Angela
Watkinson: The right hon. Lady’s comments have led
me to take a closer look at the new clause. The wording says
“where appropriate” and “any other reasonable
intervention”, so it is not suggesting that family group
conferencing should be an exclusive
strategy.
Beverley
Hughes: Putting that method in the Bill gives it
pre-eminence and means that the local authority should consider it
above any other methods that they would use. That is the point I am
trying to make in relation to the 1989 Act. I understand that
stakeholders have concerns and I would like to join in the references
made to NCH because it has done a great deal to take forward improved
methods of working with children and families. We have adopted many of
those methods—not only family group conferencing, but family
intervention projects, which I will mention in a moment.
I recognise
that stakeholders feel there is a way to go in developing the skills
and knowledge in the field to deliver effective family group
conferencing services. In
November 2006, with help from stakeholders, we funded the publication of
a tool kit, which aimed to support the use of family group conference
projects and assist new agencies in setting up those kinds of services
where none exist. In December last year, we published a family group
conference reader, which contains a wide-range of essays from
experienced practitioners on research, policy and practice
perspectives. We have also launched guidance to local authorities,
which emphasises that support should be available to families at the
earliest point it is
needed. Tim
Loughton: I would like to probe the matter further because
I want the Minister to give examples of what other methods, as she
described it, would be de-prioritised by the insertion of the new
clause.
Beverley
Hughes: I was just coming to that point. For three
specific reasons, the right way to promote the use of family group
conferencing is to do what we do already: suffuse our documents with
references to family group conferences; continue to develop the
knowledge, training and expertise required; and put the method in the
context of a focus on early intervention and prevention. However, we
should also recognise that it is not the only method. In relation to
the point at which family group conferencing is used at the
moment—in the context of a child possibly being
accommodated—we are developing other options that bring families
together at a much earlier stage, for example, when children show
difficulties that are identified in primary school. We also have the
family pathfinders project, the family intervention projects that NCH
has helped us to develop, and the family nurse partnerships, which for
the first time identify the need to support disadvantaged mothers at
the point of birth. That support continues to be provided by a
specially trained health visitor over two years to try to prevent the
need further down the line for a family group conference to discuss
whether the child needs to be accommodated.
For those
reasons, I do not want to fetter local authorities with one particular
method. I support the method when it is necessary and think that it can
achieve some excellent results, but in relation to the panoply of
intervening much earlier in families and the wide range of alternatives
that are now being developed, we should stick with the spirit of the
1989 Act.
I say to the
hon. Member for Upminster that the amendment to new clause 5, which
requires family group conferencing to be considered where appropriate,
adds nothing to the existing requirement in section 17 of the 1989 Act
for local authorities to consider whatever is necessary, as
appropriate.
Mr.
Kidney: I am looking for a way forward that does not
involve primary legislation. My right hon. Friend mentioned the
publication “Working Together to Safeguard Children” and
the tool kit, which is welcome. Clearly, when the Act is passed, it
will include new guidance incorporating what we have said about clause
9 and the new consideration of kinship care. Am I right in saying that
when social workers consider taking care proceedings, they have a kind
of handbook so they can check everything they need to before and so
they have evidence they have done so? Would my right hon. Friend
undertake to consider those different documents in the round, to see
whether together we could apply that focus that she
mentioned suffusing all the documents, with consideration of how the
family group conference might be a helpful tool in kinship care cases,
for
example? 9.45
am
Beverley
Hughes: I am certainly happy to reiterate that, as my hon.
Friend said, I will undertake to continue to suffuse all the relevant
documents with a reference to family group conferencing and a range of
other methods, to ensure the early intervention that members of the
Committee rightly want to see. I share that objective, but I hope that
the Committee will accept that it would not be right to specify one
particular method in the Bill. We can, however, use the other available
mechanisms to inform and shape social work practice—the guidance
that my hon. Friends referred to—and I undertake to do that. I
hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will feel able to withdraw the
new clause.
Tim
Loughton: I am slightly disappointed, to start with, about
the reference to the more elegant of the proposed new clauses—I
did not come into politics to be elegant. I came into politics to get
something done, to create meaningful legislation and I am perfectly
prepared to cast aside elegance in the pursuit of brevity and
succinctness, of which our new clause is the epitome. It goes to the
heart of the matter slightly less elegantly, but more practically, than
the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford, but I did not
seek to undermine it in any way and I shall not do so now. Both new
clauses would add something to the Bill.
I was
disappointed by the Minister because I do not think that the new clause
would fetter, as she put it, the ability or flexibility of social
workers and local authorities and I was not convinced by her response
to my request regarding what other matters would be deprioritised by
inserting the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster made
some pertinent points about the origins of family conferencing and how
important and effective it has been, in the second reference of the day
to New Zealand, from which we can clearly learn quite a lot.
I shall not
press the new clause, but if we were to come back to this issue on
Report—the hon. Member for Stafford has mentioned possible uses
within the tool kit or with guidance elsewhere. Given that the Bill may
not Report for some months, it might be useful for the Minister to
report back on the use of family group conferencing and how it is
growing. It is currently happening according to a postcode lottery and
too few placements are kinship placements, which would have a far
greater likelihood of success if they resulted from family group
conferencing—if it was still necessary for the child to go into
the care system. On that basis, the Minister’s comments on that
would help. The Minister may have sympathised with what we are trying
to achieve, but many of us think that the proposal needs to have more
force and a bit more bite.
Mr.
Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): I am concerned. Does
the Minister read the new clause as recommending something that one
does sometime during the process, or is it to happen at the end, almost
as the last chance that a child has to remain in their
home?
Tim
Loughton: Our new clause would not fetter the chronology
of that process at all, it just
states: “Before
a child is committed into care, the local authority must, where
appropriate, offer a family group conference
and”— perhaps
it should read “or”—
“any other
reasonable intervention which may alleviate the need for a child to be
put into
care.” The
family group conference could be the first thing to take place, it
could be the very last thing to take place and if it was not successful
then care proceedings might be triggered, or it could happen partway
through the journey of dealing with a vulnerable child. I do not agree
that the new clause would fetter the process. I will rephrase the new
clause for Report. I will be grateful if in a few months’ time,
perhaps at Report, the Minister could detail how the use of family
group conferencing is growing. If it is not growing or if the figures
are stalling, still low or unrepresentative of cases up and down the
country, we will want to pursue it more
aggressively.
Mr.
Kidney: I am always keen to be positive and
helpful. A long time ago when the hon. Gentleman moved new clause 1,
which, with its looked-after children welfare checklist, also referred
to the desirability of keeping children with their families with the
correct package of support, the then Minister offered to brigade the
different laws and guidance to show us that those points were covered.
This dovetails into that, because when we want to know about family
group conferences, we want to know about how they relate to the points
in the hon. Gentleman’s welfare checklist, do we not? It is
reasonable to ask the Minister be ready by Report to be able to tell us
about family group conferencing practice on the
ground.
Tim
Loughton: The hon. Gentleman makes a helpful point and I
am always keen to be reasonable, as he knows. In the interests of
reasonableness and of speeding along the Committee’s activity, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
6Looked
after status ‘(1) The 1989
Act is amended as follows. (2)
After section 85(4) insert “;
and (c) in the exercise of
their functions under paragraph (b) consider whether the child’s
welfare is best safeguarded and promoted by being a looked-after
child.”’.—[Tim
Loughton.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Tim
Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following:
New clause
10—Long-term
placements— ‘In section
324 (c.56) (statement of special educational needs), of the Education
Act 1996, at end
insert— “(7A)
Where a statement specifies a school or type of school that would
result in a child not ordinarily being resident with their parent, the
authority shall consider whether the child’s welfare is best
safeguarded and promoted by being a looked after
child.
(7B) The duty imposed by subsection (8) shall be
performed in accordance with
regulations.”’. New
clause 33—Looked after status for children in health settings
etc.— ‘(1) The 1989 Act
is amended as follows. (2)
After section 85(4)(b) insert “;
and (c) in the exercise of
their functions under sub-paragraph (b) the authority shall conduct a
children in need assessment under section 17 for the purpose of
determining whether the child’s welfare is best safeguarded and
promoted by being a looked-after
child.”’. New
clause 34—Looked after status for disabled children in
education settings— ‘In
the Education Act 1996, section 324, at end
insert— “(8)
Where a statement specifies a school or type of school that would
result in a child not ordinarily being resident with their parent, the
authority shall carry out a children in need assessment under section
17 of the Children Act 1989, for the purposes of determining whether
the child’s welfare is best safeguarded and promoted by being a
looked after child. (9) The
assessment specified in subsection (8) above shall be carried out as
soon as reasonably practicable and no more than 14 days after the date
the statement is
issued.”’.
Tim
Loughton: New clauses 6 and 10 deal with children with
disabilities in long-term placements. The issue has been raised in the
Lords and it is a campaign by the Every Disabled Child Matters group.
All of us in Committee sympathise with what that group has achieved; it
has been very effective. I do not understand why the Government were
not more sympathetic to adopting the proposal in another place, so I
will be grateful for more clarification from the Minister in this
place. The
Every Disabled Child Matters campaign welcomes the progress that the
House of Lords made to improve the Bill for disabled children and young
people, as do we. Part of that was the short breaks from caring
provision, which we debated earlier and is greatly welcomed.
The new
clauses would require local authorities to consider whether disabled
children in long-term residential placements should have the protection
and support of looked-after children status. They retain the
flexibility to ensure that the right solution is found for each child
and family, but make sure that every child placed away from home will
have their safeguarding needs properly
considered. Looked-after
status should include disabled children in long-term residential
placements in education or health settings, some of whom are away from
home for 52 weeks of the year with little or no parental contact.
Looked-after status would provide a package of support for those
children, including a contact plan to support parents to maintain
contact with their children while they are away from home. We are
talking about severely disabled children who require specialist
placements. Those placements are few and far between and for many
children will inevitably mean being a long distance from home, with
implications and practical problems for keeping contact with their
parents and other people looking out for
them. The
few homes that offer those specialist services do a fantastic job. I
have visited many of them and have seen the services and the dedication
of the staff. Those long-term placements are for children who are not
in the care system on account of having been taken away
from their birth parents because of abuse or other problems, but who are
living away from their parents because they are severely disabled and
require the intensive and specialist support that many of the homes and
education or health settings
offer. The
Every Disabled Child Matters campaign thinks that there is a gap in the
system. The 2005 review of disabled children in residential placements
recommended a more consistent application of looked-after status for
disabled children spending long periods in residential placements,
particularly those are far from home. That recommendation recognises
that disabled children are three times more likely to be subject to
abuse than their non-disabled peers, and therefore require much more
robust child protection measures and support from the placing
authority. There is widespread confusion on the part of residential
settings, local authorities and parents about that, and Government
research shows that guidance is too often disregarded. We are not
talking about an enormous body of children. Recent statistics show that
338 children are placed in residential accommodation for 52 weeks of
the year without the protection of looked-after status. The new clauses
would send a clear message to local authorities that they should
consider looked-after status for disabled children in long-term
placements, to determine whether or not that is the best way to keep
them
safe. The
current system for allocating looked-after status is inconsistent and
confusing for families, and it is not optimal for safeguarding
vulnerable children. We are not trying to undermine the voice of the
parents; the proposed approach would support the creation of
partnerships between parents and local authorities, and those
partnerships would maintain parental rights and responsibilities as set
out in section 20 of the Children Act 1989. That section was designed
as an opportunity to create such partnerships, and placements made
under it are based on a voluntary arrangement between the local
authority and the child’s parents. That does not affect parental
responsibility, which remains with the natural parents. We are not
stepping in to override the parents’ wishes and be unduly
nannying. To
conclude, I shall outline the benefits of looked-after status for this
small body of children. Disabled children living away from home without
looked-after status miss out on a range of measures to support and
protect their welfare. If looked-after status were given to those
children, they could receive an allocated social worker, and a care
plan that identified their needs and how those should be met, and which
included the views and wishes of the child and their family. There
would also be a health assessment and health plan, and a contact plan
to promote contact between the child and their family, along with
access to support for the costs associated with visits from the family.
There would be an allocated independent reviewing officer to monitor
implementation of the care plan and to ensure that the child’s
views were being taken into account, and finally there would be regular
reviews of the placement, and access to after care advice and
assistance to support the young person’s successful move on from
the
placement. The
solution proposed by the new clauses put forward by the Every Disabled
Child Matters group is a straightforward assessment process at the
point of placement, to decide whether looked-after status would best
promote a child’s welfare. The status would not be
compulsory. Parents and local authorities would decide together, with
input from the child, whether measures that come with looked-after
status, such as an allocated social worker and access to the support
and protection they provide, would benefit the child. That, after all,
is our primary consideration. The new clauses would be a positive
addition to the Bill, and I genuinely do not understand why the
Government did not respond more positively in another place. Perhaps
they have had a change of heart, which I will be delighted to hear now
from the
Minister. Lynda
Waltho (Stourbridge) (Lab): I rise to speak to new clauses
33 and 34 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol,
East. I
am particularly keen to ensure that the Bill supports and protects
disabled children who live away from home, many—as the hon.
Gentleman said—of whom have profound communication difficulties.
Those children are the least able to tell anybody how they
feel—whether they are happy, settled or frustrated, or possibly
scared or frightened. Those children are truly the most vulnerable of
the vulnerable and that means that the state has to play a far larger
role. The Bill provides us with a key opportunity to ensure that local
authorities actively consider the welfare needs of disabled children
when arranging long-term placements, some of which are for 52 weeks of
the year. To include such a duty would represent part of the joining up
of the “Every Child Matters” agenda, so that it would
really work and every disabled child would truly matter, alongside
their peers. There is no clear legislation that ensures that local
authorities consider whether looked-after status would best protect the
welfare of a child being placed away from home, in either a long-term
educational setting or a health setting. Interestingly, however, when a
child is placed away from home during a crisis, even if it is only for
one night, that child automatically has looked-after
status.
10
am Children
who will be living away from home for a large part of the year should
have access to the benefits of looked-after status. It is really the
gold standard, and offers almost the shopping list of benefits that the
hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham read out; that is so
important. All of those benefits are so vital to these vulnerable
children: the allocated social worker; the care plan; the health plan,
and the contact plan. Of course, if they do not get that looked-after
status, they will only get a once-a-year review of their statement, and
there is such a wide disparity
there. Kerry
McCarthy (Bristol, East) (Lab): As my hon. Friend
mentioned, I have seconded the new clauses. Is it not the case that
some placements are not available to children unless they have
looked-after status, because of the extra support that goes with
it?
| 
