Mr.
Timpson: There are circumstances in which a child has
developed a relationship with an individual, and hopefully they have
been involved in the process to
select that individual to assist them. We know from experience, however,
that that person sometimes has to move on, so consideration has to be
given to who will take on that role. Will the statutory guidance make
provision to assist that process to ensure that the visits do not dry
up and that a new person is appointed to take on that
role?
Kevin
Brennan: Yes, we will make it absolutely clear what the
frequency of the visits should be. We will also make it clear that the
visits should not dry up under the circumstances outlined by the hon.
Gentleman and that their frequency and regularity—this is an
important part of the principle behind the clause—should not
decline.
For the
reasons that I have outlined, it is important that visitors have the
right skills and experience to provide the support and advice that the
child needs and to establish an effective relationship with the child.
The Bill seeks to ensure that that is the case by giving local
authorities a limited degree of flexibility, but we will also ensure
that the regulations and guidance support local authorities in
achieving that aim. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for East
Worthing and Shoreham will withdraw his probing
amendment.
Tim
Loughton: I began by saying that these were probing
amendments, and I was heartened by the Minister’s opening
comment that it was essential that visits should be conducted by the
social worker. That is a useful starting point.
The hon.
Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole talked about qualifying new
section 23ZA(5), and the amendment would strike it out on the basis
that we define who an appropriate person is. If we keep new section
23ZA(5), and the Government do not accept the amendments, I hope that
the regulations will define a visitor’s necessary skills and
experience. The Minister said that the child might have formed a
relationship with somebody who is not a registered social worker.
Although it might be decided that it is in the child’s best
interests for that person to be a link person, a responsible social
worker clearly needs to make the decisions. If a non-registered social
worker is performing the visiting duty, that role should be
subcontracted out by the responsible social worker. Although the person
doing the visiting may have formed a helpful bond with the child, they
may not necessarily be qualified to make or advise on the decisions
that must be made about the child. A fully registered social worker
must be the lead individual. If the visitor is someone below that level
of qualification, the regulations should set out how the reporting
mechanism is supposed to work.
12.15
pm I
am also heartened to hear that the regularity, frequency and
circumstances of the visits will be set out. Again, my experience when
I go round some of the homes and speak to children in the care system
is that there is an enormous postcode lottery in the way in which their
social workers visit them, depending on which authorities they come
from.
Kevin
Brennan: To expedite matters, I can confirm that the
registered social worker would supervise the visitor if the visitor is
not qualified as a registered social
worker.
Tim
Loughton: That is very helpful. That also provides a role
for a volunteer social worker as well, according to the criteria that I
have set out. I note the Minister’s comments about giving a
limited degree of flexibility to authorities. There will be exceptional
circumstances in which an urgent visit is required, and a registered
social worker is not immediately available. Again, if it is to be done
in regulations we are, as usual, talking slightly in the dark. We have
not seen the regulations, but it must be made clear that it is in
exceptional circumstances that it will not be a registered social
worker performing this
role. I
have seen different children in the same children’s home
receiving quite a wide disparity of service from their responsible
placing authority regarding social worker visits. It is a key
requirement to ensure that that child does not feel neglected and
detached from the person who is making decisions about their future. If
we can get some regularity now, it is greatly to be welcomed. I am
grateful for the Minister’s clarification. On the basis that he
will take up some of those points in the guidance, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 7— Assistance for looked after children in
custody— ‘(1) The
1989 Act is amended as
follows. (2) After section 23ZB
(which is inserted by section 17)
insert— “23ZC
Assistance for looked after children in
custody (1) This section
applies to— (a) a child
looked after by a local authority who is taken into
custody; (b) a child or young
person being held in custody who was previously being looked after by a
local authority; (c) a child or
young person who has been released from custody but who was, prior to
his or her detention, being looked after by a local authority;
and (d) a child or young
person— (i) who is of a
description prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate national
authority; and (ii) in relation
to whom the regulations impose the duties in this section on a local
authority. (2) It is the duty
of the local
authority— (a) to ensure
that a person to whom this section applies is visited by a
representative of the authority (“a
representative”); (b) to
arrange for appropriate advice, support and assistance to be available
to a person to whom this section
applies. (3) The duty contained
in subsection (2)(b) only applies to a young person aged 18 years or
over if that person seeks the relevant advice, support or
assistance. (4) The duties
imposed by subsection
(2)— (a) are to be
discharged in accordance with any regulations made for the purposes of
this section by the appropriate national
authority; (b) are subject to
any requirement imposed by or under an enactment applicable to the
place in which the person to whom this section applies is held in
custody. (5) Regulations under
this section for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) may make provision
about— (a) the frequency
of visits;
(b) circumstances in which a person to whom this
section applies must be visited by a representative;
and (c) the functions of a
representative. (6) In choosing
a representative, the local authority must satisfy themselves that the
person chosen has the necessary skills and experience to perform the
functions of a representative under this
section. (7) In this
section— “held in
custody” means held in detention by the police, prison service
or other court authority and “taken into custody” and
“released from custody” shall be construed
accordingly; “the
appropriate national authority”
means— (a) in relation
to England, the Secretary of State;
and (b) in relation to Wales,
the Welsh
Ministers.”’.
Tim
Loughton: New clause 7 stands in my name and those of my
hon. Friends. I do not want to dwell on it. It was tabled and debated
in another place, where it was moved by the noble Lord Ramsbotham, who
has great expertise in this subject. It was supported by other noble
Friends and noble Lords. Lord Ramsbotham received some assurances from
Lord Adonis, but it would be useful to have further clarification from
the Minister about what happens to children in the care system who go
into the custody system. We should ensure that some continuity of care
is available for them, because there is a perverse incentive to
consider.
I do not
suggest that this happens, but hypothetically there is an incentive for
a children’s services authority to offload a child in care into
the custody system. All of a sudden that child is no longer a financial
burden on the children’s services department, but becomes the
responsibility of the custody system, be it in a young offenders
institution or whatever. We know that the number of young people in
young offenders institutions has risen enormously. Around 3,000 young
people are effectively in prison at the moment. We also know that the
recidivism rate for inmates of young offenders institutions,
particularly those who are sent there on sentences of less than 12
months, is 92 per cent. That is alarming. Basically, sending young
people into young offenders institutions is a rapid escalator to a
career of crime. The recidivism rate for alternative forms of justice
is substantially lower. We have to be a lot smarter in our thinking
about how we deal with many of those young
people. Angela
Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): We all know that there is a
wide range of reasons why young people are looked after—they
have not all suffered ill treatment or neglect, for example. It
occurred to me when I looked at new section 23ZA (2)(b), which places a
duty on the local
authority “to
arrange for appropriate advice, support and assistance to be
available”, that
there may be occasions on which a family member—a mother, for
example—might be well placed to give support. If a family member
could not give “advice...and assistance”, he or she
could at least give emotional support to a young person in custody,
which would help to alleviate feelings of abandonment or rejection and
to maintain those essential family ties whenever possible.
Of course, that would have to be done when it was
felt to be appropriate and beneficial to the young person, and when
they were anxious for it to happen. Tim
Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. She will know
as well as I do about the experiences of young men in young offenders
institutions. I visited Feltham a few months ago, which was fascinating
if rather depressing, and some of the young offenders shared their
experiences with me. Interestingly, the worst possible offence that one
can commit against a fellow inmate is to “diss” their
mother—I shall not repeat the fairly graphic terms in which one
can “diss” someone’s mother that were relayed to
me. The staff say that 90 per cent. or so of the visitors
will be mothers or girlfriends, and there is an almost complete absence
of fathers and father figures who keep in contact with, or keep a
watching eye over, their children. That is the harsh reality of where
many of the offenders come
from. We
also know that up to 50 per cent. of the people in young offenders
institutions are products of the care system. It is relevant to the
sort of people whom we are talking about that they have the right sort
of support if they have to go into the custody system. Those people
also need the right sort of continuity of support. They might have been
making some progress with the support outside, and they will need to
re-engage with it when they leave the custody system to alleviate the
possibility of becoming one of the 92 per cent. who go back into a more
severe form of the system in due course.
Those are
shocking figures and stopping young people getting on that escalator
into the justice system is a real challenge facing all of us, as is
putting the escalator in reverse for those who are already on it. To
mix metaphors, we do not want it to be a slippery slope—I think
that the Committee gets what I mean. That is the challenge facing
us. The
new clause, the argument for which was better articulated by Lord
Ramsbotham in another place, with fewer mixed metaphors than I would
use, seeks to specify that the person in the care system who is
responsible for the child in care retains and continues contact and
support if that child goes into the custody system. It is crucial that
the parents—meaning, more often than not, the mother, as my hon.
Friend said—should be part of that. The Youth Justice Board
could tell us that in about 60 per cent. of cases, a parent attends the
case conference and keeps in touch regarding what will happen to the
young offender. Of course, there is another important conference before
release takes place. Parents should be fully engaged in the process, as
should the person outside the family—that could also go for
extended family members, depending on the young person’s
circumstances. From
the response of the Government in the Lords, I do not anticipate that
the Minister will suddenly say that the new clause is
great.
Kerry
McCarthy (Bristol, East) (Lab): I am interested in what
the hon. Gentleman says about young offenders. I have visited Ashfield
young offenders institution, which is fairly close to my constituency,
on a number of occasions. I cannot recall the figure offhand for the
number of parents who get involved in case conferences, but it is
certainly very low—10 per cent. comes to mind, but I would not
want to put that on the record because I
am not sure that it is correct. One problem is that, geographically, the
institution covers a huge area, so it is very difficult for parents to
maintain contact with the young people. Talking to some young lads due
for release, I found that those who had lost contact with their
families did not know what was going to happen to them when they were
about to be released, and the idea of having somebody who
is—
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady should put her
question.
Kerry
McCarthy: Yes, Mr. Williams. Does the hon.
Gentleman agree that having that link, whereby somebody maintains
contact with the young person when they are released from the system,
is the right way to make progress because it cannot be assumed that
they will go back into the bosom of their family and
friends?
Tim
Loughton: I completely agree. The hon. Lady has obviously
had the same experiences as me when visiting her local youth offenders
institute. The figures that I had were much higher than 60 per cent.,
but again there is a postcode lottery, and of course there is a
postcode lottery given that young people can be placed well away from
home.
I
am talking about the pure practicalities of family members being able
to maintain contact with the child. That is why it is even more
important that there is a responsible officer from the
children’s services department and that there is continuity of
responsibility, particularly when the young person is about to come
out. Too often, not enough good work goes on in prison, but we know
that some good work takes place there—depending on how long the
young person is inside—on drug treatment, alcohol abuse,
learning disabilities and so on, which improves the chances of young
people being able to get back on their feet, only for all those support
mechanisms to be taken away when they are on the outside. They fall off
a cliff, in effect, and revert to where they were before they went into
prison. It
is essential to have a responsible officer who sees the young person
before they go into the custody system, if that is where they are going
to end up and they cannot be kept out of it, who monitors their
progress, the treatments that they might be receiving, the developments
that take place and their achievements while they are in the custody
system, and who then takes them on when they are outside the custody
system. The new clause is designed to achieve that. I think that the
Minister will agree with the principle of it; it is just a question of
how we bring it about in practice. This new clause, championed by Lord
Ramsbotham, would be one way of ensuring that children in the care
system who go into custody receive the assistance that they need to
keep them out of the custody system in the future and to give them a
decent chance of getting back on their feet when they come out. It
would allow them to have all the other things that other children in
care might expect and, we hope, because of this Bill are more likely to
achieve.
| 
