Beverley
Hughes: I shall speak briefly to the clause. I hope that
hon. Members on both sides of the Committee appreciate that the
measures in the clause, taken together, represent a significant
strengthening of the role of the IRO. There is an important difference
between the position of looked-after children and that of other
categories of people, such as mental health users, for example,
precisely because we have an IRO for each and every child. I intend to
use the statutory guidance that we issue to those officers to ensure
that they are able to fulfil the roles of representing the
child’s wishes and independently scrutinising and monitoring the
local authorities in the way we all want them
to. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
11 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
12Power
to make further provision concerning independent reviewing officers:
England Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Beverley
Hughes: I shall not speak at great length on this clause.
It is important because it sends a signal that we are absolutely
serious about maximising the potential of the provisions in clause 11.
If we do not, we will move within a specified period to establish a
completely independent national service. That should make it absolutely
clear that we are serious, so it is important to have that power set
out in the
clause. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
12 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
13Power
to make further provision concerning independent reviewing officers:
Wales Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Beverley
Hughes: The powers outlined in this clause simply mirror
those set out in clause 12 for England and would be used to establish a
national IRO service in Wales, if
necessary. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
13 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
14Orders
under sections 12 and 13: supplementary
provisions
Beverley
Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
clause 14, page 12, line 8, leave
out ‘this section’ and insert ‘section 12 or
13’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendment No.
25.
Beverley
Hughes: These are simply minor and technical amendments,
and I hope that the Committee will be happy to accept them. Amendment.
No. 24 amends
clause 14 to correct a minor drafting error, and ensures that subsection
(2) correctly cross-refers to an order made under sections 12 and
13. [Hywel
Williams in the
Chair]Amendment
No. 25 amends clause 45 of the Bill by removing subsection (2), the
privilege amendment inserted by convention in the final stage of the
Bill’s passage in the other place. The subsection reserves the
Commons’ rights in relation to the financial implications of the
Bill, and is no longer needed now that the Bill has been passed to this
House. So, Mr. Williams, I hope that Members will be happy
to accept the Government
amendments. Amendment
agreed to.
Clause
14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
15Expiry
of powers conferred by sections 12 and
13 Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Beverley
Hughes: The clause provides for the powers exercisable
under clause 12 in relation to England or clause 13 in relation to
Wales to establish a national IRO service to expire, if they are not
used within seven years of Royal
Assent. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 15
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
16Duty
of local authority to ensure visits to looked after children and
others Tim
Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I
beg to move amendment No. 13, in
clause 16, page 13, line 6, leave
out ‘representative of the authority’
and insert ‘a
registered social worker or equivalent appropriate professional
representing the
authority’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 14, in
clause 16, page 13, leave out lines 23 to
25. No.
16, in
clause 19, page 15, line 24, leave
out ‘representative of the authority’ and
insert ‘a registered
social worker or equivalent appropriate professional representing the
authority.’.
Tim
Loughton: Mr. Pope has transmogrified into you,
Mr. Williams, and we are delighted that you are here
overseeing our proceedings again.
These are
probing amendments, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s
response to them. They are particularly concerned with the quality and
continuity of the visiting and monitoring of children who are placed
away from the responsible local authority area. We will return to that
subject under clauses 18 and 19.
The purpose of
the amendments is to put in the Bill a more detailed requirement that
it should be a registered social worker or equivalent appropriate
professional representing the authority, rather than simply “a
representative of the authority”, which can cover a multitude of
sins. Indeed, I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on
to what exactly the terminology “a representative” might
extend.
12
noon We
are talking in many cases about children with complex requirements,
particularly if they are placed in children’s homes with
specialist facilities. For all the reasons we have been debating with
regard to the Bill, it is absolutely essential that the most
appropriate person—an appropriately qualified person—is
responsible for the child, and provides a key link between that child
and the placing authority when decisions are made about that
child’s future. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the
person who is making the visits, and who will be the direct contact
with the child in the care system, should be of significant
status—they should be a registered social worker or
equivalent—not just a trainee or somebody from a different
department who is nominated as the authority’s representative.
It should be somebody who is completely au fait with the procedures
that put that child in the care system in the first place; with the
procedures that may ultimately get the child out of the system; and
with the level of care and facilities available to that child to assist
their progress and ensure, for example, that the child gets access to
the sort of schooling that to which we want them to have access. There
are further measures in the Bill to ensure the continuity of the school
placement and so forth. It is perfectly realistic that that person
should be a registered social worker or an equivalent
professional. A
point I made, and which I will make again under clause 18, concerns the
large number of children who are placed out of area. Kent estimates
that it has 1,250 children in care who were placed in the county by
other authorities, and the latest estimate I have for my own authority
in West Sussex is some 700. It is therefore essential that children who
are placed at a distance have the same standard of visitor as they
would expect, and to which they would be entitled, if they were placed
within the local authority’s
area. I
raised the issue of the use and attraction of volunteer social workers,
particularly as a preventive measure, for liaison with families. I am
not trying to row back and exclude the use of volunteer social workers,
but the responsible person who makes the decisions and will have the
contact should primarily be a registered social worker or someone of an
equivalent professional standard. However, that does not exclude
volunteer social workers from performing the role of
visitors. The
amendments are probing, but the underlying reason for tabling them is
to ensure that children are not “dumped” and get a worse
service and less monitoring than they would if they were placed in the
local authority area. That is particularly important, given that many
children who are placed away from home are there because they need a
more specialist placement. They inevitably have greater needs, which
may change, and therefore we require someone of that status who is in
regular contact with them and can make decisions based on first-hand
experience.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families (Kevin Brennan): May I say croeso and welcome,
Mr. Williams? Thank you for joining us midway through this
morning’s proceedings. As you ghosted into the room so will I
ghost in for the first half of the clause and deal with the amendments,
and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and
Families will deal with clause stand part and new clause
7. I
agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that as a
general policy it is desirable that the visits should be conducted by a
social worker. However, I am concerned that the visits could give rise
to problems, and that is why new section 23ZA(5) of the Children Act
1989 requires the local authority to ensure that the visitor has the
necessary skills and experience. The supply of social workers has an
impact on the extent to which local authorities can comply with that
sort of duty, and we have to take account of such practical issues in
regulations on the frequency of visits. It would be irresponsible to do
otherwise. However, unless the visits are regular and frequent they are
unlikely to deliver the policy objective of providing effective
long-term supervision of the child’s placement, and of enabling
the local authority to respond quickly to any change of circumstances.
That means that local authorities must be given more discretion as to
who they can appoint to visit the children. We will set out in
regulations further details about the functions of the local authority
representative and the frequency and circumstances in which the visits
should take place. Further details will be provided by statutory
guidance.
Annette
Brooke: New section 23ZA(5) is all about ensuring that the
person who is chosen has the necessary skills and experience to perform
the functions of representative. Different local authorities could
interpret that in many different ways. Will the Minister consider that
point in the regulations that he issues?
Kevin
Brennan: Yes, indeed. It is important that we make that
clear, but that is not an attempt to dilute the importance of the
necessary skills and experience. It is simply that there are
circumstances where it may not be either practical or in the interests
of the child for the person visiting to be a qualified social worker.
For example, the relationship that an individual has with a child may
be vital, and the child may have expressed a wish to be visited by a
particular individual who is not a qualified social worker but with
whom they have established an excellent relationship. It is also
possible there will be times when a visit from somebody with a
particular specialism is appropriate, for example, regarding the
child’s transition to independent living. That person might not
be a qualified social worker, but they would have the particular skills
or experience relevant to the child’s
circumstances.
Helen
Southworth (Warrington, South) (Lab): With reference to
the move to independent living, does the Minister expect that one
circumstance in which a visitor would need to visit a looked-after
child would be to look at the accommodation into which they had moved
to ensure that it was suitable and met their needs fully, and to
discuss whether they were coping with the accommodation and other
circumstances?
Kevin
Brennan: Yes, I would. That is an important point. We
discussed earlier the fact that sometimes a young person’s
understandable enthusiasm for a place of their own in that transitional
period to independent living can quickly pale when they find themselves
living alone and paying bills and, sometimes having to cope with the
sheer loneliness. At that point, they might be at their most
vulnerable, and we have to take such matters into account. We will make
it clear that it is vital that children should be visited by local
authority representatives who have a good knowledge and understanding
of the issues relevant to them.
Annette
Brooke: A further concern is whether that person, if he or
she is not a social worker, can access the wide range of services that
may be needed for the child and contribute to the relevant
multidisciplinary
teams.
Kevin
Brennan: Yes, they will be able to do so. Rather then set
that out in primary legislation, we believe that it is more appropriate
to set out in the statutory guidance the detail on what skills and
attributes the visitor should have. Obviously, one of them is the
ability to access such resources, as the hon. Lady said. We expect that
in most circumstances the visitor would be a qualified social
worker—we will make that clear—but there may be cases in
which that is neither possible nor appropriate.
Tim
Loughton: On that point, under what circumstances does he
think that that visits from a registered social worker or an equivalent
professional would be
appropriate?
Kevin
Brennan: To repeat what I said earlier, there might be
circumstances in which a young person would prefer to be visited by an
individual who is not necessarily a qualified social worker, but with
whom they have established a particularly good relationship. If a
person was suitably qualified, it would be wrong for them not to be
able to visit a young person if that young person had expressed such a
preference or where a particular specialism was needed, as in the
circumstances that I discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for
Warrington, South, including the child’s transition to
independent living.
We all accept
that resource issues come into play, and we have to be realistic about
that. Under certain circumstances, for example, an urgent safeguarding
issue involving a child might have to take priority over a routine
visit to another child who is settled in a long-term placement and
making good progress. In such cases, it would be wrong for a visit not
to be undertaken simply because someone was not available as a result
of having to deal with an urgent safeguarding problem involving another
young person. There are circumstances in which such decisions have to
be made, but we would expect a qualified social worker to undertake
visits under normal circumstances: that would be the norm. For those
reasons, it is important that the visitor has the right skills and
experience both to provide the support and advice that the child needs
and to establish an effective relationship with the
child.
| 
