Annette
Brooke: I support the new clause wholeheartedly. We have
discussed this issue on many occasions. The speeches were getting more
and more polished, but I will be brief tonight.
We
discussed this issue under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
because we were concerned that if we did not know about private
fostering arrangements, there were children who effectively were not
being safeguarded. That is quite a serious point. We are talking about
potentially vulnerable children, perhaps with limited or no contact
with their parents. There is a real need to prevent such vulnerable
children from slipping through the
net. I
am staggered at how low the notifications are. Have the Government have
made their own assessment of numbers in private fostering? It would be
interesting to hear that. We work on the basis of the estimate of
10,000. How do the Government intend to do better than they have done
over the last four years? In other words, what more are they going to
do to increase the level of notifications? The Government indicated
when discussing the Children Act 2004 that there would be monitoring
and reporting back from local authorities. Do we have any idea if some
local authorities are progressing with the notifications better than
others? Thirdly,
what will be the criteria for assessing whether voluntary schemes are
working? All we know is that there is a judgment that two years is not
long enough. I am not convinced that we need another three years. There
is no movement of any significance in the numbers of notifications. It
could be dangerous to allow this process to hang on for another three
years. I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that
this is something that we should just get on and
do.
Kevin
Brennan: The new clause would require the Secretary of
State to make regulations within one year to establish a registration
scheme for private foster carers. It does not specify when that year
would begin, but I presume that it would be the date on which the Bill
is passed. It does not make any provision regarding the establishment
of a registration scheme in Wales. We have heard that the intention in
tabling the new clause was based on the concern over how well children
are protected under the current private fostering arrangements as well
as to press for an early implementation of the registration
scheme. 7
pm Having
sat on the Committee for the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and
discussed the matter on the other occasions that the hon. Gentleman
mentioned, I understand the point that he is making. We have a common
aim of trying to ensure that the right safeguards are in place to
protect privately fostered children and help place them on a more equal
footing with other children, and a number of things have been achieved.
I want to make it absolutely clear to the Committee that we have not
abandoned the idea of a registration scheme. Because of the progress of
the notification scheme so far, we feel that we simply do not have the
evidence to justify the move right now.
I want to be
clear about the progress that has been achieved over the past three
years. To develop our evidence base, we have successfully established
mechanisms for the collection of more robust baseline data. We have
also instituted a three year inspection process, which began in April
2006 when the CSCI had responsibility for inspecting local
authorities’ procedures for checking
and monitoring private fostering arrangements. That
responsibility was passed to Ofsted in April 2007. At the same time,
the local authorities had been working hard to raise awareness of the
notification requirements, implement them more effectively and build
more trust in the relationships with local communities. Raising
awareness cannot simply be achieved through disseminating leaflets and
other publicity material, important though that is. It requires
building stronger relationships with communities, and it will take time
to embed the practice of notification in all areas. Next January, the
Department for Children, Schools and Families is making available
£50,000 for the British Association of Adoption and Fostering to
fund a national awareness-raising week in January 2009 on the
notification arrangements.
I
acknowledge hon. Members’ concerns, and clearly it will take
time for the practice of notification in all areas to improve, even
with the measures that we have taken. It is perhaps fair to say that it
was over-optimistic to predict when we were passing the 2004 Act that
we would have got as far by now as the hon. Gentleman would like, but I
make no apology for wanting to get that right. Our evidence so far
tells us that there is scope to improve the implementation of the
current arrangements and points to some good examples of good practice.
The first year’s inspection evidence revealed that 50 local
authorities showed some very good and improving practice as well as
some other areas where there was a lot of room for
improvement. Mr.
Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Why is the Minister
prepared to go so slowly in the case of private fostering arrangements
when others were happy to be in favour of fast legislation, such as
that relating to fox
hunting?
Kevin
Brennan: Because in acknowledging that the Government have
by no means abandoned the idea of a registration scheme, we also
acknowledge that there are also difficulties with a registration
scheme—I think that the hon. Member for East Worthing and
Shoreham went some way towards acknowledging that in his remarks. It is
right to first gather further evidence on the notification scheme
before proceeding to a registration scheme that could and would catch
many families—the hon. Gentleman often raises the point of the
state intrusion in family life. We do not necessarily want to insist on
a registration scheme, and yet we have not abandoned it. We want to
give the changes that have been made the correct amount of time so that
we can collect the evidence that is necessary to make that
judgment.
Therefore,
we are not yet convinced of the need to move into a registration
scheme, and how best to safeguard children in private fostering is
simply not that clear cut. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that a
registration scheme might not be a panacea for all the difficulties
with private fostering and that a rushed and heavy-handed
implementation of the scheme might deter some people from private
fostering who might otherwise be able to offer support in difficult
family
situations.
Mr.
Timpson: Will the Minister give us an assurance that he
supports the principle that private fostering arrangements are there to
protect vulnerable children? Is the only barrier to moving to that
scheme a lack of the evidence that he requires to bring that principle
to bear?
Kevin
Brennan: I think that the hon. Gentleman meant the
principle of a registration scheme for private fostering. That is how I
interpreted his remarks. I have made it clear that the Government are
not yet convinced that that is the best way to deal with private
fostering. On the other hand, we have not abandoned the idea that
registration might be the best way. We simply want to ensure that the
evidence on the notification scheme is full and clear.
I stress
that we are supported in that view by the British Agencies for Adoption
and Fostering, which works extensively on private fostering. The BAAF
agrees that we should seek to ensure that the current arrangements
operate effectively and evaluate them more fully before deciding
whether to introduce a registration scheme. In my view, it would not be
in the interest of children or those who work with them to do
otherwise. The
intended effect of the new clause seems to be that within the next
year, the Secretary of State would have to make regulations in respect
of England to establish a registration scheme for private foster
carers. We believe that before moving to that scheme, we need to
evaluate the existing notification scheme, having taken the measures
that I outlined to make it more effective. Then we need to consider
whether such a regime would be more effective than what we have at
present and what its added value would be.
If we then
decide to move to registration, we will have to draft and consult on
the regulations. All of that would take more than the year proposed in
the new clause anyway. We must ensure enough time to gather the
necessary evidence, analyse it and make a sound, evidence-based
decision. The key problem is that we have only one full year’s
data on the number of private fostering arrangements under the
strengthened notification scheme. By 2010, we will have three full
years of data as well as the results of three years of inspection by
Ofsted, and we will know the impact of further activity to raise
notification
levels. We
are determined to improve the current arrangements and explore to what
extent they might be improved. We are writing to local authorities to
remind them of their duties in relation to private fostering, and
Government offices are working with local authorities, particularly
poor performers, to improve notification rates. We are also exploring
links with other related policies, such as those concerning missing
children, to ensure that information about private fostering is
included in the relevant
guidance. We
mentioned BAAF’s awareness-raising week in January 2009. It is
right to retain the option to introduce a registration scheme for the
further years envisaged in the Bill so that we can ensure that if the
case for it is compelling, a registration scheme can be introduced at
the right time, after the assessment of the strengthened notification
scheme. I
know that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham does not want
us to go any further on our journey down Sunset Boulevard in relation
to the clause, but it is appropriate, having strengthened the
notification scheme, to give it an opportunity to provide evidence
whether it can work. That is a practical and pragmatic way forward, and
I propose that he should withdraw his
amendment.
Tim
Loughton: The Minister has succeeded in driving
disappointment to new heights. That was pretty weak. I am a big fan of
sunset clauses in legislation, but the point of sunset clauses is that
the sun must set some time, and this is proving to be a long,
protracted
sunset. The
Minister prayed in aid BAAF, for which another £50,000 will be
made available for an awareness scheme. BAAF’s position when we
last discussed the matter was
this: “The
British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) believes the best
way to protect and safeguard privately fostered children is by
implementing a registration and approval system for the most vulnerable
children”. BAAF,
along with so many other agencies and organisations involved with
vulnerable children, thinks that a private fostering registration
scheme is the way ahead. I do not get why the Government want to
prevaricate on this one.
I quote from
the closing comments of the then Minister for Children, Young People
and Families, the right hon. Member for
Barking: “if
we fail in our endeavours to make the notification scheme work, we will
not need to return to the House with primary legislation and we will
implement the registration scheme”.——[Official
Report, Children Public Bill [Lords] Committee, 19 October 2004; c.
291.] This
Minister also used the language, “We haven’t abandoned it
yet.”
The Minister
has produced absolutely no evidence why the Government should have gone
lukewarm on the scheme after all our considerations in 2004. I asked
him for evidence from the local safeguarding children boards, as he did
not mention them once. Where did that evidence come from? There is
anecdotal evidence of a few examples of best practice. Great. But it
still produced only a small number of adherents to the existing
notification scheme. He said that there is no evidence right now after
a further three years. What further evidence will it take? He
said—another get-out—that they had just established a
mechanism for the collection of more robust data. How long does it take
before they have the systems to collect sufficiently robust
data? He
said—yet another get-out—that it is about building
stronger relationships with communities. It has always been about
building stronger relationships with communities but they have
singularly failed to get that message across to those highest target
communities. He then said that it was perhaps an over-optimistic
prediction. This really is very weak. He also said that there would be
difficulties setting up a scheme. I acknowledge that, but it does not
mean that those difficulties are insurmountable. They have had 11 years
since Sir William Utting first mentioned this whole registration
scheme. That is 11 years to get round those difficulties and still they
need more
time. They
are not going to have much more time. The sun is about to set on the
Government. They will not be in a position to do anything about this
sunset clause. So I offer the Minister a deal: will he reconsider his
comments so we can re-examine this on Report in the light of what
Opposition Members have said? We have urged him just to get on and do
it. We will table a more comprehensive amendment on Report which will
take in Wales and make it clear that a registration scheme will be
triggered within a year of the Bill becoming law. On that basis, we
offer him one last chance to trigger the sunset clause or,
I fear, he will succumb to the inevitable. A new day will dawn for the
private foster registration, just as a new day will dawn for the
electorate as a whole in the not too distant
future. So
on that basis, I urge the Minister to think again. The feelings on this
are deeply held. They have been widely canvassed. I was deeply
disappointed that yet again he came back with not a shred of new
evidence for why the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media
and Sport, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) should
not have been taken at her word four years ago. This sunset clause
should now trigger the implementation of this registration scheme. On
the basis of giving him notification that I intend to bring this back
in an amended form on Report, I will not press the new
clause. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 35
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
36 to 39 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
2 agreed
to. Clauses
40 to 42 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
3 agreed
to. Clauses
43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
45Short
title Amendment
made: No. 25, in clause 45, page 30, line 5, leave out
subsection (2).—[Kevin
Brennan.] Clause
45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Michael
Foster.] Adjourned
accordingly at fourteen minutes past Seven o'clock till Thursday 3 July
at Nine
o'clock.
| 
