Mr.
Timpson: Will the Minister clarify what consideration is
being given to a sibling group? The way the legislation is drafted,
each child will have its own independent reviewing officer but there
may be circumstances—we see it already in the current
system—where two or more siblings have the same independent
reviewing officer. Whether that is done for convenience or cost or is
really necessary is still unclear. Will there be a commitment to ensure
that each child’s case is looked at individually rather than a
sibling group being looked at in the round and given the same
independent reviewing officer, even if each sibling’s needs are
different?
Beverley
Hughes: It is very important that those decisions are made
in relation both to the needs of each child and the needs of children
as a group. If each child has their own independent reviewing officer
for reasons to do with their particular circumstances, it is clearly
very important in those circumstances that all the independent
reviewing officers talk together about the needs of the individual
versus the needs of the children as a group, and communicate about
decisions that are often very difficult. The bottom line is that if
each
individual child needs to have an independent reviewing officer, that
should be done. We must ensure that each individual child’s
needs are catered
for. We
will also introduce a requirement for the IRO to ensure that the local
authority gives due consideration to any views expressed by the child.
We will strengthen the guidance on the role of IROs by defining a
significant event when a review must take place before any proposed
change affecting the child can occur. We will update the guidance so
that a referral by the IRO to CAFCASS is no longer seen as the last
resort, but considered as a real option to ensure proper scrutiny of
local authority decisions in any cases where the individual IRO
believes it is appropriate to escalate any well founded professional
concerns.
We will amend
guidance to specify optimum case loads for IROs because, at present, we
know that one of the factors in the failure of the IROs to fulfil the
promise that we felt they had in the original legislation is the
variability between local authorities in the size of IRO case loads. As
I mentioned, that is impeding effectiveness in some services.
We will
address statutory guidance to the IROs themselves on the importance of
maintaining their independent voice in care planning, and on how to
perform their role more effectively. It will be the first time that
statutory guidance of that sort, on how to perform their role, will
have been issued.
Finally, we
will set out in regulations a description of the IRO similar to that in
the Review of Children's Cases (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2004
that specifies the qualifications and experience the IRO must have that
requires him or her to be independent of the management of the case.
That is a point raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and
Shoreham. To clarify, regulations already require that the IRO must be
registered as a social worker with the General Social Care Council and
must have sufficient experience to undertake the functions. We will set
out that description more fully in
regulations. Further,
we will also expect IROs either to have the skills or to be able to
access the specialist input necessary to elicit the views of children
with communication difficulties or complex needs, and to do that
effectively. Again, to answer a question raised by the hon. Gentleman,
in developing the guidance around this expectation, we will undertake
research on the type of support and skills that are required. That will
include where advocacy, particularly specialist advocacy, might provide
useful additional support to children. Through that research, we will
look at any capacity problems in relation to that specialist
expertise.
Amendments
Nos. 33 and 36 would require the independent reviewing officer to give
information to the child about independent advocacy. I am happy to
commit to address that point in the new statutory guidance that will be
issued directly to IROs for the first time following this Bill. We will
ensure that the guidance makes it clear that the IRO should seek the
assistance of a professional independent advocate if they are unable to
ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings. The members of the
National Children’s Advocacy Consortium have already discussed
this with us and they will be consulted closely during the development
of the guidance.
Those
amendments also seek to require the local authority to make
arrangements for the provision of an advocate when the need for one is
identified. That is not necessary, as it would simply duplicate
existing law. The Advocacy Services and Representations Procedure
(Children) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 already require that when a
local authority becomes aware that a child or young person wishes to
exercise their right to make a complaint or other representation about
services they receive, the authority must provide them with information
about advocacy services and offer help in obtaining an advocate. Our
reforms both to practice and to the legislative framework will mean
that we can deliver a system that puts the voice of the child at the
centre. I hope that on that basis, and given our commitment to address
those points in the new guidance issued directly to IROs, my hon.
Friend the Member for Stafford will be satisfied and feel able to
withdraw the
amendment. Turning
to some of the specific questions raised by amendments Nos. 12 and 35,
regarding IRO independence and the duty of a local authority to
co-operate whether or not they are officers of the authority, I
completely understand the concern about IROs independence. In
developing the policy, I grappled with that over a long period. My
inclination initially was to go for a completely independent national
service. However, when we looked at it in detail, my view
changed.
In consulting
a very wide range of people, we found little consensus on why IROs have
in some areas failed to have the impact on improving professional
practice that we had hoped for. The evidence was insufficient to enable
us to determine whether perceived shortcomings in case review processes
were attributable, for example, to weakness in training and support or
the variation in caseloads, or whether there was a more fundamental
problem with the whole structure. It is also worth saying that the
statutory framework for IROs only came into force in September
2004.
I was
persuaded in the end, not least by the views of some key stakeholders,
including the Family Justice Council, which told
me: “The
drastic step of relocating responsibility for IROs outside local
authorities, for example within CAFCASS or some other independent
organisation, demands serious consideration. However, the level of
disruption and expense and the unlikelihood of any, or any sufficient
increase in CAFCASS resources...is a strong argument against.
Moreover, the issue of independence from the local authority, perceived
or actual, is not, in the view of the Council, the central
issue.” What
I think that means is that, in all these cases, there is an important
balance to be struck—as my hon. Friend the Member for
Stafford said—between independence and feeling sufficiently
strong and having the authority to be independent, and needing to
co-operate with the local authority in the interests of the child. What
we are asking IROs is to have not only the force of law behind
them—what we are doing today—but their own sense of
authority in striking that balance in the best possible way for each
child. We
also commissioned a survey of IROs and, of the 70 responses, only three
cited concerns about potential conflicts of interest in their role.
Even in those cases, the concern was more about which part of the local
authority they sat in—which department—rather a
fundamental conflict of interest per se.
In
implementing the measures, we will monitor progress very closely. If,
as we hope, the desired changes in the effectiveness of IROs can be
achieved through the new framework in clause 11, it may not be
necessary to go further. If they cannot, we include the powers in
clause 12 to establish a new national IRO service, entirely
independent, if that is
necessary.
Mr.
Timpson: After the 2004 Act, we saw the introduction and
recruitment of regional networks of IROs, monitored by the regional
network group, as I understand it. Can the Minister confirm that that
is still an ongoing network group and will it be extended as part of
this reorganisation of the IRO
system?
Beverley
Hughes: We have no plans to change that—indeed, as
I think the hon. Gentleman is saying, there is a case for making sure
that those regional networks are as strong as they need to be. The
force of the Bill and the guidance we issue to IROs will give a greater
impetus to those networks, so that IROs can work together, talk
together and work out how to maximise the potential of the changes in
legislation that we are talking about
today. Turning
specifically to amendment No. 35, the purpose behind new section
25B(1)(4) of the 1989 Act, inserted by clause 11, is to ensure that, in
those local authorities where the independent reviewing officer is not
a salaried member of staff, the IRO is not in any way put at a
disadvantage in carrying out their functions. We expect those IROs to
have the full co-operation of the local authority. We believe that the
amendment is unnecessary, because it would make legislative provision
requiring an authority to work reasonably with its own
employees. Hon.
Members raised the concern that those IROs employed by a local
authority might have their arms twisted because of other pressures on
the local authority, extraneous to the case. We are clear that
employees have a duty only to co-operate with lawful and reasonable
instructions from their local authority, so I do not think there is a
need to change the law.
I hope that
hon. Members will recognise our commitment to finding the right way
forward on these important and complex questions, and that what we have
in the Bill is a very considerable strengthening of IROs’
independence. Nobody—IROs, local authorities, other
agencies—can be in any doubt about the role we want the IROs to
play. We are enshrining that in the Bill, and it will supported by
statutory guidance, for the first time, on how IROs are to undertake
their role in practice, day-to-day, in protecting both the voice of the
child and their own independence.
I hope, with
those assurances arising from the various probing questions Members
have asked, the Committee will feel that we have a good regime in the
Bill and that what we need to do is make sure it is put into
practice.
Mr.
Kidney: I hope you will agree, Mr Pope, that we have had
an important and interesting debate and in just 75 minutes, we have
covered two very important subjects—the strength and role of the
independent reviewing officer and access for children in care to
independent advocacy. All hon. Members, and my right hon. Friend the
Minister, have made concise contributions and have deployed a strong
set of arguments for and against each position we have been discussing.
I am grateful to the
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole for saying that amendment No.
35 is “eminently sensible” and to the hon. Member for
East Worthing and Shoreham for saying he agreed with much of what I
said in support of that amendment.
11.45
am If
we can move on to the Minister’s response to their points, as
the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, the thrust of
amendments Nos. 33 and 36 is the need for independence of advocacy. I
am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for taking a lot of
time to deal with the matter of advocacy. I think she is right to some
extent that existing law would be fine if it operated properly. The
hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham suggested using the
precedent of advocates in mental health services for children in care.
I would say that children in care provided the precedent for mental
health service advocates, because the entitlement to advocacy for
complaints and representations was introduced for children in care
before it was ever used for mental health
patients. The
role and purpose of advocacy has been developed and refined since the
child’s right to an advocate was introduced. We therefore have
quite a good model in mental health: there is an entitlement to the
service, there is a right to be told about the entitlement, and there
is a right to private access to the advocate. That should be the model
in every area. I am sure the Minister is correct in saying that,
through guidance, we can get to the same position for children in care.
I hope that we will all be consulted later on the wording of the
guidance to ensure that that is
done. On
amendment No. 35, my right hon. Friend made the point that I thought
she would make, that an employee of a local authority will have all the
rights and access to resources to do their job without the need to
specify in legislation that there is a duty on the employer to
co-operate with their employee. I think we would all expect an employer
to co-operate with an employee who has an important statutory role to
fulfil. As she rightly assumed, I am concerned about arm
twisting—perhaps not physical arm twisting, but the sort of
subtle pressure that I described when introducing the
amendment. My
right hon. Friend reminds us, as I said in my speech, that an employer
is entitled to expect an employee to obey a lawful and reasonable
instruction. She said it would not be reasonable and lawful for the
local authority to tell the independent reviewing officer to have
regard to something outside the case review, such as the financial
situation of the council, when making their decision in their role as
independent reviewing officer. I am a little more sanguine than she is
in thinking that those pressures will not be there and will not tell in
the outcome, provided that we are careful. Again, I ask her to ensure
that that point is dealt with when guidance on the strengthened role is
produced to protect
employees. Finally,
I am glad that the Chairman agreed to group the amendments dealing with
independent reviewing officers and advocacy, because I believe that the
two issues go together very well. To expect the independent reviewing
officer to be absolutely independent, to stand up for children and to
deal with the plethora of professionals, as my right hon. Friend
described them, but still come to the right solution in representing
the child’s views and wishes is expecting too much, whoever
provides the role. Even if we end up implementing clause 12 and creating
a new body specifically to do the job, I still think that it is flawed
because of the intellectual construct of that
role. With
the benefit of many years of experience with the ASIST advocacy scheme
in Staffordshire, whose work I have seen at first hand more than once,
I believe that the advocate’s role is a special and dedicated
one that should be separate from anybody who is going to make a
decision about the welfare of the child. This is about ensuring that
the views of the child are expressed properly at the right time and to
the right
people.
Mr.
Turner: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deal
with the importance of continuing representation of people? It should
not seem like, “Bang! Here is one decision. Bang! Here is
another
decision.”
Mr.
Kidney: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was saving
dealing with his contribution to the debate until last, because that is
a point that I agree with. I think that we can be relaxed about who
becomes the IRO. We are strengthening the law relating to the role of
that post, and we are doing fine. If we listen to the representations
from the General Social Care Council and always ensure that IROs are
registered social workers who have adequate training and accreditation,
whether they work for the council, a separate body or are
self-employed, we can rely on them to fulfil their role. My point is
that that role is not to express the wishes of the child and ensure
that someone persists in giving those views at the right time to the
right people, which I think ought to be the role of the advocate. That
meets the hon. Gentleman’s point. A plethora of professionals
may come and go, such as social workers, consultant psychiatrists and
head teachers. One of the complaints that young people make is that
they can constantly be allocated a new social worker, so a new face
appears. Equally, an IRO will have a case load in their day job and the
case load for their IRO responsibilities might be for more than one
child.
The advocate
would be the person by the child’s side, in private and in the
place where they live, talking about their wishes and desires and going
with them to the meetings. They would speak on the child’s
behalf against the sea of faces of professional people, who might have
changed since the last time they all got together. The advocate would
be the one person the child trusts and knows speaks for them. Having
had their voice heard, the decision might not go the way the child had
hoped, but they would at least have the satisfaction of knowing that
they had had a fair hearing and that their point of view was stated.
That is probably one of the greatest benefits of advocacy: what matters
is not whether the case succeeds, but that it was made at the right
time and to the right people.
That
combination of the position of the IRO and the availability of an
advocate, if the child wants one, to make those representations at the
right time will be the best solution for improving the circumstances of
children in care. Having listened to the Minister’s explanation
of how she thinks the present law satisfactorily covers my concerns, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
| 
