4 Representation
23. The Bill amends the functions of independent
reviewing officers (social workers who chair all looked-after
children's statutory review meetings, from which position they
can identify any problems with the child's care, or with the care
plan).[27] The White
Paper said that:
"As well as […] reforms at the strategic
level, it is equally important to ensure good quality and consistent
individual needs assessment, care planning and service provision
for each individual child […] for children in care, all […]
support must be grounded in a high quality assessment of their
needs and a care plan which is based on those needs."[28]
Evidence to us from the CAFCASS Young People's Board
indicated that young people in care thought that the role of the
independent reviewing officer (IRO) was extremely important and
felt that IROs should be committed to involving the young person
and making the care plan work.[29]
24. The Minister told us that:
"There is a great deal of concern within
the system that the independent reviewing officer function is
not yet working properly and strongly enough. There is recognition
within the system that we have to make sure that there is better
care planning and that the voice of the child is more effectively
represented within the system."[30]
25. He also commented on the debate on whether IROs
should remain within local authorities or should be made independent
of them, saying that the evidence was mixed:
"We decided in the Bill to leave independent
reviewing officers within the remit of the local authority, although
they can swap. An independent reviewing officer could come from
a neighbouring local authority. The provision could be swapped
if we wanted to strengthen the Chinese wall and the role, which
we encourage. We have done that because children and young people,
independent reviewing officers and local authorities have told
us that having someone within the structure and who is well connected
with it can be more effective at good care planning for the individual
child."
He added that
"if that does not work and we do not have
an improvement in care planning for young people or on the ground
in the stability of care plans and listening to the voice of the
child, there is power under the Bill in future to take independent
reviewing officers out of local authorities completely and put
them into a national body. That could come under the remit of
the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service or
a completely new body, but we thought that it was right to continue
to make the system work by strengthening the role of the independent
reviewing officer at this stage."[31]
26. Amongst those submitting evidence on these issues
of representation were those who were concerned that the Government
had not taken sufficient account of submissions to the Care
Matters consultation proposing independent advocacy on behalf
of looked-after children.
27. The Children's Advocacy Consortium argued this
point, noting that it and others have sought an extension of independent
advocacy in the Bill by "Extending the statutory right to
advocacy to the care planning and review process; and requiring
providers of residential care and fostering services to ensure
that children are provided with an independent advocate".
It argues that the Government confuses informal advocacy (as provided
by parents and social workers) with professional advocacy, defined
as "about empowering children and young people to make sure
that their rights are respected and their views and wishes heard
at all times." The Consortium adds that "It is our view
that the expression of the child's views in the decision
making process by those who are responsible for the outcome of
that process is quite distinct from the representation of
the child's wishes and their rights by a professional who is independent
of the system."[32]
The group Every Disabled Child Matters made similar points.[33]
28. When asked why the Government had not adopted
proposals on advocacy, the Minister answered:
"We wonder whether that would be the most
effective way to improve the service to the child and to improve
the way in which care planning takes place for that child…
We have to empower the people who work around the child and ensure
that they focus on the thoughts, wishes, feelings and the voice
of the young person, rather than creating a national system of
advocates, which some organisations who specialise in advocacy
would like to see. We wonder whether that would really produce
what we want: better outcomes for these young people. The right
way to achieve that is to focus on strengthening the system."[34]
29. We asked the Minister if advocacy might be required
in cases where a child has difficulty in expressing themselves
or has a serious disability. He told us:
"In a case like that, it seems to me that
it would. I am unable to judge an individual case, but if a young
person is unable to effectively express themselves without professional
advocacy or assistance of some sort, it would quite clearly be
good practice for an advocate to be brought in. There are many
disabled children in care. I do not think that that point could
be expressed within the Bill; but in guidance, it will be clear
that the thrust of the reform that we are introducing is that,
if a child's voice cannot be heard because of some disability,
there should be a process by which it can be."[35]
30. It is clear from all the evidence that a truly
independent voice is needed for all looked-after children to ensure
their needs and wishes are properly considered and acted upon
in the care process. The Minister told us of his concern that
the independent reviewing officer system was not yet working effectively,
and the Government acknowledges this in the Bill by making provision
for the Secretary of State to establish a body to be the employer
of independent reviewing officers to provide greater independence
if matters do not improve. The Government needs to be explicit
about how it will judge if this change is needed, and how long
it will allow present circumstances to continue without perceived
improvement.
31. There remains the question of whether formal
advocacy arrangements should be put in place for looked-after
children. If the new arrangements for independent reviewing
officers do not improve the way the system works, the Government
should look again at independent advocacy and whether there is
a need to replace the neutral independence of the IRO with active
advocacy on behalf of the child or young person.
Visitors
32. The Bill makes provision for looked-after children
to be visited by a representative of the local authority who should
ensure that they receive 'appropriate advice, support and assistance'
if they request it, and by independent visitors whose duty it
is to 'visit, befriend and advise the child'.[36]
These roles already exist, but the Bill will extend availability
of independent visitors from children in care who have no contact
with their parents to all children in care who would benefit from
such a relationship.[37]
We welcome the extension of the provision of independent visitors
to all looked-after children.
33. These two individuals together with others such
as the IRO, social worker, designated teacher and possibly a personal
advisor form part of a substantial group of adults designed to
assist each child. The concern is that there are too many people
involved, causing fragmentation of functions and causing confusion
for the children affected. What Makes The Difference? and
the National Leaving Care Advisory Service in their joint memorandum
to the Committee said in relation to the local authority visitor:
"[…] we believe that, in order for
this to be of maximum benefit, these visitors should be the child's
lead professional, and must be known to the child […]. Good
relationships will provide the attachment that these young people
need to succeed. However young people have told us how difficult
they find it to form these relationships as a result of the large
number and high turnover of professionals who deal with them […].
We are concerned that local authorities may assign people as visitors
who do not play any other role in the child's life which would
both limit the value of these visits and introduce yet another
professional into a child's life."[38]
34. We asked the Minister about the need for a child
or young person in care to have one core relationship. He said:
"[…] a key relationship for most young
people in care would be with their foster carer and for those
in a children's home, with the manager or the people who work
with them in the children's home. You are absolutely right that
there are a number of relationships with adults, and the whole
purpose of the Bill and of the Care Matters agenda is to try and
stabilise that and to give more stability to those relationships".[39]
He added that provisions on independent visitors
were being changed not "because we decided that it would
be a good idea, but because children and young people themselves
said that they welcomed it."[40]
35. We recognise the importance for looked-after
children of stable relationships with adults, and we also recognise
that the various people mentioned—the so-called 'team around
the child'—have different roles. However, as in all these
issues, the welfare of the child or young person should be paramount.
Every looked-after child should have one key individual to
whom he or she can turn, and wherever possible the child should
be entitled to say which individual should perform that role.
27 Clauses 9 to 13 Back
28
Care Matters: Time for Change, para 1.29 Back
29
Ev 21, para 5 Back
30
Q 36 Back
31
ibid Back
32
Ev 24-25 Back
33
Ev 38 Back
34
Q 39 Back
35
Q 41 Back
36
Clauses 14 to 17 Back
37
Care Matters: Time for Change, para 7.36 Back
38
Ev 72 Back
39
Q 43 Back
40
Q 45 Back
|
