Kevin
Brennan: I have been listening very carefully to what the
hon. Gentleman said. It seemed that he was talking about out-of-area
placements in relation to clause 18, which is what is covered by clause
9, new section 22C. That deals with out-of-area placements in terms of
a new duty to place within an area. Clause 18 concerns placements by
education or health, which is a mechanism to involve children’s
social services in those
placements.
Tim
Loughton: I quoted the list of different agencies that
this will require. The principle is the same as we discussed in clause
9, that whichever the likely agency dealing with something when it goes
wrong should be notified. At the moment, they are just not being
notified, either at all or until after a long period of time. The
purpose of this probing amendment is to specify that they should be
notified and ordinarily, it should be done the following day, or within
a day of that child being placed in that area. It may have been more
appropriate to have discussed it under clause 9 as well, although I
think we touched on it in the debate we had around that. Whether it
goes in the Bill or whether it will be tightened up in guidance, it
should be the normal practice that a receiving authority is notified
about a child from the care system within their area as a matter of
course, simultaneously, if not in advance of
that child being placed there so that they are aware in case anything
goes wrong and they are hauled out all of a sudden to pick up the
pieces.
Kevin
Brennan: The amendment was designed to further tie down
the exiting duties, as modified by the Bill, to notify the director of
children’s services of the responsible local authority where a
child is provided with accommodation for health or education reasons
for more than three months. I am sure we will get into the wider debate
about the needs of this group of children and the services they should
receive when we debate the new clauses towards the end of the Bill. I
know a number of hon. Members are interested in those matters, but for
the purposes of the present debate, I shall confine my comments to the
subject of this clause and this
amendment. We
do accept that some evidence suggests that children’s social
care teams are not always notified when children are provided with
long-term accommodation by health authorities or education departments.
In other cases, accommodating authorities have claimed that the
notification was made, but the responsible local authority took no
action. We do not have any evidence that effective multi-agency working
and appropriate involvement of social service professionals is
inhibited by any lack of time limits on these notifications. Whether
notifications are made within one working day, or any other particular
time, is not really the issue here. The real issue is whether the
existing notification mechanism is an effective means of ensuring that
children’s services authorities consider the child’s
social care needs. The amendment does not address that
issue. As
children’s trusts embed further joint working and
multi-disciplinary teams become the norm across the country, we would
expect problems with notifications to become a thing of the past. In
the short term, however, we agree that more needs to be done. That is
why we have introduced clause 18, which will help ensure that the
notifications are made. It will ensure that they are made specifically
to the director of children’s services of the responsible
authority. That reflects their importance and will ensure that the
responsible authority responds appropriately to the
notification. We
are going further in clause 19 by requiring the local authority to take
specific action in response to a notification. That means that there is
a new duty to visit all such children. We will ensure through
regulations that the visit is not a one-off but is regularly repeated
to provide an ongoing supervision of placements by the
children’s social care team. We have not stopped there. We are
working with health colleagues by using the proposed new framework for
children with continuing care needs to provide practical guidance to
help bodies and local authorities work together to address the social
care needs of children who are placed in long-term residential
care. I
understand completely the sentiment behind the amendment. It is
important that all agencies and all parts of a local authority are
involved in and aware of children with complex needs at the right time.
However, I do not think that the amendment is necessary. On that basis,
I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw
it.
Tim
Loughton: I am grateful for the Minister’s
clarification. This process was not deemed to be necessary before, but
clearly the system was not working before.
That is why he sent out additional guidance, not least after a
delegation of colleagues from Worthing went to see him about the
problems with notification. I hope that this situation will improve. He
made it clear that he takes on the principle of what we are proposing.
However, the situation must be properly monitored and chased up in
practice. West
Sussex and Kent, the two authorities that I mentioned, still have to
estimate roughly the numbers of children who are involved. They should
have a much clearer handle on how many children from the care system
are placed in their authorities and more importantly, exactly who those
children are. The Minister is right that a senior responsible figure,
such as the director of children’s services should know who is
in his or her area and what requirements or needs they
have. I
am happy not to pursue this matter at this stage. However, we will have
to see the proof of the pudding in due course. That will be that local
authorities are able, when asked, to account for the children in the
care system within their authority area. Only when we get to that stage
will we have some comfort that the joint and inter-agency working that
we all support is happening in practice for the best interests of the
child. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Kevin
Brennan: It seems appropriate to use the opportunity of a
brief clause stand part debate to
clarify that clause 18 will make a minor change to section 85 of the
Children Act 1989 to help improve the performance of the current
notification arrangements. It will require placing authorities, that is
those exercising education functions and health authorities, to address
the notification to the director of children’s services. To
reiterate, this is not about out-of-area placements as in clause 9.
Clause 18 concerns placements by education or health authorities and it
provides a mechanism to involve children’s services in relation
to such a notification. It also picks up minor consequential amendments
to section 86 of the 1989 Act that flow from amendments introduced in
the Care Standards Act
2000. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
18 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
19Visits
to children in long-term
care Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Kevin
Brennan: Children in long-term residential placements made
by health or education authorities are obviously vulnerable. The
child’s needs and the involvement of the child’s parents
are likely to change over
time. It
being One o’clock, The Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question
put. Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
