| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Baroness said: I thank the Committee for the opportunity to revisit an issue that I raised at an earlier stage. At this hour I do not propose to detain the Committee for long, but I return to the issue for two reasons. First, I wish to signal my intention to continue to pursue the matter of access to records and to information on former-care adults until action is taken to improve to an acceptable level the standard of service to those adults. It is simply not good enough to recognise that standards of information-giving vary radically but to do nothing about it. It is wholly understandable that records may have been lost over the years. However, it is wholly unacceptable that identical information about a former-care adult and their family can exist in different places but that access to it may vary dramatically according to the policies, procedures and, crucially, the interpretation of the Data Protection Act that are adopted by each authority. I return to that issue.
Similarly, I return to variance in the availability of support to people seeking to find their care records and, crucially, to find out about their identity and care history. In our debate on 17 January, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, agreed with me that there is a need to review the way in which current guidance is implemented. He said:
- “Because of the revisions that we have undertaken to make to guidance under the Children Act, we will review that. I will personally ensure that we take account of what the noble Baroness has said as we review it next time round.”—[Official Report, 17/1/08; col. GC 587.]
At this stage and at this hour, I simply wish to ask the Minister when a review of the guidance is likely to take place. Will it include an assessment of the extent to which varying implementation of the Data Protection Act is consistent—or inconsistent—with Article 8 of
18 Feb 2008 : Column 109
I continue to raise this matter in the knowledge that noble Lords may be fed up with hearing me do so. It is crucial to people who are late on in their lives and who are still suffering from the effects of not knowing their family story or their personal history and, in some cases, having doubts about their identity simply because of the variance in practice about letting people have access to their files or explaining to them why the information does not exist. That is crucial to a small number of individuals who I believe deserve to be treated equally. They should not have to face some kind of postcode—happenstance—lottery that depends on whether the social worker that they happen to meet on a given day has an interpretation of the law that is different from that of another social worker. I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, there can be no one in your Lordships’ House who does not support the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and who does not admire her tenacity in pursuing this cause. I did, however, sympathise with the Minister when he said that the problem in many situations lies beyond the statutory framework and cannot be resolved in law because it relates to those who were in care at a time when records were not kept appropriately; he spoke of his own records, which were destroyed. There seems to be a world of difference between what the Minister is saying about the existing statutory framework, with the obligation to keep records and the Data Protection Act allowing post-care adults access to their records, and what is happening on the ground, where care leavers are being denied that access because they are told that the information is highly personal and that they cannot have access to it. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is right to say that there needs to be a review of this.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I feel that I must support the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, simply because historically I sat on a committee that wrote the first set of guidance on access to social work records; that seems to be generations ago. It was quite clear at that stage that those who were the subject of records had every right to access them. There were, of course, complications in that you cannot have access to information about others. I remember supervising the dissection of records so that the correct information could be made available to those who had a right to access it while the other information that related to other members of the family was held back. What has happened in the intervening years bewilders me. I feel exasperated because I believe that the statute and the regulation exist to enable people to gain access to these records, if they are available. However, it is unforgivable that records should be lost because there are clear directions on how long the records of young people who have been in local authority care should be kept, particularly in relation to adoption cases, so those records should not have been lost.
18 Feb 2008 : Column 110
I look forward to the Minister’s reply and support the noble Baroness in her campaign to ensure that those who need to know about their records have a right to access them.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I add my support to what has been said. The noble Baroness made an extremely effective case, even more so than last time, and has completely won my support. Clearly there should be a similar practice throughout the country. These records should be capable of being accessed everywhere, where they are available.
Lord Adonis: As I said in responding to the noble Baroness in Grand Committee, the issue here is practice on the ground, not the statutory framework, which we believe is appropriate.
Regulation 8 of the arrangements for the placement of children regulations already requires local authorities and voluntary organisations to open a case record in respect of each child they place. Details of what must be kept are set out in these regulations and accompanying guidance. Local authorities are required to retain records for 75 years after the child’s date of birth.
Under the Data Protection Act there is an existing entitlement for adults who were in care to have access to their personal information. Where the data controller cannot comply with a request for access without disclosing information that relates to another individual who can be identified, the data controller must comply with the request for access where it is reasonable to do so, even in the absence of the third party’s consent. And there is provision for individuals to apply to the court or the Information Commissioner if they are unhappy with the local authority’s response.
The integrated children’s system, to which I referred a moment ago in responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the detailed resources which have been produced to support it, aim to improve record-keeping still further. There is also guidance which highlights the need for local authorities to handle these issues sensitively and to provide appropriate support whether or not the information is available, which was another issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
The noble Baroness asked me when the review of guidance under the Children Act would take place and whether there would be consultation. We are committed to introducing new guidance by the end of 2008. There will be full consultation on the guidance and we will work with statutory and voluntary sector organisations in developing it. I look forward to the noble Baroness encouraging all those who have a keen interest in this area to participate fully in that consultation.
Baroness Barker: I thank noble Lords who contributed to this debate. Now is not the time to go into a detailed exposition of what is personal information and what is third-party information. However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for answering my specific question, which was the reason for tabling this amendment. I understand that the review will take place this year. It
18 Feb 2008 : Column 111
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Entitlement to payment in respect of higher education]:
Lord Adonis moved Amendment Nos. 43:
The noble Lord said: I simply want to correct the record. I am told that the new guidance will be issued by the end of 2009, not 2008. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is known for his speedy attention to detail, but even I was a bit surprised at that. I thank him very much.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 44:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Assistance to pursue education or training]:
Baroness Walmsley had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 45:
“(9A) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision about the arrangements for relevant children and former relevant children to live with a former foster parent.”
The noble Baroness said: To ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has an opportunity to move Amendment No. 48 this evening, I will not move Amendment No. 45, but I will bring it back on Report.
Lord Adonis moved Amendments Nos. 46 and 47:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 48:
18 Feb 2008 : Column 112
In section 324 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) (statement of special educational needs), after subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) Where a statement specifies a school or type of school that would result in a child not being ordinarily resident with their parent, the child is to be a looked after child for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 from the date the statement is implemented, unless the authority decides that it is not in the child’s best interests to be a looked after child.
(8B) In determining the child’s best interests for the purposes of subsection (8A), the authority must have specific regard to the likelihood of the child’s parent maintaining regular and ongoing contact with the child during the placement.””
The noble Lord said: I have retabled the amendment because of its crucial role in safeguarding and promoting the safety and well-being of disabled children living away from home. I am most grateful to the Minister for suggesting that it would be well worth my while to give this a repeat performance. I am also very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and other noble Lords who have postponed their amendments to Report stage. Unfortunately, if Report stage is within the next 15 days, I will be unable to be present, because I hope to be joining the ghosts of Bing Crosby, Bob Hope and Dorothy Lamour on the road to Morocco.
I will not tire your Lordships—although I am sure that most are tired already—by rehearsing all the arguments that I and others put forward on Second Reading and in Grand Committee. We should not underestimate the importance of the amendment. Disabled children living away from home in residential educational establishments are some of the most vulnerable children and young people in society. Given that, they deserve added protection when living away from home and it is vital that we amend the law to ensure that they have that protection.
I welcome the Minister’s suggestion in Grand Committee that there should be a requirement that children in long-term educational establishments should be visited at a minimum of six-monthly intervals. However, I do not believe that that will be sufficient for the vast majority of disabled children and their families. To most families, the best framework for providing the necessary levels of supervision and support is by using the existing looked-after status and system. We need to ensure that those who need that security get it. I hope that the Minister will be able to reconsider the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I supported the amendment in Grand Committee, although I can understand why the Minister was reluctant to have one solution to cover all children. The last thing that any of us would want is the state intervening where it is not needed and probably not wanted, especially in family life. The amendment allows for this. As I said in Grand Committee, it does not impose a prescriptive shackle, because where a child has contact with their family the local authority is under no obligation to consider the young person as looked after. As we are talking about the welfare of some of our most defenceless children and young people, who are often hundreds of miles from their families, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, and given the strength of feeling in the Committee, I hope that the Minister will have another look at the amendment, which simply seeks to give such children the appropriate support and protection.
18 Feb 2008 : Column 113
Baroness Walmsley: When we discussed this amendment in Grand Committee, my name was attached to it. The fact that it is not tonight does not mean that I have lost interest or do not support the amendment, but last week’s goings-on were so complicated that one way or another I did not put my name on it again. I support it as fervently as I did when we first discussed it. I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, the view that the Minister was right when he said:
“In determining the appropriate level of support for each child, we should not have a single, automatic response to cover all situations”.—[Official Report, 17/1/08; col. GC 603.]
However, he will notice that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is cleverly written and gives the local authority an opportunity not to take the child into care if that is not in the best interests of the child or if it is perfectly clear that the child will have plenty of visits from its parent, keep contact with its family and have the protection that those visits will give it.
What particularly concerned the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and me in that debate on 17 January was that the Minister, on further questioning by the noble Lord, suggested that children considered to be in care in these sorts of placements might have visits only once every six months. Neither of us felt that that would be quite enough for such needy children who were a long way from home. I do not know whether the Minister can give us any comfort on that, but that suggestion did not seem to be sufficient protection for a particularly vulnerable child, who not only cannot protect himself or herself but may not even be able to communicate with anyone, apart perhaps from very close family, if any abuse is taking place. Although staff in many of the establishments where these children are placed are absolutely wonderful and are saints, there are a very few awful cases, and it is from those cases that we have to protect children. So I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in bringing back this amendment and having another go.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I was not in Grand Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Rix, moved this amendment; I had to move off and do something else. I do not wish to detain the Committee; I simply want to say that in my experience these children have some of the greatest difficulties in terms of being isolated. If you are in a boarding school and your parents do not visit because they are poor and often very vulnerable themselves, and if you find yourself put in alternative placements not in local authority provision during the holidays because your parents are in difficulties, you are likely to have far more needs than, and yet not be assessed like, most children who find themselves accommodated or most of the children in care whom we have been discussing. Any child in an establishment who is without some sort of intervention and visitation is a child in need and yet has been abandoned. I support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in his amendment.
Lord Adonis: I was glad to have the opportunity to meet the noble Lord, Lord Rix, to discuss this issue after the Grand Committee. Alas, the meeting was in the DCSF, not in Morocco, but I am open to offers on where we might continue these discussions in due course if someone other than the Government is paying.
18 Feb 2008 : Column 114
Lord Adonis: I do not think that I will go down that road. When I met the noble Lord, I undertook to put on record the response that I gave him, which I think gave him some encouragement. I am glad to do that now.
The Bill includes provisions that build on and strengthen the existing framework under which local authorities are notified of, monitor and supervise all children placed away from home, regardless of the reason for the placement, whether the child is disabled or not, and whether the placement is an educational one or made by a health body. The role of local authority children’s services is to work with and support parents to care for their children in long-term residential placements, especially when we know that without this support parental contact with the child is likely to diminish over time.
The Bill, through Clauses 15 and 16, sets out to improve the performance of the current notification arrangements for placing authorities to notify the local authority concerned of the placement of a child in long-term residential accommodation. More significantly, those clauses introduce the requirement for the local authority in which the child is ordinarily resident to visit and to maintain contact with the child for as long as the placement lasts. This will mean that the child will be subject to regular visits by a representative of the local authority and it will ensure that a child’s needs are met not just at the point of placement but also in the event of any change of circumstance during the placement.
The noble Lord raised concerns that a minimum six-monthly visiting frequency may not be sufficient, particularly at the beginning of a placement. We would expect that when any assessment of the child’s needs is undertaken and decisions about the appropriate support and status of the child are being made, the frequency of visits should be part of that consideration. We further expect that the frequency of visits will vary depending on the circumstances of each individual case. For example, local authorities may need to visit a child more frequently during the initial stages of a new placement. If, as the child settles, a high level of parental involvement is evident, the local authority visits may become less frequent. It is essential that attention is paid to the needs of the individual child in making those decisions.
We certainly do not believe that the six-monthly minimum visiting frequency should be the maximum. We believe that in many cases, particularly in the early stages of placements, there will be a need for more frequent visits. We are committed to exploring and establishing best practice in this area and capturing it in statutory guidance, including how local authorities can best support continued parental involvement with a child in a long-term placement. We will take full account of the views expressed in the Committee as we draw up that guidance. I hope that that gives the noble Lord the reassurance that he was seeking.
Lord Rix: I am most grateful to the Minister. I know that to a certain extent we stage-managed the response tonight, but I did not hear it in full across a
18 Feb 2008 : Column 115
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |