| Home Page |
Column 559
House of Commons
Friday 25 June 1993
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
PETITIONS
Channel Tunnel
9.34 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : I have the honour to present a number of petitions to the House concerning the construction of the channel tunnel rail link which runs through Islington to the proposed new terminal at St. Pancras station. It obviously has a considerable effect upon my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). Together, we are presenting eight petitions. The first reads :
The humble petition of the residents of Grosvenor avenue, London, N5, sheweth :
That, if the route of the Channel Tunnel High Speed Rail Link follows that of the existing North London Line it will cause severe damage to the environment, particularly housing, businesses and roads as it will bring excessive vibrations, noise pollution and further loss of open space.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable house abandon any further plans to site the Rail Link through Islington because of the damage that will be caused to property, the environment and the general well-being of the residents.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. The second petition is from a neighbouring area, known as Newington Green, London, N1. It reads :
The humble petition of the residents of Newington Green, London, N1, sheweth :
That we wish to register strong protest at the Government proposal to route the Channel Tunnel high speed rail link along the route of the North London line. We believe this will result in unnecessary and unacceptable noise to the residents and that the increased vibration will cause damage to our homes.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable house urge the Government to abandon all plans to route the Channel Tunnel high speed rail link along the route of the North London line. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. The third petition is from a neighbouring area which is very seriously affected by the proposals, in that the road, Mildmay grove, is on either side of the north London line. The railway is in the centre of the grove. The petition reads :
The humble petition of the residents of Mildmay Grove, London, N1, sheweth
that we wish to object to the proposals to route Channel Tunnel and freight traffic along the North London Line. We believe this will increase the already unacceptable level of noise and vibration causing damage to our homes and the local environment.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable house urge British Railways to abandon all plans to route Channel Tunnel passenger and freight traffic along the North London line. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
The first two petitions are supported by 122 people and 114 people. The third, the Mildmay grove petition, is
Column 560
supported by 125 people. Another very large petition is supported by 2,700 people. This petition, from constituents in Islington, is signed by people who live throughout the borough and in the neighbouring boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets. It reads : The humble petition of the constituents of Islington sheweth : that we wish to register strong protest at the Government's proposal to route a Channel Tunnel high-speed Rail Link through east London via Stratford to King's Cross/St. Pancras and the siting of Channel Tunnel facilities at Stratford. We believe such facilities at Stratford and the routing of a high speed Rail link across Islington will result in unnecessary and unacceptable damage to our environment and local economy.Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable house instruct Union Railways to abandon all plans to route a Channel Tunnel high speed Rail link across the Borough of Islington.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. I am pleased to present these petitions. They have the full support of many more people throughout the community, as well as my support and that of many local councillors. We hope that the Secretary of State for Transport will take seriously the environmental concerns of people who live in a densely built- up urban area, in just the same way as we should like the concerns regarding the environment of people who live in Kent and other areas that are affected by the channel tunnel to be taken on board.
To lie upon the Table.
Ordination of Women
9.38 am
Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : You will be glad, Madam Speaker, to hear that I have only one petition rather than eight to present. It is signed by 2,219 Church of England clergymen who are opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood. More than 1,500 of these petitioners are incumbents. The others include chaplains, archdeacons, deans of cathedrals and others. I have been asked to stress that there are many thousands of lay men and women who share their unease.
These are not people who in any sense question the equality, still less the ability, of women. For them, it is simply a question of deeply held belief and a firm religious conviction that the move is contrary to the teachings and traditions of the Church of England, which claims to be catholic and apostolic. The petition reads : That the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England in November 1992 and now before the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, withholds from future Bishops of Dioceses, not being supporters of the ordination of women as Priests, the power to order their Dioceses according to their Beliefs and Consciences and the Doctrine and Order of the established Church of England hitherto.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will refuse its assent to the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure in the form in which the General Synod passed it in November 1992. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. The petition is signed by Roger Beckwith, warden of Latimer House, Oxford, and, as I have already said, by 2,218 other clergymen. To lie upon the Table.
Column 561
Channel Tunnel Rail Link9.40 am
Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : I beg to present three petitions from my constituents that express much the same sentiments as those presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) : that we do not wish to become the environmental victims of the Government, choosing a cut-price option for the high-speed channel tunnel link.
The first of the petitions is from parents, teachers and associates of Canonbury school. It reads :
that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link running overground through Islington and the lengthy building work involved in constructing it would cause unacceptable damage to our environment and adversely affect the lives of the people of the area and in particular the children of Canonbury School.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Transport to instruct the Union Railways to abandon the plans to run the Channel Tunnel Rail Link through Islington via the North London line and Highbury Corner. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
That is signed by 131 people associated with Canonbury school. Another petition is from the Islington Protection Group. It says : We object to the Channel Tunnel Railway Link surfacing in Islington rather than in tunnel as it was originally proposed and is indeed proposed for the rest of London and the County of Kent. A surface railway will result in noise and vibration damaging properties and threaten the health of residents from pollution and noise.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House reject Union Railways' proposal to construct a surface Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Such a Link will entail relentless rail traffic twenty four hours a day. Before this, several years of construction work will blight the area, impair the mental health of residents and destroy the green corridor now present in this environmentally sensitive part of North London.
The final petition is from Islington Against the Channel Tunnel Link. It reads :
We object to the construction of a high-speed link along the route of the North London line because it will cause unacceptable levels of noise, vibration, pollution and damage to the environment and our homes.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House request Union Railways to abandon plans to route a Channel Tunnel high speed rail link overground through Islington on the grounds that the construction of such a railway will mean a possible 150 extra trains every 24 hours day and night destroying the lives of residents and destruction of a green railway corridor which is an important environmental asset for London.
I entirely endorse the sentiments of these three important petitions.
To lie upon the Table. .
Column 562
Children
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Lightbown.]
9.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis) : After the overture that we heard this morning from the Church of England and the railways, I should perhaps begin with a quick rendition of "Thomas the Tank Engine", which is the nearest link that I can think of between them and the subject of this debate. After the Thunder and Lightning Polka that you, Madam Speaker, have endured in the past week, perhaps the House can move today to slightly softer music as we consider the children of our nation. I should like to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo). As I go round finding my way into the subject of community care and children in particular, I find that he has left behind a reputation for dedication, caring and understanding that will stand me in good stead. We owe him a debt for his work at the Department of Health.
I had two items in my diary last week that, in some ways, sum up this debate. I visited Canterbury, and I took part in a discussion on "Woman's Hour". In their different ways, those two items summed up the good and ugly parameters of this debate on children.
In Canterbury, I visited the Mary Sheridan centre to celebrate 21 years of pioneering partnership between the professions of health and social services and the families of children with multiple disabilities. I heard from parents how alone they had felt when they first realised that their baby was not acting or reacting as other babies--the sadness that comes from the realisation that their child has a debilitating physical, mental, aural or visual condition, and the weariness that they experienced from hours of continuous caring for sometimes messy, unpredictable or unresponsive behaviour. I saw and heard for myself the progress that those children of 18 months to five years had made, and were making, thanks to the multidisciplinary approach of doctors, nurses, therapists, teachers, social workers and, above all, parents working together with their respective but interdependent skills. That approach is at the heart of our policies. The needs of the individual child were being assessed, barriers between agencies were being broken down, parents were involved at every stage and, whenever possible, children were able to join mainstream schools for at least part of the year ahead. Children enabled to achieve : that is my ambition, and that, I believe, is the aim of the House and of all those who plan and implement policy in our health service and local government departments.
The "Woman's Hour" discussion was not so happy. We were talking about international adoption rackets. The background was children who are the victims of sordid and squalid organisations and individuals, of pressures on natural parents to give up their child on the false pretences of a semi- legal but immoral trade in young lives. Too often, mothers were being misled into thinking that their children were just being loaned until they could cope better or better afford to have them back. Often, the receiving adoptive parents are not aware of the health background or cultural needs of a child and are unprepared for difficulties, which then become problems.
Column 563
But it is the traders and middle men in these cases who are evil. If the House often shouts about man's inhumanity to man, how much more right it is to cry out against man's inhumanity to a child. That is why the Government have worked so hard to achieve the text of, and signatures to, the Hague convention on inter-country adoption. I hope that, before long, we shall see the nations of the world ratifying and enforcing it.Justice requires that a child who leaves his parents leaves with their full understanding of the permanent steps that they are taking, and justice requires that such children go with certainty to a good home and adoptive parents who are fit and proper people to take on the responsibility. Children should not be considered for foreign lands unless their own country cannot adequately find a home or a carer. If they are old enough, the child's own wishes must be taken into account.
Those, after all, are two of the key rights of the child in the United Nations convention of 1991. Decisions must be geared, first, to the interests of the child, and the child, whenever possible, must have a right to be heard.
It is on that convention that we base our policies on when and where a child may be locked up, how he or she should be treated in such circumstances, and when a child can or should be separated from his or her parents, which perhaps is the most difficult of all decisions. I shall return to this a little later, but first let me dwell on the health of our children.
There are few better spheres than child health for revealing the progress that the national health service has made in improving the health of the nation. Today, children are living longer, growing taller and catching fewer infectious diseases than ever before. If one is looking for evidence of improved child health, the first and most basic indicator is the figure for infant mortality. For the fifth year running, infant mortality has fallen to a new low for England and Wales.
A century ago, 132 children per 1,000 died before their first birthday. Fifty years ago, the recorded figure was 51, but, during the past 14 years, we have halved the figure, from 13.1 per 1,000 to 6.6 per 1,000. We are well into single figures, which is a tremendous achievement, and to the credit of modern medical science and the teams of doctors, nurses and midwives who make up our health service. Pregnancy, birth and the early months of life are now safer than ever before.
Most recently, we have been able to announce the dramatic success of the Back to Sleep Campaign.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Although everyone is delighted by the rapid reduction in the infant mortality rate figures which, in many cases, meant avoidable deaths, will the Minister reflect on the fact that, in urban constituencies such as mine, the infant mortality rate and the mortality rate before the age of one are considerably higher than in the wealthier suburban or rural parts of the country? Does he think that there is a problem associated with feeding, the health of the parents and the quality of housing, which is reflected in the infant mortality rates?
Mr. Bowis : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are differences between the different parts of the country, and differences in inner-city areas such as those that he and I represent. Some of the differences are the result of people coming to this country from overseas.
Column 564
I am sure that he is right, and we are also right to reflect such concern in the way we allocate resources--whether through the standard spending assessment to deal with a locality's needs or through specific grants that my Department can make. Nevertheless, I think that he will agree that, overall, it is good news that the infant mortality rate is declining.Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield) : One of the things that worry the Opposition is the fact that the decline in the infant mortality rate has been slower in this country than in comparable European countries. Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that Britain now has one of the highest infant mortality rates of any European country?
Mr. Bowis : The figures that I am giving show that our success in bringing down the infant mortality rate. As I said, the rate has fallen from 13.1 per 1,000 14 years ago to 6.6 per 1,000. We are not yet satisfied ; complacency does not enter our language, but we have nevertheless made remarkable progress, for which we can thank medical science and the people in the health service who care for children.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : Analysis will prove that the rate of reduction in this country has been greater than that, in other European countries, and needed to be. The reduction has been greater among the lower socio-economic groups and needs to continue to improve because there is still a discrepancy. We should perhaps concentrate most on the fact that two thirds of the deaths are still among the 10 per cent. of low-birth- weight babies. That reinforces the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)--that we need to go in for various types of pre-conception care.
Mr. Bowis : I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point, which serves to reinforce my argument. We are determined to ensure that the progress continues. As I was about to say, one sphere in which progress has been made is that of dealing with the tragedy of cot deaths.
The tragedy of a cot death--the sudden, unexpected, unexplained, death of an infant--has long been a matter of deep concern to us all. Until recently in England and Wales, more than 1,000 infants a year succumbed to cot deaths. In 1991, there was a growing scientific consensus that the sleeping position of an infant was a major risk factor.
An expert group, reporting to the chief medical officer, examined the evidence and advised that infants should not be laid to sleep on their fronts, except in particular circumstances on medical advice, and that the great majority of infants should sleep and be nursed on their backs. A publicity campaign was mounted to put across this advice to families with new babies and, in 1992, there was a reduction of 50 per cent. in the number of sudden infant deaths. Childhood immunisation and its part in reducing, and sometimes eliminating, a number of terrible diseases, which most of us can remember, is another of the most heartening successes in our preventive health programme. There are now four main programmes. The first deals with diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis--whooping cough--for which the combined vaccine DTP is available. I am pleased to say that cases of whooping cough have decreased by 90 per cent. since the late 1970s.
Column 565
The second programme covers measles, mumps and rubella. The notification of cases of measles has also decreased by more than 90 per cent. since the epidemic years of the mid-1970s. The third deals with polio. For more than a decade, there has been no wild polio virus in the United Kingdom. Fourthly, since October last year, we have had a new vaccine for haemophilus influenzae B, or HIB as it is known, which is the main cause of bacterial meningitis in young children.The success of our programmes can be attributed in part to the introduction of targets for immunisations in the general practitioners' contract. Childhood diseases have dropped to their lowest ever levels. Indigenous diphteria and neonatal tetanus no longer occur, and measles and whooping cough are now rarities in GPs' surgeries. No child in England and Wales has died from acute measles-related illness in the past four years. We are also close to completing the evidence which will enable the World Health Organisation to declare the United Kingdom free of indigenous polio. They are achievements of which we, our scientists and our practitioners can be proud.
There will, of course, always be children who require hospital treatment. We have sought to ensure that this treatment is of the highest quality and meets the needs of children and their families. In July 1991, we issued a good practice guide entitled "The Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital", which had been the subject of widespread consultation with the professions and special interest groups. It has been widely welcomed as setting the standards for which health authorities should aim in placing contracts for hospital services for children.
The principles of the guide are that children should be cared for in accommodation separate from that provided for adult patients ; that facilities should be provided for parents to remain with their children overnight ; and that children have a right to information about their treatment appropriate to their age and understanding. Health authorities and voluntary organisations have collaborated in implementing these good practices. For example, I recently heard of a patient preparation scheme run at Frimley Park hospital, with the collaboration of the local branch of Action for Sick Children. Children who are to be admitted to hospital are invited to make a preparatory visit with their families on a Saturday morning. They visit the ward to see the beds, lockers and playroom. They are introduced to the medical and nursing staff and are given the opportunity to watch videos and read books on events surrounding the administration of an anaesthetic or an operation.
The staff at the hospital confirm that this reduces the anxiety that the children and parents feel when the admission takes place, and thereby improves the outcome of the treatment. I sincerely hope that other hospitals will follow that fine example.
To put all this into perspective, I am pleased to say that, despite a small decline in the number of children's beds since 1981, the number of child in -patient cases has increased by 60 per cent. This reflects the decreases in the length of time a child needs to remain in hospital, and the increased demand for care created by advances in medical science.
Column 566
Although health is crucial, it is only one dimension. For children to have the overall quality of life we would wish for them, they sometimes need the protection of the law to underpin their rights. In a way, it is sad that the law needs to enter young lives, but over the centuries--it is still true today--evil and injustice, from abuse to exploitation, have been perpetrated against children and, no less true, it has, just as sadly, been perpetrated by them. From legislation, therefore, flow policies and practices that seek to protect, to guide and sometimes to reform, but which always put the interest of the child first.Since October 1991, we have had, in the shape of the Children Act 1989, the most comprehensive legal framework for the care and upbringing of children in the world. The Act has been hailed as the most significant reform of children's legislation this century, but the mere existence of legislation cannot ensure that children's welfare is promoted and safeguarded. We have therefore fulfilled our promise given during the progress of the Bill that we would monitor closely its day-to-day practice to ensure that Parliament's intentions were being carried out. The first report on the Children Act came to the House in February. It contained a wide-ranging description of how the Act had operated in the first year, and described the progress made by local authorities in implementing the legislation. Practice may not yet have resulted in perfection, but, I am pleased to say, the report shows that practice in the other sense is increasingly reflecting the principles of the Act.
The increased availability of services for children in need is helping families who are experiencing difficulties to stay together. At 31 March 1991, 59,834 children were in the care of local authorities in England. A year later, the number being looked after by local authorities was estimated to have fallen to 55,000, a reduction of about 5,000.
Following the implementation of the Children Act, 2,215 children were subject to emergency protection orders, giving authority for the child to be removed from home. That compares with 4,677 children removed to a place of safety the previous year under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Those are clear indications of how new practices and social workers working in co-operation with parents, as the Act intended, can make the system work better.
I am pleased to say that the number of children with a multi-agency child protection plan, and hence on child protection registers, decreased between April 1991 and April 1992 by about 15 per cent. and now stands at 39,000. The tragic cases of children killed or seriously injured by their parents or carers amount to between 50 and 100 a year. Such cases rightly attract our attention and our concern, but they must not be allowed to blot out the enormous amount of good work undertaken successfully day in and day out, and often night in and night out, by professionals who protect and improve the lives of so many vulnerable children.
One problem that we are tackling is that of unallocated cases, which was identified by the second report of the Select Committee on Health. The social services inspectorate has been pursuing that regionally.
Mr. Hinchliffe : The Minister will be aware that I was a member of the Select Committee on Health when the inquiry was undertaken. One of the issues that concerned members of the Select Committee of all parties was the
Column 567
major problems faced by certain London boroughs that had difficulties in the allocation of statutory child care cases. They faced discrimination under the standard spending assessment arrangements of the Department of the Environment. That point was made in the report. What action have the Government taken to deal with the problem?Mr. Bowis : The report was studied carefully ; that is why the social services inspectorate went in not just to criticise, but to advise. We are seeing progress. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the inquiry found that there was no problem in 40 per cent. of authorities and that, in the vast majority, fewer than 20 cases were unallocated.
However, I recognise that an unallocated case is a vulnerable case. That is why we are monitoring and advising the very few authorities that appear still to be having problems. I still have concerns, as the hon. Gentleman has, about some cases. However, the number of authorities where there are problems has been falling. Most of the other authorities about which he and the Select Committee were concerned have shown encouraging improvements.
We, of course, recognise the importance of providing adequate financial resources to social services departments for the work that they have to undertake under the Act. In 1993-94, the standard spending on children's services will be 32 per cent. higher than it was 1990-91, which is a real- terms increase of 16 per cent. In addition, we have a specific grant of £5.7 million a year for the guardian ad litem service. We have also set up the family support initiative on which we shall spend up to £1.5 million over three years. Its purpose is to encourge the expansion and development of good practice and policy in the provision of family support services by voluntary organisations.
The voluntary sector work is being supported in a number of ways : the production of training materials, advocacy, advice and counselling, information services and the promotion of inter-agency co-operation. One example is that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is being funded for a prevention of child abuse project in Corwall. It is working with volunteers on a particular estate to promote within the community an awareness of the problem and of the help available.
I hope that that exercise, which could be called childwatch, will spread to other estates where there are perceived to be problems. Everyone, not just the authorities, has a role in the area. The message to people is, "Don't look the other way. Don't pass by on the other side. If you know that there is a problem in your neighbourhood, bring it to the attention of people who can help to sort it out." I also acknowledge the importance of day care services. We recognise that it is good for pre-school age children to be with other children for some of their waking hours. That enhances the child's development and improves the transition to full-time education. Nine out of 10 children take part in some group activity before they rech compulsory school age. More than 500,000 three and four-year-olds go to play groups. A similar number of children of those ages go to nursery schools or classes, or to the reception class of a primary school.
We have a rich variety of day care services, with important contributions from the private and from the voluntary sectors. That gives parents choice. Since 1988,
Column 568
the number of private and voluntary day nursery cases has doubled. There are now 90,000 places in day nurseries. The number of child minders has grown by 40 per cent., and there are now more thantary organisations to test policy ideas on services for the under- fives. We are spending £1.5 million over three years and in 12 areas for an out-of-school initiative to pump-prime an expansion of day care services for school-age children. In addition, we have a small grants scheme to help existing local schemes to expand and develop. A lot of good work is developing from bringing together the various sectors that look after children under school age and as they get into the school day.Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North-West) : The Minister surely does not want to suggest any complacency about the provision for the under- fives. Does he not recognise, as many parents in Croydon recognise, that, when both parents have to work outside the home to pay the mortgage or the rent, it is sometimes impossible to find decent child care for the under- fives? His Department knows of the studies. Does the Minister not recognise that, compared with many progressive European countries, our provision for the under-fives, whether pre-school or child care, is lamentable? It does not match the patterns of how people work and live in Britain in the 1990s.
Mr. Bowis : The hon. Gentleman is saying that, increasingly, both partners are choosing to work ; that is their choice. If they both choose to work, it is reasonable to expect that they will be able to make a contribution to the support services for their children. I said that those services are available. The figures show that the voluntary and independent sectors are coming forward with opportunities for such families and I am sure that those opportunities will continue to develop. There will, of course, always be some children in greater need whom the state, and the local authorities in particular, need to support. Overall, the picture is good news and bears comparison with any other progressive country in Europe or elsewhere.
Miss Joan Lestor (Eccles) : I am interested in what the Minister says and I do not dispute his claim that there is now a developing variety of voluntary care. Unfortunately, it is very expensive. There is the problem of the women--it is usually a woman, although not always--who is left alone to bring up children for a variety of reasons.
Women on income support find the fees of private day care prohibitive. People can pay £60, £70 or £80 a week for good child care between 8 am and 6 pm, which is what a working mother requires. Those women are forced to stay on income support although they would rather work and would rather that their children had the experience of the pre-school activities that the Minister has rightly highlighted. That is one of the central problems in day care today.
Mr. Bowis : The hon. Lady does not need to tell me about the problems of people living in the inner cities. I represent many of those people. I also see the opportunities that are coming for them. As the hon. Lady says, if someone is on income support, it is likely that the
Column 569
facility will be provided. However, the hon. Lady highlights the problem of the jump from being at home on income support to going out to work. One sometimes needs to be able to afford the costs of day care in the interim period. That area is worth looking at. The basics are there, however, and as the hon. Lady generously acknowledges, there is greater choice for parents in general. A safety net exists to help those who really cannot afford provision, and we need to ensure that the ladder from one set of circumstances to the other is adequate.I am not claiming that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. I hope that no one will get that impression just because I have rightly highlighted our successes. None of us can have read the well- documented and publicised stories of revulsion--and, sadly, no one can guarantee that similar events will never happen again. But it is worth reminding the House of the positive steps taken by the Government in the past two years to minimise the possibility of abuse and to enhance the quality and delivery of residential child care.
In his report, "Children in the Public Care", Sir William Utting identified a number of respects in which improvements were necessary. The Government accepted the broad thrust of those recommendations and, with local authorities and other agencies, we have been working hard to implement them.
In December last year, we published the report of the Warner inquiry into the recruitment and selection of staff working in child care. My predecessor, who is now Minister for the Environment and Countryside, took immediate action to ensure that local authorities acted to make necessary improvements in staff selection procedures. From the progress reports we have received, it is clear that most local authorities share our view of the importance of improving procedures.
More recently, we have announced the establishment of a residential child care support force, to be led by Adriane Jones, former director of social services in Birmingham. I announced yesterday the group's terms of reference, on which we are currently consulting the local authorities and others. One of its prime purposes will be to achieve improvements in the quality and delivery of residential child care, as well as ensuring that the necessary personnel procedures are in place.
In considering the problems of residential child care, we must remember that children's homes today care mainly for older, adolescent children, some of whom are disaffected, troubled and troublesome. We must not forget the difficulties that that can cause for the vast majority of committed caring staff. In April, my Department issued new guidance on permissible forms of control in children's residential care.
Any responsible and caring parent would accept that children need the right balance between care and control. That is precisely what the guidance aims to achieve, and we will be monitoring its effectiveness. I emphasise that the guidance is not a charter for excessive and unjustified use of physical restraint. If there is evidence of such restraint, it needs to be stamped out quickly. The provision of proper care and control as well as education, rehabilitation and training were features of the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the
Column 570
then Home Secretary on 2 March, when he announced the Government's proposals for dealing with a small but significant minority of juvenile offenders.The Government will be announcing further details of those proposal in due course. The House will already have noted one important feature of my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement : the secure training centres for that group of offenders will be subject to inspection by the social services inspectorate.
If we are to deal effectively with that small group of little villains and young thugs and improve the quality of social services generally, we must ensure that social workers receive proper training to equip them for the often difficult tasks that they have to undertake. Both the Utting and the Warner reports made important recommendations about the training of social workers. The report of the review of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work was published on Monday.
I yield to no one in my admiration for the vast majority of effective, sensible and dedicated people working in social work up and down the country, but time and again, the message reaches me that we need common sense and not outdated dogma. We need practical, down-to-earth training and not lessons in political correctness. When common sense goes out of the window, something much more dangerous flies in. That must not happen, and I believe that, under the chairmanship of Jeffrey Greenwood, we can be confident that social work will meet the challenge in the best and most effective way possible.
I have highlighted the great progress that we have made. The United Kingdom's record on child care, welfare and health stands comparison with that of any country in the world. I have sought to salute the partnership that has made that possible. However, so long as there is a child in pain or distress, so long as cruelty and crime are done to or by our children, so long as a good record could be a better one, for so long will the Government continue to strive to achieve more for, by, with and from the children of our country and the children of the world.
10.14 am
Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield) : I welcome the Minister to his new post. I had intended to do so at Health questions a couple of weeks ago but, unfortunately, he did not answer the question that I expected him to. I wish him well in his work at the Department. The Labour party welcomes this opportunity to hold a debate on the health and welfare of children. The most telling example of the short-termism--a phrase that we have heard a lot recently--not only of the Government but of Parliament as a whole is the very small amount of time that we devote to discussing the real future of this country, which is dependent on the health and welfare of our children and young people.
Excluding the debates on the Children Act 1989, the number of occasions on which we have debated the welfare of children since I came to this place in 1987 can be counted on the fingers of one hand. That is a disappointing record.
One reason advanced for the lack of debate is that there is a broad political consensus across the parties about child care policy in general. To argue that is to take an extremely narrow view of what is meant by child care. Although there may rightly be some cross-party agreement on the narrow question of legal provision for child protection,
| Next Section
| Home Page |