, part of the
confidence in the role of the IRO is linked to their qualifications and
ability to do the
job. The hon. Member
for Mid-Dorset and North Poole touched on, albeit more in relation to
the advocate, the particular needs of children with disabilities in
communicating their wishes. During the debate in the Lords, Lord Adonis
said that he will “ensure
through statutory guidance that children with communication
difficulties or complex needs are supported either by an IRO with the
skills necessary to facilitate care planning and to elicit the views of
children with communication difficulties or complex needs, or through
an IRO who has access to specialist input from someone who has these
skills to ensure that the child’s views are elicited and put
forward effectively.”—[Official Report, House of
Lords, 16 January 2008; Vol. 697, c.
GC530.] That is reassuring, but
I am concerned though whether that will happen in practice and whether
there are people capable of performing that role.
We know how
short of skilled social workers we are. We will be even more short of
skilled social workers if more of them are hived off to be IROs and to
do other specialist jobs for which a social work qualification is
needed. We desperately need more social workers—that is the
solution. I would appreciate a comment from the Minister on how the
capacity of the system can cope with the particular communication
skills required, as described by her noble friend Lord Adonis. If that
capacity is not satisfactory at the moment, how will it become so, and
how soon will we be at that
stage?
| 
