| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is aware of this but I believe that he is the third Minister who has been at the crease since the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I raised this subject. The noble Earl and I take it in turn to go into battle on this issue, and today he has been the equivalent of Freddie Flintoff and I shall be the spinner.
Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the recent report on the work done by BAAF, in consultation with the Voice newspaper? That paper for the first time did a large survey among its readership about private fostering—and a very revealing document it is too. It has long been known, since the publication of the report People Like Us, that there are different communities within this country in which private fostering is more prevalent and more the usual custom, partly because of the traditions in the parents' country of origin. They are very honourable traditions in which extended families, friends and relatives look after children.
On the last occasion that we discussed this subject, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, was keen to impress on us that some local authorities had pilot schemes in which the local authority had employed officers to work with particular communities and potential private fosterers. Could the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, tell the House what has happened in those pilot areas and what the results of those schemes have been? That was the Government's principal reason for resisting the reasonable and persuasive case set out by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to move towards a more rigorous system of registration.
Finally, we are talking not only about the case of Victoria Climbié—there are many other cases of children in such situations, such as Toni-Ann Byfield and others—when the understanding of parents who live abroad of the systems of childcare at work in this country has been perhaps in part a contributory factor in those children being put into situations of great danger—situations which we would not allow to happen if they were any other child. On these Benches, it is our contention that until such time as private fostering is registered, we run the risk of leaving these extremely vulnerable children—perhaps some of the most vulnerable—in danger. So I am very pleased to support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, again on this matter.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, for tabling these amendments. Could the Minister say how successful the Government have been in their proposals that a social worker should visit privately fostered families to check on them every six weeks for the first year? Is he aware that in the consultation by the Children's Rights Director, Dr Roger Morgan, based at the Commission for Social Care Inspection, children said that social services should definitely check to make sure that privately fostered children are safe, and that one of the best ways in which to do that was to have a social
14 Nov 2005 : Column 944
worker to visit? The majority of children said that they should visit once every month rather than every six weeks. Perhaps the Minister could write to me to let me know how successful and consistent these visits are, as far as he can find out. When will he report on the adequacy of current arrangements? This is in line with the questions the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked.
I look forward to the Minister's response, but I suppose he will also recognise the relevance of concerns about social worker recruitment, particularly the fact that there is currently a 20 per cent vacancy rate in London. Our concerns about monitoring these placements must be reinforced, given the concerns about the workforce availability to keep an eye on these children in these vulnerable situations.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am new to these debates, which seem to take place regularly in your Lordships' House. I am not sure whether they always take place during Test matches, because I have read the last debates, and the noble Baroness's remarks in introducing amendments similar to the one moved by the noble Earl this evening always seem to begin with cricketing metaphors. Indeed, she started almost word for word in the same way last year as she did this year. At least I am not in the position of having to repeat myself.
Baroness Barker: Yes, my Lords, but since the last time we have won the Ashes.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I will not follow that up by saying that this will be a second triumph in that line.
Our concern on this amendment is straightforward. The House debated this at some length last time. A significant change was made in the notification scheme that was enacted by the Children Act. The new regime set out in the Children Act has only just come into force. It did so on 1 July this year, as did the regulations to implement it.
The sunset clause, as I believe it is called, which my noble friend Lady Ashton talked about at great length in the last debate, expires in 2008, so the requirement to undertake the assessment the noble Earl referred to is something we take seriously. We will do so during the lifetime of this clause. Since the arrangements have only just come into effect, however, it would be too soon at the moment to seek to replace one set of arrangements, to which local authorities are now working and seeking to upgrade their services to meet, with another. However, the Bill does give the Government the power, if they believe it necessary on their evaluation of the progress of the new notification system, to bring in an enhanced system if they believe this would be in the public interest.
I shall deal with the two specific points that have been raised. I am told that the first statistics from the new monitoring arrangements will be available at the end of this month. I will see that they are made available to all noble Lords who are participating in this debate so they can add some factual basis to our discussions. With regard to the pilots, I am told by my officials that they are not pilots as such, but:
14 Nov 2005 : Column 945
which is somewhat different, because we want to see all local authorities move rapidly to a greatly enhanced service in respect of notification. I cannot give details of how those schemes are working at the moment, but I will write to noble Lords to give them that information when we have gathered it.
The case I make is therefore similar to the case that was made last year, but with the added force that we have legislated for a new arrangement that has just taken effect. We do not believe that to replace the one with the other at this stage would be a well-founded move. The new notification scheme offers a robust framework of safeguards. In particular, the new regulations that came into effect on 1 July require local authorities to satisfy themselves of the suitability of a proposed arrangement before it commences, where advance notice has been given to them. Previously there was no requirement for the local authority to take action prior to the commencement of an arrangement. Local authorities can now exercise their powers to impose conditions upon, or prohibit, a proposed arrangement before it begins. There are corresponding new obligations on local authorities to promote awareness within their areas of the need to notify them of private fostering arrangements. Local authorities are required to monitor closely the operation of notification schemes in their respective areas, and they are now under a duty to appoint an officer for this purpose.
Our objective is to encourage parents and private foster carers to come forward so that local authorities can fulfil their Children Act duty to satisfy themselves that the welfare of privately-fostered children is satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted. We believe the new arrangements set out in the Children Act, and in the regulations that have just come into force, will
14 Nov 2005 : Column 946
ensure that we have the additional powers as set out under the Act. We have a requirement to assess progress against criteria that we will develop, and we have a sunset clause that means this must all take place within the next three years. On that basis, we do not believe the time has come to change the law just a year after it was last changed. I know there are still strongly held views on this matter, but I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn at this stage.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for their supportive comments. We shall await the publication of the statistics with considerable interest and watch the progress of the enhanced notification scheme with equal interest. While I take the Minister's point that the amendment is perhaps not entirely appropriate for this Bill, I hope that he will take on board the numerical point that I made: that the sheer number of children in private fostering arrangements whom we believe we are considering—of course, no one knows the precise number—dwarfs the number of inter-country adoptions. On that level, at least, the potential problems thrown up by private fostering are greatly magnified in comparison. In view of the time, it falls to me, with thanks to the Minister, to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |