|
Kevin
Brennan: I, too, met the virtual head teachers when they came into
the Department and virtually all of them turned up on that occasion. It
was interesting to hear about the progress on the pilots, which are an
important initiative. I can assure the hon. Lady that I agree with
everything she said, except for the need for the new clause. We are
deeply committed to ensuring that looked-after children and care
leavers who are entitled to leaving care services are properly
consulted on the services they receive and involved in helping to shape
and improve them. That is why we made the commitment, as she knows, in
the “Care Matters” White Paper to introduce children in
care councils in every local authority.
We are
embedding that commitment by spelling out in statutory guidance our
expectation that every local authority should have a children in care
council or an equivalent structure to ensure that looked-after children
and young people are able to put their experiences of the care system
directly to those responsible for service delivery, and I recently met
some young people in south Gloucestershire who are doing exactly that.
We will ask Ofsted to report on those participation arrangements as
part of the planned inspection programme focusing on children in care,
and that will begin in 2009. The new clause is unnecessary because the
reforms that it seeks to legislate for are already
underway.
Annette
Brooke: I hope that I shall still be in Parliament to
check up on that progress. We have been told that so much is in hand,
in guidance or that it will happen, so I am rather heartened to hear
that there will be a specific inspection on that matter, because it is
important that there is a clear way forward to ensure investigations on
whether local authorities are following through. During the course of
the Committee’s proceedings, we appear to be imposing rather a
lot of guidance and regulations on them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
motion. Motion
and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause
24Guardians
for children with special protection
needs ‘(1) As soon as a child
under 18 who is separated from both his parents and is not being cared
for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility to do so makes
an asylum claim or human rights claim or is identified as a victim of
trafficking, a local authority must ensure that a legal guardian is
appointed to represent that
child. (2) The following
expressions have the same meaning in this section as they have in Part
5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
(c.41)— (a)
“asylum
claim”; (b)
“human rights
claim”. (3)
“Trafficking” means the arrangement or facilitation of
the arrival in, entry to, travel within, or departure from the United
Kingdom for the purposes of exploitation as defined in section 4(4) of
the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004
(c.19) (trafficking people for
exploitation).’.—[Annette
Brooke.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. This
new clause is very much intended to be probing, although the principle
was discussed in the other place. I wish to ascertain the
Government’s position on a statutory system of guardianship for
all separated children who are subject to immigration control in
England and Wales. I want to ensure that the welfare needs of those
children are properly safeguarded within the context of the asylum
determination process and that their support and care needs are met by
all agencies charged with those functions.
Each year,
3,000 children who are separated from both parents and are not being
cared for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility to do so
come to the UK and claim asylum. I have a feeling that I might have put
the same arguments forward during the passage of the Children Act 2004,
as they seem remarkably familiar and there is a sense of
dÃ(c)jà vu. We also proposed at that time that the Border
and Immigration Agency should come under section 11, so I think that it
is worth carrying on putting the points
forward. The
Bill presents an opportunity to strengthen the protection for children
in the care of the state and cover asylum-seeking children and
trafficked children, which is a matter of great concern. The new clause
does not seek to establish any detailed mechanics on how a system of
guardianship would operate, but it is important to recognise that there
is no systematic provision of independent oversight on matters
involving separated children who are subject to immigration control.
Children can go unrepresented in their asylum application and might be
placed in inappropriate accommodation with inadequate support. Indeed,
they might not understand the implications of their asylum application.
In the current system, separated children seeking asylum, some as young
as eight years old, have to instruct their own solicitors, yet these
children might not be competent to instruct a legal representative.
Although there is provision through CAFCASS, which I appreciate, we
still need
guardianship.
2.45
pm Indeed,
my noble friend Baroness Walmsley raised the issue, but I think that
the Minister misunderstood what she was saying. Obviously we accept
that CAFCASS can be helpful for a small number of non-citizen children
going through the family court system, however, there is a gap in
provision. A very low number of children is granted asylum. The
majority are granted discretionary leave, which means that they need
greater protection during the time that they are here, certainly to
comply with the European convention on human rights.
We
still have the reservation to article 22 of the UN convention on the
rights of the child. I was heartened earlier this year when the
Minister addressing that issue said that it was being looked at. I am
not sure whether we have any information on that matter. I want
particularly emphasise trafficked children. Lord Adonis commented in
the other place that the Government are considering the changes needed
to comply with article 10 of the Council of Europe convention on action
against trafficking in human beings, which states that every
unaccompanied child identified as a victim will be provided with
representation “by
a legal guardian, organisation or authority which shall act in the best
interests of that
child”. I
would like some more details about that because it is so important.
There is cross-party concern for trafficked children.
It is also
important to note that the 10th report of the Joint Committee on Human
Rights, published March 2007, expressed concern that asylum-seeking
children were not getting as much protection as other children. The
report
recommends “that
a formal system of guardianship should be established for separated
children subject to immigration control, including separated asylum
seeking children. The guardian would have a statutory role and would be
appointed by a statutory body to safeguard the best interests of the
child and provide a link between all those providing services and
support. The guardian should be expected to intervene if public bodies
act in contravention of their legal duties towards a
child” There
is a great opportunity to protect further the rights of separated
children subject to immigration control. I hope that the Minister will
consider favourably something that has been asked for on many
occasions. I know the concerns about control of asylum and immigration,
but we are talking about children. I believe that child in this country
have the same rights to protection as citizens
do.
Beverley
Hughes: I agree with the hon. Lady that the issue concerns
everybody, particularly when we are talking about children who are not
only separated from their families but may have been trafficked. I
shall say at the outset that the matter was considered in detail in
2004 when we implemented the European Union reception conditions
directive, which called for minimum standards on the reception of
asylum seekers, including children. Article 19 requires
states “to
ensure the necessary representation of
unaccompanied” asylum-seeking
child by legal guardians or
“representation
by an organisation which is responsible for their care and
well-being” We
took the view then, and it is still our view, that the care and support
that children receive from local authorities, under the same statutory
arrangements as other children
in need, mean that the UK is fully compliant with that directive.
Therefore, we do not believe that a system of statutory guardianship is
necessary, or indeed desirable, to achieve that goal. However, I agree
with the hon. Lady that services for unaccompanied asylum-seeking
children, particularly those who have been trafficked, need to be
improved. The provisions of the Bill, alongside some other measures
that I will touch on briefly, will deliver some of the necessary
improvements that she
seeks. First,
it is important to make the point, in relation to the hon.
Lady’s concluding remarks, that we are discussing children. All
children should have the same rights under the law. I agree with her.
Children’s legislation makes no distinction between
children who are separated, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children or
other children. The duties under the Children Act 2004 depend simply on
the levels of assessed need. They are not affected at all by
immigration status or other factors of that nature. As she will know,
last year the courts made it absolutely clear in a robust judgment that
it is not acceptable for local authorities to make any distinction in
service provision on any basis other than assessed need. That was in
relation to a case involving unaccompanied asylum-seeking
children. Secondly,
the reforms in the Bill and the wider “Care Matters”
programme will challenge local authorities to improve their practice.
That will benefit unaccompanied asylum-seeking and trafficked children
who have grown up in this country. I recognise that the experiences of
these children will be distinct in some important respects and that
they will require more specialised services and care than the
generality of looked-after
children. For
that reason, the UK Border Agency has proposed that children should be
placed not right across the country, but with a limited number of
specialist local authorities so that we can be sure that they receive
that specialist level of care and expertise. The training of IROs and
social workers in those authorities can be given in relation to the
dimensions that the separated and immigration statuses give such
children. We will therefore develop some specialist areas of expertise.
That fits in with the reforms of the UK Border Agency set out in
“Better outcomes: the way forward”, which was about
improving the care of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and was
published in January this year. It also fits in with the code of
practice, “Keeping children safe from harm”. I think that
that is the way to ensure that the special needs of such children are
dealt with in
practice. We
will also update the statutory guidance to recognise and deal with the
particular needs of this group. In revising the Children Act guidance
for local authorities, we will reflect the significant increase in the
number of these children in the care system since the guidance was
originally written in the early 1990s. There will be a real focus on
this group in that
guidance. On
the other hand, I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that it is not clear
what benefits there would be from an extra system of guardianship. This
matter reflects the debate on advocates for every child. The reality
for most of these children is that they already encounter a long list
of individuals, many of them charged in one way or another with
representing them, such as their solicitor. They are all referred to
the Refugee Council children’s panel, which provides advice and
assistance. They have
their local authority social worker and the enhanced
role of the IRO will apply to them, which we have discussed in this
Committee. As I have said, if they are located in specialist
authorities where the IRO is given special training in the
circumstances and needs of such young people, they will get a better
service. We
have had this argument before. I do not think that the legislation
needs to be adjusted. I accept that we need to adjust practice and we
must spotlight the needs of these children and train people to be
better in meeting their needs and recognising the issues that come with
their immigration status. However, that is a matter for practice and
not for legislation in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that
the measures I have outlined will meet her aspirations sufficiently and
will therefore withdraw the
motion.
Annette
Brooke: I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply.
I am still unconvinced, but sometimes one has to beg to differ. I will
not press the matter to a vote, but this is an issue that I will
continue to raise because I think that we need to go a lot further. I
seem to recollect that when the Green Paper was first published, as the
Minister will acknowledge, it made little mention of asylum seekers,
which always gives the impression that we do not give enough attention
to them. We have come quite a way since then but we have not yet
reached the best position. I will continue to push for this outside
Committee, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion
and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
25Health
assessments and care ‘After
section 90 of the 1989 Act
insert— “Health
assessments and care 90A Health
assessments and care (1) Where
a child is looked after by a local authority, the Primary Care Trust
(“PCT”) or, where there is no relevant PCT, the Health
Authority or Health Board, must co-operate with the local authority in
the provision of physical, emotional and mental health assessments and
care. (2) The Secretary of
State shall make regulations providing for physical, emotional and
mental health assessments of a child looked after by the local
authority. (3) Regulations made
under this section shall make provision
about— (a) the
qualifications and experience of an individual undertaking a health
assessment; (b) the length of
time after a child starts to be looked after by a local authority by
which a health assessment must take place;
and (c) the inclusion of
details in the care plan of the arrangements made jointly by the local
authority and PCT, or if there is no PCT, the Health Authority or
Health Board, for the area in which the child is living for the
physical, emotional and mental health care of the
child.”’.—[Annette
Brooke.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. This
amendment has also been supported by a number of organisations. I
should like to make that clear from the outset. I suspect that I will
be given assurances that it is all dealt with already, but the NSPCC,
BAAF, Who
Cares?, ChildLine and the NCB support this, so I am not alone in
thinking that rather more could be done. Ever since the Sexual Offences
Bill, I have had a particular interest in seeing that when a child has
been sexually abused an assessment is made and therapeutic treatment is
available. I have raised this on many occasions. A child who has been
abused sometimes goes on to become a perpetrator. We have more and more
unhappiness and misery by not addressing the situation at the time when
it needs addressing. The availability of therapeutic treatment across
this country is very patchy. We could prevent many tragedies if we
could ensure that that treatment was available. The amendment
concerns assessment, treatment and support. My particular interest in
therapeutic counselling and treatment for sexually abused children
will, sadly, form part of that. About 60 per cent. of children are
brought into care is because they have been abused in some way, be that
physical violence, sexual abuse or other forms. That tells us quite a
lot. Children who come into care have at least a 60 per cent. chance of
needing some form of treatment. They often need mental health
treatment.
Despite the
fact that the Government have invested greatly, and I will not
underestimate the extra investment, there is still a long way to go
until we provide enough services. There can be a long time lag between
assessment and treatment. That is critical for this group of vulnerable
young people. They have already had a bad start in life. We need to be
able to act to do the best that we can to remedy and make good as soon
as
possible I
therefore call in the new clause for an explicit duty to be placed on
PCTs to co-operate with local authorities in the provision of health
assessments and care to looked-after children, for assessment to be
undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced practitioners and for
regulations to set out in detail how joint arrangements for the
individual child will be made, recorded and reviewed. I should add that
45 per cent. of looked-after children and young people aged five to 17
are assessed as having an emotional or mental health disorder, compared
with 10 per cent. of the general child and young person population.
Those are Government figures. Looked-after children and young people
exhibit high rates of self-harm and high risk behaviour. Two thirds of
looked-after children are reported to have had at least one physical
health complaint. Some of those complaints are speech and language
problems, and in other arenas we talk a great deal about how much such
problems inhibit a child’s
development. 3
pm The
problem is that provision is patchy, as is working together, despite
provisions that state that there should be a multidisciplinary approach
and that primary care trusts should work closely with local
authorities. I shall give an example from my own constituency, where
local authority boundaries are not coterminous with primary care trust
boundaries. That problem has been overcome with help from the
Government for the council concerned. Nevertheless, I have a letter
from a health service worker
saying: “It
is not my responsibility in West Dorset to provide services for East
Dorset children.”
Those
east Dorset children have been sent to a specialist school in west
Dorset. That problem has now been dealt with, but it has taken a long
time and an MP’s intervention. I do not buy the assurances that
“it is all happening”. We have a long way to go, and that
is why the duty is
important. I
have the feeling that everybody is trying to hurry me up. I am doing my
best, but these are meaty new clauses. I am sure that Hansard
will show that I have not had more than my fair share of time. The new
clauses that I am leading on are really important to me and to all our
looked-after children, and I do not want to rush through them at the
cost of not making a point. I am looking for a number of assurances on
how the arrangements will work. Given the intensity of the problems
regarding the health of looked-after children, a duty in the Bill is
called
for.
| 
