| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. As regards Amendments Nos. 40 and 41, I hope the Minister will forgive me for saying that the explanation she gave for resisting them might to many people seem technical and legalistic. But, having said that, I welcome her assurance that she will take steps to investigate the apparent disparity in the Children Act and ensure that the issue will be debated in another place when the Bill reaches there.
I understand that one possible reason for the disparity is that under Section 20 of the Children Act a child automatically becomes looked after, and under Section 22(4) the scope of that provision relates to all looked after children. There is a point to that difference because Section 22(4) refers to "wishes and feelings".
As to Amendment No. 42, I am still troubled that, in an active process of inquiry involving social workers going around and talking to as many relevant people as possible about a child before reaching a conclusion, the one person lying at the centre of the whole exercise will not be consulted. I return to what I said earlier about how critical it is in the vast majority of cases to ensure that children are involved in decisions about whether or not action is taken. Seeing them and listening to them may result in a very different outcome from the one that the professionals would otherwise have in mind. The amendment allows for the discretion referred to in the examples given by the noble Baroness because it contains the words "reasonably practicable".
Perhaps I can press the Minister to go as far as she did with Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. Even if she cannot accept the amendment as it stands—I recognise that the requirement to record in writing a child's wishes may be a defect, but it is a point of detail—more important is the point of principle. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for supporting that point of principle. If the noble Baroness is able to say to me that she and her colleagues will look again at the principle of putting something on the face of the Bill, with the exceptions and with the discretion that she feels appropriate—I understand the examples that she gave
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1484
in hard cases—I will know better what to do with the amendment. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask the Minister to comment on that.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have no difficulty with the principle behind what the noble Earl, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seeks to do. As far as possible, we want children always to have their wishes, feelings and views taken into account. The difficulty is that if we translate that into law on the face of the Bill we have to take care that there is not an unintended consequence.
I am more than happy to take the matter away, look at it again and pass the views expressed back to my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Children. I merely add the caveat that we were not able to find a suitable vehicle with which to do this, but we shall look again with great pleasure.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. In the circumstances, I do not believe that I can ask her to do more. It would not be appropriate to press the amendment in this form. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 43:
"DUTY OF SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY IN RELATION TO PUPILS WHO ARE IN PUBLIC CARE
The governing body of a community, foundation or voluntary school or a maintained nursery school shall secure that the teachers in the school are aware of the importance of identifying, and providing for, those registered pupils who are in public care."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her earlier assurance that there will be an amendment relating to the commissioner's responsibility for children in care and care leavers. That matter requires more thought at the current stage. I take comfort from the fact that, although young offenders will not be included in his remit, at least he will be able to look at the 30 to 40 per cent of young offenders who come out of care and decide to make a report about their experiences.
My amendment would put a duty on the governing body of a school to ensure that the teachers in the school were aware of the importance of identifying and providing for registered pupils in public care. The role of the designated teacher was established in the guidance published in 2000. It is the designated teacher's duty to liaise with the local authority and support other teachers in the school. I would like to quote from the guidance. On page iii, it states:
"Primary legislation will be needed to place complementary duties on LEAs and schools, and to give statutory force to paragraph 5.34".
"To summarise, schools should designate a teacher to act as a resource and advocate for children and young people in public care".
The Government made a commitment at that time to put the role of the designated teacher into statute: that commitment has not yet been fulfilled. The point
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1485
was raised at the last stage of the Bill, but no answer was made. I hope that the Minister will explain what has become of that commitment.
The role of the designated teacher is important but, unfortunately, in the Government's report A better education for children in care, evidence about the impact that they have is mixed. Some schools allow non-contact time for designated teachers to liaise with other agencies and attend planning and review meetings. Elsewhere, designated teachers have few or no additional resources and can struggle to reconcile their different roles, particularly where they have to combine teaching and advocacy functions. There is an inconsistency in practice in this vital role.
Noble Lords who attended a meeting last week with practitioners and a researcher who has just published research after three years working in this area will have been impressed by the concern about the inconsistency in practice of designated teachers and personal education plans. This is a serious concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has expressed a concern that we must not single out one group of children in the Bill. It is a Bill for all children. But this is a special group of children, and it is allowable to single them out. Even so, I urge her to consider that the Government have made a commitment here already. I hope that she will be able to think about that matter. I welcome the sympathetic tone of the response given to a similar amendment in Committee. I recognise the difficulty with this matter.
The designated teacher—what a role it is! The designated teacher is told that a child is in foster care or a children's home; her job is to advise other teachers in the school of that information. That is such sensitive information. How would a child in care feel if it was not used sensitively? One of the concerns is that designated teachers should be senior teachers, but often they are not. They should be well trained, but often they are not. They should have time to meet with local authority representatives, but often they do not.
From my own small experience of assisting a teacher in a school, I remember a young man who kept on sticking his hand up every time a question was asked, and shouting out before any other child answered. It was very frustrating and annoying. Perhaps if it had continued, I would have grown increasingly frustrated and thought how to move the child out of my class. But I met the boy's family, and what came through at our meeting was quite clear. He had grown up without much contact with his father and was rather keen to get my attention, as one of the few men in the school. Later on he started making gifts to me, which was very charming.
It is so important to understand the other side of the equation. That is the role of the designated teacher—to ensure that there is good communication between the local authority and the school. It is a crucial role.
The number of exclusions of children in public care is 10 times higher than for other children. But for a child who has been in care briefly, the number of exclusions is 20 times higher. It is so important to intervene early to prevent such experiences.
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1486
I draw noble Lords' attention to a recent report from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, Juveniles in Custody. This is the first time a representative sample of the under-18 prisoner population has been systematically consulted concerning their treatment in England and Wales. Some 83 per cent of boys and 65 per cent of girls had been previously excluded from school. Furthermore, 37 per cent of boys and 43 per cent of girls had previously spent time in either a care or foster home, or both.
I shall not go into the Social Exclusion Unit report, as I recognise the time constraints upon us. I am very concerned, however, that the Government are moving in this direction. Over the last four or five years that performance targets for looked-after children have been issued, quite specific bench-marks have been set for how we will improve the educational attainment of those children. For instance, the proportion of those aged 16 who get qualifications equivalent to five GCSEs grade A to C should have risen, on average, by four percentage points each year since 2002. In all authorities, at least 15 per cent of young people in care achieve this level of qualification.
Just this week, a new performance target has been issued to narrow the gap in educational achievement between looked after children and that of their peers,
"and improve their educational support and the stability of their lives so that by 2008, 80% of children under 16 who have been looked after for 2.5 years or more will have been living in the same placement for at least 2 years, or are placed for adoption".
That is a very laudable aim, which it is important to achieve. But I am reminded of what I used to come across when I visited children's homes. The staff would say that a child had so many problems that they could not expect that child to engage in school and would just look after him or her there. There is an awful lot of truth in that.
The Government have made a mistake in the past in terms of underestimating the difficulties that many of these children currently experience because of their past histories, and the instability in their lives. But it is not either-or, it is both-and. It is both providing the stability in their home environment and foster care environment and providing encouragement and support in school. In that regard I am very concerned that the Government are stepping back.
I am concerned to see the implementation take place of the tools that are so valuable. Placing a duty on the governors in this fashion would be the best way. We cannot make absolutely certain that it will happen, but it is the best way. I have spoken to many governors about this and they have been sympathetic on the matter. I have taken much advice from a governor of 18 years' experience, who is also a teacher.
We need to ensure that the educational experience of these children is the best. The Government should fulfil their commitment. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how they intend to achieve that. Such children are special, but their outcomes are appalling; we could do more to achieve better outcomes for them. The tools are there but we need to see that they are implemented. I beg to move.
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1487
6.15 p.m.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |