| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.15 pm
Mr. Laws: I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying-although he might be hiding behind the Secretary of State-that the Conservative party supports looking at the anomaly of Sunday schools and madrassahs. Is that what he is saying?
Tim Loughton: I said it quite clearly: I said that the Government have already asked Sir Roger Singleton to look into the matter, because there are genuine concerns that need to be looked at. However, I do not know whether those genuine concerns will turn out to be real or whether they will require action and the sort of new clause that has been put forward. I would like to wait for the evidence, which I think is the Government's position. When we have the report, which is due by the end of March-I think that is the time scale-we can make an informed decision about whether any action is required. My response to the Liberal Democrat new clause, therefore, is that it is premature-to put it kindly-because none of us really knows at this stage whether it is required. I would prefer to wait for the evidence before making a judgment.
I realise that I have spoken for some time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I very much commend the new clauses in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. In particular, I commend the key new clause-new clause 1-which would offer a fundamentally different approach to how we produce, publish and learn from serious case reviews in the future. Quite frankly, after the high-profile tragedies that we have had, nothing less will do if we are remotely serious about restoring confidence in the child protection system in this country.
Annette Brooke: I, too, shall commence my remarks by talking about serious case reviews. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) reminds us that we are approaching the 10th anniversary of Victoria Climbié's death. It is a time to reflect on how much has been learned. If we look at the history of serious case reviews, we will see that Ofsted has judged that the quality of a very large proportion has been unsatisfactory. In many cases, the summaries have been criticised for not reflecting the issues behind the cases, and their timeliness has been incredibly suspect, with many occasions on which one has waited for years after a shocking event. There are also doubts about Ofsted and its inspections within the children's services framework.
Some time ago, we had a briefing from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which remains concerned about the full publication of serious case reviews. However, it made several proposals that it thought would improve the process, including working on the summaries, improving the quality of the serious case reviews and putting in a compliance or audit check so that an arm's length body can pick up on recommendations and check up on subsequent action 12 months after publication.
Just before we came into the Chamber today, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) picked up a letter that we had been sent. The letter is from the Secretary of State to the NSPCC. No doubt, in due course we will hear on the Floor of the House exactly how the Government propose to improve serious case reviews. The letter says that the Government will try to improve confidence in the quality of serious case reviews. Ofsted seems to have been put in charge of that, even though we are not yet that confident of its operation in the realm of children's services.
Compliance reports should be made publicly available, setting out the actions to be taken in response to serious case reviews, but there is no indication that anyone will take an independent look at compliance. The reason why I want to emphasise that point is that subsection (2) of new clause 21, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, highlights the need for independence in checking the responses to a serious case review. The letter to the NSPCC also refers to the NSPCC's desire that executive summaries should be improved. It is therefore interesting that even now the Government are not going the whole way and are not even responding to the NSPCC's concerns about putting that independence into the equation.
I thank the Secretary of State for allowing me to read the serious case review on the Edlington boys. I read it on behalf of my hon. Friend, and I have to say that I was genuinely surprised at how I felt after reading it. Members who are present are well aware that I work closely with the NSPCC and that I am really concerned about child protection. However, I can put my hand on my heart and say that I came out of the room-my locked room-after reading the review and I thought that pages and pages of it should become compulsory reading for anybody working in the children's work force, including teachers and children's social workers. I was surprised at my reaction.
The review was leaked, of course, to the BBC and the press. I will quote from them, rather than from my recollection, so that I do not reveal anything. There were 31 occasions on which nine different agencies failed to act on the two brothers, aged 10 and 11, who were convicted of torturing and leaving two boys for dead. That is 31 occasions on which there were communication problems, and there are other examples-Pearl Harbour is a classic example-of where all the signals were there but nobody put them together. In order to learn something we have to go through the communication failures. Trainee workers need to read all the points that were missed.
Of course it is easy to be clever in hindsight-I am not making judgments about the people involved-but the lessons were there for training the work force. I say that with some passion, because I am surprised that I now feel even more strongly that we should start from
the premise that we publish as much of the serious case review as we can without harming members of the family or other individuals who might be involved. I, too, picked up the points about the fuller publication of serious case reviews, which the British Association of Social Workers is supporting.
I ask the Government today to reconsider the issue. I am not here to make political points: when I read that serious case review, I was staggered by the things in it that should be revealed to people already in the work force and those entering it. We cannot move on unless we learn those lessons. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will therefore support the Conservatives' new clause 1. We would have liked to combine it with our proposals, but the point will be made that if we are to learn the lessons, there is a strong case for making more information public.
I understand from reading the serious case review from Edlington that it was the eighth such review that Doncaster had carried out in recent years. This leads me to ask what lessons have been learned from the previous cases, given that they have not been published. Not very many, it seems. Of course I take on board the enormous pressures on social workers, the lack of training and the high case loads, but if we picked up all those elements with total transparency, it would lead to a bigger commitment from society to addressing the deficiencies in the system rather than the people. We are therefore absolutely convinced that we need to move in completely the opposite direction. We cannot improve matters by a drip, drip, drip method of doing a bit more here and there. We need to start from the other end. Let us publish as much as we can without risking injury to anyone and without damaging reputations, perhaps of members of the wider family.
I should like to touch on the Conservatives' amendments 35 to 45. I, too, looked at the representations from the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council; what sensible representations they were. In clause 28, proposed new section 14B(2) states:
"The first condition is that the request is made for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Board to perform its functions."
That seems a very wide request. I looked at the Bill's explanatory notes on the clause, but they left me none the wiser- [ Interruption. ] I am relieved that I am not the only one who thought that they confused the issue, rather than clarifying it.
Although I quite understand the point that members of the medical profession are making-and I agree that the Government need to look again at this part of the Bill as it makes its progress through the other place-I am concerned that the Conservative amendments would narrow the options down too much. I believe that local safeguarding children boards will need to share information on issues other than just the serious case reviews. Those reviews might well be the most important aspect of the work, but they take place after something has gone wrong, and LSCBs should also be involved in prevention. Information should be shared, for example, in cases of child abuse and the sexual exploitation of children. A serious case review might have been undertaken on one member of a family, but information about another member of that family-baby P's sister, for example-might also need to be shared.
I acknowledge what the Conservative amendments are trying to do, but they have been drafted too narrowly to achieve the necessary improvements in information
sharing. Also, they do not take on board the fact that, if other functions are to be carried out properly, they will require the information to be shared fully.
Tim Loughton: In what cases does the hon. Lady think it would be legitimate to place a statutory responsibility on various agencies to provide information to an LSCB? How would she address a situation in which a doctor chose not to co-operate with an LSCB-under their Hippocratic oath, or whatever-because they felt that there would otherwise be a breach of patient confidentiality? What penalty would she apply in such a situation, and how on earth would she impose it?
Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it takes me on to amendment 88, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. In it, we try to tackle that issue in a slightly different way. It proposes:
"Provision must be made for appeals by those persons who consider it to be unreasonable or improper to supply the specified information to the Local Safeguarding Children Board under this section."
That seems to cover the point that was just raised. My request is for the Government to take this back and have another long look at it. The Bill is drafted too widely at the moment, and it is going to need quite a lot of work-and, I suggest, consultation-to get this right. We offer one solution through an appeals process.
5.30 pm
Briefly, amendment 90 is designed to strengthen the inspectorate process by changing the "may" to "shall". I want to move on to new clause 10, which hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I want to discuss.
Tim Loughton: Before the hon. Lady does so, I wish to point out that we seem to have a huge difference in our amendments, as we have changed "may" to "will", while she has changed "may" to "shall"-but I suspect that we are on the same side. Will the hon. Lady elaborate a little more on amendment 88, as I asked her about what would happen if someone refused to co-operate, and I am not quite sure how her appeals system will work or who will police it?
Annette Brooke: I thought that I had answered the hon. Gentleman by suggesting that there could be an appeal mechanism. [Interruption.] I am quite comfortable with the need to amend the Bill, and I hope the Government will take the lead on it, but we will need consultation on the details of how it will work. It cannot be right to share information only in respect of serious case reviews, as the Conservatives suggest, because there are many other instances where it will be necessary, as I am sure that the Secretary of State will tell us. Equally, I cannot believe that every single function of the safeguarding children board will require such sharing of information.
I share the concerns already expressed by the Children's Rights Alliance about how children themselves will feel about the sharing of information. It is always one of my great concerns whether children and young people will seek help from organisations if they feel that information about them is going to be shared. Doctors sometimes work confidentially in the best interests of the child, but the child might not seek help if they felt that the information was going to be shared.
The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls): I am listening carefully to the concerns raised by the hon. Lady-and, indeed, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)-that some practitioners, such as GPs, might not be willing to share information, because of the potential breach of parent confidentiality. Does she not think, however, that GPs might be more reluctant to share information in the compilation of a serious case review if they thought that it was going to be made public? Would that not make it less likely that GPs would co-operate with the process for the very reasons put forward by both Opposition Front-Bench teams, which seem wholly to contradict the argument that they made about the publication of serious case reviews?
Annette Brooke: It is extremely important to change the culture when it comes to co-operation on serious case reviews. I find astounding the suggestion that professionals will hold back, as it is part of their job or their oath to their profession not to do so. As to the confidential aspects, we are talking about redacting and anonymising where appropriate. We are talking about two different cases here, and I question whether we really need to share information about all the functions. It is for the Secretary of State to respond to that point in due course.
Let me move on to new clause 10. If it had not been tabled in the first place, we would not be where we are now. Tabling it was therefore an extremely important step. It had already been tabled when, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
"The use of physical punishment against any child is wrong; it is outside the law and is not fair to children. I do not think that we should tolerate any use of physical punishment in any school or learning setting in which trusted adults are supposed to be looking after children".-[ Official Report, 11 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 434.]
That resulted in the contact with Sir Roger Singleton, who said in a letter dated 27 January 2010:
"I have given this matter some urgent thought and I do think there are issues that warrant further exploration."
If the new clause had not been tabled, we would not have reached our present position.
I am very pleased that the Government have asked Sir Roger Singleton to review the use of physical punishment in part-time education and learning settings, but I am worried about the time frame. I accept that it will take some time to view the issue thoroughly, but, not surprisingly, those of us who are concerned about the issue fear that if Sir Roger's response arrives at the end of March, it will not be possible to make much progress. Can the Secretary of State outline a projected timetable?
We should bear in mind that teachers are an example of adults in loco parentis. Most teachers are prohibited by law from using corporal punishment, but there appears to be a gap, in that the prohibition does not apply to teachers providing less than 12.5 hours of education a week. Sports coaches, Sunday school teachers, madrassah teachers, youth workers, private foster carers, babysitters, nannies and unmarried partners are also in loco parentis when they have care and control of children.
We should bear in mind that physical punishment has already been banned in other voluntary provision, such as early years centres, child-minding, private education and part-time education of 12.5 hours or more a week. Surely there is no justification for failing to protect
children in the remaining voluntary settings. Professionals and concerned Muslims, for example, have found it difficult to persuade parents or children to make complaints about the use of physical punishment. As long ago as 2006, the leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain said the Muslim community was in a state of denial over child mistreatment in madrassahs, and that it was an unacceptable dereliction of duty not to protect those children for fear of being accused of cultural insensitivity. The issue has arisen because the concern was expressed by the Muslim Parliament. Madrassahs are estimated to run nearly 1,600 part-time, weekend or evening Islamic schools, teaching as many as 200,000 children overall.
Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): New clause 10 states:
"Only a person with parental responsibility for a child within the meaning of section 3 of the Children Act 1989 can justify battery of the child on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment."
I may have missed something that the hon. Lady has just said, but I understood her to say that all the people whom she listed should be totally prohibited from carrying out any kind of physical punishment. Surely
"Only a person with parental responsibility"
means that those with parental responsibility would indeed be able to carry out such actions. I think that the hon. Lady is faced with a slight dilemma, or contradiction. Perhaps she could explain her position.
Annette Brooke: It is true that many people think smacking should be banned across the board, but that view has been tested in this House. More recently, however, a gap in the current legislation has been identified. This new clause is not an attempt to rehearse the old arguments; rather, it is intended to be a positive contribution to achieving the ambition of ensuring that our children are protected. Many people would like it to go further, of course, but the framework here is fairly narrow, and I think there will be evidence that this is necessary-certainly, such evidence has already been provided to us.
Mr. Cash: The hon. Lady's new clause states that persons
"with parental responsibility for a child within the meaning of...the Children Act 1989 can justify battery of the child on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment."
Is she saying nobody should be able to give any reasonable physical punishment to a child? What I want to understand is whether this is absolute or qualified.
Annette Brooke: I thought that I had made it clear that this new clause tackles a particular area that we think has been overlooked and has not been addressed by previous amendments. This new clause builds, however, on a Government amendment from the last time we debated this, which spoke about a justification in terms of reasonable punishment, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recall that there was a great deal of discussion about that.
We have moved the agenda forward, but there is still a general issue about whether physical punishment should be allowed. More specifically, we currently have a situation in which one group of teachers is banned from using physical punishment while another group of teachers is not, and that should be addressed.
I should also point out that there may be physical punishment in some Christian Sunday schools. Also, of course, beliefs that children can be witches or be possessed by evil spirits and need to be physically punished are prevalent in certain African Christian churches in the UK-the Victoria Climbié case falls into that category. In respect of part-time teachers, concerns have been raised about children being abused by sports trainers. I am sure such cases are rare exceptions, but we should have consistency.
Mr. Timpson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Annette Brooke: I think that I have given way enough.
We believe the most practical reform in this context is to amend section 58 of the Children Act 2004. The Government introduced that measure the last time we discussed this, and it was a compromise. We want the defence of reasonable punishment to be available only to those with parental responsibility.
Mr. Timpson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Annette Brooke: I am about to conclude, but I shall give way once more.
Mr. Timpson: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Where a child is in the care of a local authority and it shares parental responsibility with the parents, who within the local authority would be categorised as the person with parental responsibility for the child who can therefore justify battery? Also, a child might be in the care of a local authority, and there might be court proceedings that will inevitably result in the parental responsibility of the parents being taken away, yet there might still be some contact between child and parents. How would that anomaly be addressed?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |