Lynda
Waltho: Indeed, there are schools and residential homes
that will not accept children unless they have looked-after status. The
work done at Sunfield school in the constituency of the hon. Member for
Bromsgrove—it
actually has a Stourbridge address, so I feel that it is partly in my
constituency too—is absolutely fantastic. It is run by Barry
Carpenter and his staff, and it will not accept children without
looked-after status. It is so vital that that status is conferred on
these children.
Furthermore,
conferring looked-after status will improve the transition of these
children to adult services; that is something that the hon. Member for
East Worthing and Shoreham did not mention. It makes that transition
much smoother because, of course, the child is known to the authorities
and these children are most likely to have continuing needs.
Recent
ministerial statements made in the other place are to be welcomed and
they show a movement towards this position of conferring looked-after
status, indicating, I hope, that the Government agree broadly that most
disabled children in long-term placements, where the local authority
has been involved, should really be looked after. However, there is a
great deal of confusion around this issue. Local authorities,
residential placements and the Government’s own research in 2005
indicate that current guidance is sometimes disregarded.
The Every
Disabled Child Matters campaign group and its partners are keen to see
the Bill amended to reflect the Government’s move to this
position. Such an amendment would send the clearest signal possible to
local authorities that they should actively be considering conferring
looked-after status in these cases.
I know that
the Minister is likely to tell me that guidance already exists and that
it is possible to strengthen the regulations. However, as we have
already heard, there is evidence that the guidance is confusing, so why
not take the opportunity now of amending the Bill effectively while we
have the chance to do so, which would send out a strong
signal?
I know that
the ministerial team has also been looking at providing additional
protection for these children by strengthening the visiting regime, but
why should we set up a parallel system when we could offer what is
really the gold standard of protection for our most vulnerable children
and do so now? To suggest an alternative way forward borders on
possibly relegating such children to second-class status, and that
would not give them the support that looked-after status would. If
there is a visiting regime, what status would it have? Would the people
in that regime be students, or people unused to, for example, the
profound problems and behaviours of a young person with severe
autism?
I will briefly
mention two case studies. Both children attended Summerfield school,
which I have previously referred to. James did not have looked-after
status but he should have had it. He had a severe learning disability,
but his family was told by the local authority that it was not
necessary for him to be looked after. He had no care plan and no formal
arrangements to review his placement, except an annual education
review. That meeting reviews his statement and his educational needs
but not his overall well-being, and that is the important point. His
mother has full parental responsibility but does not benefit from any
support or assistance from the local authority. James did not have a
named social worker. His mother has three other children and is a
single parent. She has no car and can only afford to visit him, using
public transport, maybe three or four times a year. She is not legally
entitled to any assistance.
Adam, on the
other hand, has a severe learning disability but is being looked after
by his local authority. The local authority and his mother share
parental responsibility. Adam has a care plan through which his needs
are reviewed within school and on a wider basis. He has regular visits
from a named social worker and a review twice a year that is chaired by
an independent reviewing officer. Adam’s care plan provides for
regular contact to see his mother and transport is paid for by the
local
authority. To
sum up, looked-after status is about safeguarding planning, target
setting and monitoring for our most vulnerable children. For too long,
there has been too much confusion from local authorities in this area.
This is the time to end the confusion and send the clearest message
possible. This is a crucial chance to put the situation right for the
first time and create a clear duty that gives disabled children living
away from home the same rights to support and protection as their
non-disabled peers. I urge the Minister to grasp this chance and
actively consider this
proposal.
Annette
Brooke: Perhaps I should start by endorsing the comments
that have been made to avoid being repetitive. I, too, would like to
welcome the duty being put on local authorities for short breaks. That
is important and is something that the Every Disabled Child Matters
campaign fought for. It is important to identify areas where there is
no clear legal duty. The new clauses ask local authorities to consider
only whether disabled children should have looked-after status. We have
been through all the advantages of this
measure. I,
too, have looked at the case studies, but have chosen two different
ones, which I would like to refer to briefly because they add further
points to those that have already been made about vulnerability. This
is the example of
Thomas: “Now
that social services have given Thomas looked after child status,
social services deal with all the difficulties and I can be a parent
rather than a social
worker.” I
thought that that was the most striking way of describing the
advantages of looked-after status. It goes
on: “I
also have the energy to be more assertive and to make positive
decisions which are in Thomas’ interests, so when we have
meetings with the social worker and other people involved with
Thomas’ care, I am able to assert my parental
authority.” That
is so important. In its way, it is as important as the short breaks in
helping the parent to hold together and do the best for their
child. Secondly,
I thought that the case study of Mark was rather telling. It states
that “when
the government set targets for local authorities to reduce the number
of children in the looked after system, we were put under some pressure
to de-classify him as a looked after
child.” These
parents had to fight to keep looked-after status. That shows how a
local authority can respond to something that the Government said for
particular reasons in a way that is not acceptable in this day and age
and in light of the current debate. It is important to have this legal
duty in the Bill to show that every disabled child
matters.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families (Kevin Brennan): Welcome back to the Chair,
Mr. Pope.
I have a great
deal of sympathy with many of the remarks that have been made. There is
accord across the Committee about this group of children and the
problems that they face. I acknowledge the campaigning of hon. Members
across the House and of the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign. We
are all committed to ensuring that children placed away from home are
not forgotten and that they are provided with the support and services
they need to thrive. We are committed to the sort of change that all
Committee members are looking
for. We
should be clear that there is no gap in the legislative framework. The
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said that there was no clear
legal duty. In fact, clear legal duties are outlined. She quoted
somebody from the case study talking about Government targets to reduce
the number of people in the looked-after system. The Government have
never had any such targets. Sometimes I think that we should have
targets to reduce the number of myths about targets that the Government
have never had. Of course we have never had such a target and we have
explicitly ruled one out for obvious
reasons. As
I have said, there is no gap in the legislative framework.
Unfortunately, the changes that the new clauses propose would not
address the problem that we are all seeking to address, not least
because they all have a serious defect. They purport to require the
local authority to consider whether a child’s welfare would be
best safeguarded and promoted by he or she becoming a looked-after
child, but that drafting does not fit with the existing legislative
scheme of the Children Act 1989. Although the expression
“looked-after child” is a useful shorthand term to refer
to the bundle of responsibilities that local authorities owe to a
particular group of children under the 1989 Act, in strict legal terms
the defining issue is the provision of accommodation. The other
responsibilities flow from that, such as the duties to maintain the
child and make a plan for their short and long-term care and keep it
under regular review, and the new duty to arrange regular
visits.
I appreciate
the objective that all the new clauses share. They seek to ensure that
social services are actively involved in a timely and appropriate
manner when a decision is taken to place a child in an institutional
setting so that consideration is given in every case to the
child’s social care needs. However, not only is the drafting
flawed and therefore unacceptable, but the amendments that they would
make would have no practical effect. The effect of the amendments to
section 85, introduced by new clauses 6 and 33, would add nothing to
the existing requirements in the provision whereby local authorities
must consider the extent to which, if at all, they should exercise
their functions under the 1989 Act with regard to the child. It is not
possible for the local authority to perform that duty without
considering whether the child is a child in need for the purposes of
part 3 of the 1989 Act and therefore what services it should
provide.
Similarly, the
amendment to the education legislation proposed in new clauses 10 and
34 would have no practical effect. The legislation and the code of
practice on special educational needs provide a comprehensive framework
that clearly and explicitly requires education officers to seek input
from social services professionals before making placement decisions.
The legislation also requires education officers to ensure that social
services
are notified when assessments are carried out, before placement
decisions are made and again when the statement of special educations
needs is reviewed. Section 85 of the 1989 Act imposes explicit
statutory duties on local authorities exercising their education
functions and on health bodies to notify the responsible local
authorities at the time the placement in made. It also requires those
local authorities to consider the extent to which they need to exercise
their functions under the 1989 Act in relation to the child. I agree
wholeheartedly that more needs to be done to ensure that those
children’s needs are met and that parents are properly supported
in maintaining their role. Local authorities must perform all of those
duties and obligations and develop with other public bodies a properly
integrated approach that is capable of assessing children’s
needs in the round and providing a multi-agency service. In particular,
authorities must be discouraged from viewing children only through an
education or health lens.
We do not
agree, however, that these new clauses represent a legislative magic
bullet. In our view, the key lies in improving social work practice and
local authorities’ strategic planning and delivery. As a
Government, we have obviously been striving consistently for more and
better multi-agency working. That is why we brought in the Children Act
2004 and developed the children’s trust model of delivery. It is
the rationale behind “Every Child Matters”, and that is
why we will continue to work hard with local authorities to ensure that
current practice, when poor, is brought up to the standard of the
best.
The Bill
includes provisions that build on and strengthen the existing framework
under which local authorities are notified of, monitor and supervise
all children who are placed away from home, regardless of the reasons
for that placement. The improvements to the notification arrangements
set out in clause 18 and the new visiting requirement set out clause 19
will make a practical contribution to improving practice and developing
multi-agency working. We will supplement those new duties in the Bill
with regulations and statutory guidance that will set out the clear
requirements of the local authority visitor’s and our
expectations of the services that local authorities should provide to
support the active involvement of parents in their children’s
lives. 10.15
am As
part of our revision of the statutory—[Interruption.] I
will say that again because that was a rather loud ejaculation. As part
of our revision of the statutory Children Act guidance, we will also
set out our expectations of the actions that social services teams
should take when they are alerted by their education colleagues to the
likelihood of a child being educated at a residential school and they
are involved in the decision making. There should be a presumption in
every case that the child is likely to be a child in need, and an
initial assessment should be undertaken in line with the framework for
assessment of children in need and their families to assess the
parents’ capacity to meet the child’s needs in the
context of wider family and environmental factors. That assessment will
identify whether a more in-depth, core assessment is
appropriate.
However, we
should be clear on one point, on which I think hon. Members will agree.
Although that group of children is vulnerable in general and should
therefore be considered for services, we must not forget that the
children are all individuals and that their needs and family
circumstances will vary depending on how much time they spend with
their family, how far the placements are from their homes and whether
they are intended to provide for the child in the long term. That is
why, in the other place, we cautioned against the previous version of
this approach—automatic looked-after status, which would
constitute making an inappropriate assumption about family
life.
We take these
issues very seriously. We have been listening and I again point hon.
Members to clauses 18 and 19 as evidence of our commitment to that
group of children. Those provisions will be a lever by which to change
practice and will support the other changes that we are introducing
through work force reform. For example, with children who are placed by
health in the national framework for children and young people’s
continuing care, which the Department of Health has been working on
closely with my Department and is publishing for consultation shortly,
there is an emphasis on multi-agency working. We want to ensure that,
wherever possible, there are multi-agency decisions involving education
and social services on the provision of services to meet
children’s long-term health needs, including accommodation
provision. Ensuring that the social care needs of such a diverse group
of children are met, whilst respecting their wishes, where possible,
and their parents wishes, is particularly challenging, especially as
their needs and their family’s needs will change as they grow
and develop. That is why our clauses provide a solution as part of the
wider “Care Matters” agenda, and will drive forward real
change. As
I said at the outset, there is accord across the Committee on what we
are trying to achieve. However, I understand and have listened closely
to what hon. Members have said, and I undertake to look at the issues
again. I will consider with my right hon. Friend how we might create
the sort of changes that we all envisage, and whether there is anything
that we can do, in addition to what I have outlined, to achieve that
shared goal. We will continue our dialogue with hon. Members and with
the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign, and we will come forward on
Report with any conclusions that might be drawn from those further
consultations once we have unpacked hon. Members’ practical
concerns.
As I have
said, we are committed to taking this opportunity to explore and
establish best practice in this area, including how local authorities
can best support continued parental involvement with a child in a
long-term placement, and to capture it in our statutory guidance. On
that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not press their
amendments.
| 
