Tim
Loughton: It is a disappointment, but not a great
surprise. It was a probing amendment. The Minister and all members of
the Committee have the same intention. The proof of the pudding will be
in the eating, particularly the extra £359 million that is being
made available, and whether the provision will provide the sort of
appropriate breaks that we know from our constituents are
needed.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Upminster was right to mention the carers of
children with autistic spectrum disorder-type challenges. I would
surmise that we all
know of difficult constituency cases where
particular requirements are involved. As with children with physical
disabilities, breaks may often involve carers looking after the child
in the home. It is not necessarily a question of the child being
shipped off, leading to the problems caused by a lack of familiarity
with the surroundings, because the facilities that are needed are often
already to be found in the home. It is a question of getting someone to
come to the house in place of the carers, while they go away for a few
days. We have had
a useful debate. I think that we all agree that it would be slightly
churlish of me—I do not want to be accused again of being
churlish by the hon. Member for Stafford—not to beg to ask leave
to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
26Power
of Chief Inspector where person is failing to comply with requirement
relating to children’s home
etc. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: New clause 37— Duty to collect and provide
information for
inspections— ‘In
section 22(7) of the 2000 Act (regulation of establishments and
agencies) after paragraph (1)
insert— “(m) make
provision requiring the person who carries on, or manages, a
children’s home to collect statistics
on— (i) instances of
children going missing from the
home; (ii) instances of
anti-social or violent behaviour by children accommodated at the home
of a serious nature; and (iii)
acts of criminal damage perpetrated by such
children, and to provide such
information, upon request, to any person authorised by the registration
authority to inspect the
premises.”’. New
clause 38—Consultation prior to preparation of inspection
reports— ‘In
section 32 of the 2000 Act (inspections: supplementary) after
subsection (5)
insert— “(5A)
Before preparing a report in relation to the inspection of a
children’s home under subsection (5)(a) the registration
authority must— (a)
inform the local authorities which have placed children
in the children’s home and, if different, the
authorities in which children have been placed;
and (b) seek views on the
performance of that home
from— (i) the Local
Safeguarding Children Board established under the Children Act 2004 (c.
31) by the children’s services authority (within the meaning of
that Act) in whose area the home is situated,
and (ii) the person designated
under section 20 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 at any
school attended by children in the home
inspected.”’. New
clause 39—Provision of inspection
reports— ‘In
section 32 of the 2000 Act (inspections: supplementary) after
subsection (6)
insert— “(6A) The
registration authority shall provide copies of any report prepared in
relation to a children’s home under subsection (5) to every
children’s services authority within the meaning
of
the Children Act 2004 which has placed a child in
the home and to each Local Safeguarding Children Board established by
each of those
authorities.”’. Helen
Southworth (Warrington, South) (Lab): I was motivated to
table the new clauses because of concerns among a number of colleagues
about evidence on the outcomes for some young people in care in
children’s homes, and the difference between those outcomes and
the inspection reports for those homes. We were motivated particularly
by the concept, which is becoming commonly held, that parents share
responsibility with their children for much of the children’s
behaviour, and that parents should be held accountable to a degree when
children engage in antisocial or criminal activities. That is because
parents have a responsibility to guide and support their children and
to ensure that they are aware of different ways of behaving and given
chances to learn new and better ways of behaving. Most of all, children
should be supported by their parents so that they do not travel down
the paths that, unfortunately, far too many children have taken, which
lead to criminal records and custodial
sentences.
5.30
pm The
purpose of the three new clauses is to get a virtuous circle, rather
than a downward spiral, so that the different participants who support
a child or young person in a children’s home work together
effectively to ensure that the young person gets the support and
intervention they need to achieve the sorts of successes that meet
their potential.
New clause
37 would require children’s homes to keep records of specific
activities that any good and responsible parent would notice, such as
incidents of children going missing from the home. The current system
of recording the reporting of a child going missing resulted in 23
children’s services departments being unable to tell the
parliamentary all-party group for children who run away or go missing
how many children in their own care had been reported missing to the
police in 2005. Also, a significant number of children’s
services departments that could give a response to that question gave a
radically different response when asked the same question by their
local police force. In many instances, the police forces had recorded a
different number of young people who had been reported missing while in
the care of the local authority than that local authority
had.
When one
looks at the pattern of who is responsible within a children’s
services department, one will see that it is eminently possible for
that sort of information not to be recorded effectively and passed to
those who could do something about it. Indeed, one might say that some
people have a vested interest in not recording it effectively, because
it can draw attention to the fact that they are not parenting
particularly effectively.
We need a
proper, rigorous system for ensuring that those who are responsible for
caring for children, ensuring that they have a safe and comfortable
place to go and supporting them in that process are required to record
instances when their children are reported missing to the police and
make that information available on inspection so that they can be held
accountable for it.
Mr.
David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend take
the view that, in order to have the full picture, it should be a
requirement to record young
persons absconding or committing an offence? Is she
aware that it used to be best practice for inspectors to ask for that
information and that Ofsted, now that it is responsible, has told
inspectors that they do not need to ask for it and that the home does
not need to record it because that is no longer required by regulation?
Does that not show the importance of what she is putting forward
today?
Helen
Southworth: Absolutely. We have had a number of
discussions with the Commission for Social Care Inspection, when it was
responsible, and with Ofsted, because in 2002 the Department of
Health’s guidance made that an indicator. However, reports have
consistently not used it when inspections of the home have been made.
In fact, a degree of frustration has been expressed by inspectors
because, although they have a duty to do that, they could not do so
because people were not required to keep that information and make it
available to
them.
Angela
Watkinson: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady
is saying and I am very supportive of it. She will know that most
children who find themselves in care have experienced feckless
parenting or disorganised households. They will not have learned all of
the standards that we would expect children to experience during their
childhood. Is it not quite shocking that on going into care they do not
experience a far greater level of care and have greater values put in
front of them? If they are absconding from the home, it indicates that
things are failing very badly. That nobody is even recording their
disappearance is quite shocking and is something that we must act
on.
Helen
Southworth: The hon. Lady raises something that has caused
me a great deal of concern, especially when I tabled new clause 37. I
felt that it was an unambitious new clause. I would have been far
happier tabling a new clause requiring children’s homes to
record and make available for inspection occasions of positive
achievement by young people. It could have included how many young
people are achieving high-quality GCSEs and A-levels and how many
children are participating in school theatres of
bands. I
found it very disappointing to put forward a requirement to record
instances of children going missing, instances of antisocial or violent
behaviour by children and acts of criminal damage perpetrated by
children. That should not be what we are talking about. That is not
what we expect for our children and these are our children. However,
there comes a time when a baseline must be put down. We must say that
these children have the right to expect minimum standards. These things
should be included in those minimum
standards. The
all-party group on runaway and missing children held evidence sessions
towards the end of last year. Some very effective evidence was given to
us by the police forces for Lancashire and Leicester, which had been
doing intensive work in tracking why reports of missing children had
been made to them. They looked at what had happened to the children and
what the outcomes were. They used a very child-centred approach which
was very
effective. Lancashire
identified more than 300 children who went missing on at least three
occasions in one year. Between them, they accounted for almost 3,200 of
Lancashire’s missing persons investigations. The majority
of those cases involved children in care, particularly those in
residential care. Many of those children were prolific runaways. One
child had been the subject of 78 missing person investigations
in a single year. The police worked out that the cost of police
services in investigating those reports was on average £1,000
each time. In one year, £78,000 was spent in addressing the
problems of that young
person. That
information is quite shocking when we consider our ambitions for
supporting young people going into higher education and whether we can
extend that to children who are going into apprenticeships or further
education. Through failure, we can spend £78,000 in police time
on not supporting effectively a young person in a local authority home.
Local authority care homes should have to record these things and be
accountable for the management of them. They must be open to
intervention and support so that they can be more effective parents,
rather than wait until the young people face the negative outcomes of
being out on the street where they are subject to certain predators and
likely to get involved in certain
activities. Leicester
police said that the top 10 missing people for 2005 were responsible
for 6 per cent. of the missing person reports for their police force.
All of them were missing more than 10 times up to a maximum of 53. The
top 10 had been the victims of 20 offences that were reported to the
police and a total of 82 offences were linked to them, including 28
assaults and a variety of offences including burglary, theft and
damage. They also commented that 70 per cent. of those offences were
committed in the care home. They speculated whether, if those children
had been in their homes rather than care homes, the police would have
been involved, or whether proper intervention and decent parenting
would have ensured that the children understood their actions and did
not offend again. The purpose of new clause 37 is to ensure not that we
record a downward spiral for young people but that we identify where
early interventions are necessary in children’s homes to ensure
effective support to give children in care a better outcome, not a
worse
one. The
virtuous circle involved in new clause 38 would ensure that the
stakeholders responsible for the best interest of the child or young
person placed in a children’s home are consulted and involved
when an inspection report is being prepared. The designated teacher in
the young person’s school, for example, would be able to give
input on whether the relevant person from the home was attending
parent-teacher meetings, whether the young person was getting help with
their homework and bringing it in on time and whether they were
attending school and participating effectively in school activities.
Those are the kinds of thing that depend on parental support, or, in
this case, the support of the person acting in loco parentis. Children
and young people should not be expected to manage their own schooling,
homework and
environment. The
purpose of new clause 39 is to ensure that inspection reports return to
the person with the most interest in ensuring that the child or young
person has positive outcomes from their experience as a looked-after
child. At the moment, Ofsted has no duty to provide reports to key
stakeholders such as schools and agencies
responsible for tackling crime and disorder. Reports are always sent to
the registered individual as well as the registered manager, but that
is it. A placing
authority, particularly if it is out of area, will not have the
information that it needs to know whether a child or young person is
having a positive experience in the home or whether they have absconded
or run away—whatever word one wants to use; I do not like
“absconding” very much—78 times in a year. That is
absolutely essential information. None of us would allow our children
to leave home if we did not know where they were going, what the
reputation of the place was or how it was performing. We need to ensure
that those reports are made available to the one person with that young
person’s best interest at heart and the determining power over
whether that young person remains in the placement or is given
something more
effective.
Mr.
Kidney: I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said, but
I want to ask her a question. In Staffordshire, the county council, the
police and the Crown Prosecution Service have an inter-agency protocol
designed to reduce the number of looked-after children who become
involved in the criminal justice system. The partners have said to me
that they are concerned that when children arrive in Staffordshire from
another authority and are placed in the independent sector, the
partners do not necessarily receive sufficient information to be able
to work their protocol and give the same level of service to those
children. Would anything in the new clause help those partners in the
work that they want to
do? 5.45
pm
Helen
Southworth: There are two things that I can say to that.
One is that my own children’s services department has said
something similar to me: “We don’t know what we
don’t know.” That is crucial. We must ensure that they
have the necessary information to carry out their roles, particularly
when they are trying to do so
effectively. The
new clauses do not directly affect that requirement, but they place a
requirement on Ofsted to contact a placing authority if it is different
from the authority in which the home is situated, and to give feedback
to the placing authority whether the child is placed in it or not. If
it were effectively followed through, that process should be able to
identify children placed out of area in children’s homes, but
not those who are fostered out of area. However, I am sure that the
Minister in his response will address how he will consider the minimum
care standards review, and what it will contain. Along with my hon.
Friend the Member for Stafford, I have heard some sad cases—a
couple have been tragic—of young people who have been placed out
of area, and the local authorities within which they have been placed
have discovered them only when dreadful events have brought them to the
attention of the accident and emergency department or the police. I
agree that that perhaps should have been addressed in new clause 37,
and we need to hear from the Minister how he will resolve that issue,
with the support of his
Department.
| 
