|
Mr. Turner: The hon. Lady referred on Second Reading to children not being in school. I notice that she has not made any reference to that in her new clause. Will that appear elsewhere?
Mrs. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman misinterpreted my comments. There are obviously alternative ways of educating children, and I am aware that most local authorities have strong checks on home education. Ensuring that everything is fully safeguarded has been mentioned, including by some organisations. However, I want to focus on mainstream schooling, which is an important area that has been ignored in the Bill. I know from my local authority that education at home is supported and inspected carefully.
Dr. Ladyman: The principle of clause 7 is to place a duty on certain key partners to co-operate in furthering the interests of children and delivering the
Column Number: 174
outcomes that children have told us are appropriate. It is a key component of the Bill and should stand part of it. However, I can understand the motivation of Opposition Members in proposing new clauses 3 and 5. Although education authorities, for example, are included as key partners in the Bill, I understand the concern that schools that have some autonomy might not co-operate.
I disagree, however, with the proposal that the best way of dealing with that is to create an exhaustive list of the people and partners who must try to work together—it is not possible, because we will always forget somebody. One example is that in the list in new clauses 3 and 5, pupil referral units have not been mentioned. If we tried to produce an exhaustive list in the Bill, it might appear to exclude anyone we forgot about, so I do not think it is the way forward.
Tim Loughton: I hear what the Minister is saying, and the same argument has been made before when debating parents. However, does he not think that schools, which I think we agree have the most contact potential with the children, and health providers, which are not limited to hospitals, are such general terms that they deserve special treatment, even if that may mean leaving something else out?
Dr. Ladyman: Special treatment, yes. It is difficult to argue that special treatment can be implicit rather than explicit, but that is what I am arguing. They get special treatment in the Bill and are covered by its provisions, but that is done without naming each individual school.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that schools will be a vital layer. After all, schools are where most children have the bulk of their contact with public services. However, the way to ensure that they are fully engaged in the agenda is to ensure that we are producing self-confident schools that understand their responsibilities under ''Every child matters'' and the Bill. We can use tools such as amending the legal framework for school inspections to take account of the duties, and we can involve the school improvement partner to ensure that they are also aware of the duties. There is a range of things that we can do, other than trying to include every possible partner in the Bill, that will be far more effective in delivering the outcomes that the hon. Gentleman wants.
Mrs. Brooke: Does the Minister not agree that a pupil referral unit would almost certainly come under the maintained sector and therefore be covered by the list? In the context of schools, with a reference to the independent and maintained sectors, I do not think that much will be missed out.
Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Lady has just made my point for me. The Bill, as it stands, encompasses pupil referral units. That is implicit in the wider duties specified in the Bill, and there is no need to name every single partner.
In supporting the amendments, the hon. Lady made the point that we should try to think of every possible partner and include them in the Bill. We disagree on that. I do not believe that it is necessary to take that
Column Number: 175
approach; it is better to try to create a network of support for all the partners through the inspection and other improvement processes that are in place. I agree with her that it is necessary to ensure that all the partners work together on the agenda, but I do not agree that they need to be included in the Bill.
All schools already have a welfare duty for all their pupils, so it is not necessary for any particular group of pupils to be specified in the Bill, as proposed in new clause 17.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare
Dr. Ladyman: I beg to move amendment No. 203, in
clause 8, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
'(ca) a Special Health Authority, so far as exercising functions in relation to England, designated by order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section;'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 27, in
Amendment No. 28, in
Amendment No. 29, in
Amendment No. 32, in
clause 8, page 7, line 4, leave out from 'children' to end of line 7.
Government amendment No. 208.
Dr. Ladyman: Government amendment No. 203 and the technical amendment associated with it—amendment No. 208—include special health authorities in the Bill. When we first drafted the Bill, we excluded those authorities, in error, because we did not envisage their having a role in supporting children. However, it then occurred to us that NHS Direct is a special health authority and might have an important role in supporting children. We tabled the amendment to include special health authorities in the Bill, so that NHS Direct could be included, but we have not named NHS Direct explicitly, because a future Government might envisage the creation of new special health authorities that would equally have a role. If the Opposition are foolish enough to insist on the other amendments grouped with Government amendment No. 203, I shall discuss those later in the debate.
Tim Loughton: I am alarmed that the Minister appears to be prejudging the foolishness of what I am about to say. That is unjust and uncharitable of him.
Column Number: 176
Our amendments are probing; their aim is to achieve greater clarity in the Bill. As it stands, the set of bodies for which the duty to safeguard and promote welfare exists is very general. Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 would add the word ''practitioners'' after the various health bodies that are mentioned: a primary care trust in subsection 1(d), an NHS trust in subsection 1(e) and an NHS foundation trust in subsection 1(f).
How do the provisions of the Bill include private practitioners? Do they include a private physiotherapist or any other allied professionals who may be working part-time privately or part-time contracted to a primary care trust? How does it affect people who are working entirely in the independent sector?
10.15 am
Health care in this country is becoming increasingly fragmented. I make no criticism of that—it is the way it is going—but as the clause stands, we are talking only about a primary care trust. By its narrowest definition, one might take it to mean purely the directors of a primary care trust, the NHS trust to which it may be responsible and the NHS foundation trusts. Would a single-handed physiotherapist who did some contracted work for a hospital department but had a private practice, or an osteopath with a mainly private practice, be included under the Bill as having a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children?
I make no disparaging comments about privately practising osteopaths or physiotherapists, but they are just as likely to come into contact with young people, and cases of child abuse or neglect may come to light as a result of contact with those professionals. Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 are designed to ensure that all practitioners are involved, regardless of whether they are directly part of a hospital trust, directly employed by a primary care trust, occasionally work for it, or look after patients who come under a primary care trust but do so on an entirely private basis.
Amendment No. 32 would delete subsection (2)(b). We wanted to replace it with another subsection that we discussed earlier. We will not push that amendment but we seek clarification on amendments Nos. 27 to 29 which are probing amendments to ensure that everyone is included in the scope of the Bill, as we all intend.
Dr. Ladyman: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks. Subsection (2)(b) states that it must be ensure that
''any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of their functions are provided having regard to that need.''
In other words, anybody who is contracted or employed under an arrangement by, for example, a PCT to deliver services is explicitly brought within the ambit of the Bill and will have a duty to co-operate in the interests of children.
Mr. Turner: When I read that originally I had assumed that it included national health service trusts because they provide services pursuant to
Column Number: 177
arrangements made by a primary care trust. Is there not some duplication? The Minister criticises my hon. Friend for duplicating but has he not done so himself?
Dr. Ladyman: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are legitimate. The principle is clear. We have established a number of partners who we believe have a duty to safeguard and maintain the well-being of children. We have not been explicit in stating all the partners that those people may employ to fulfil this duty because the duty is on the person who is organising the service. For example, the reason we included primary care trusts rather than individual GPs is that PCTs may decide to discharge their duties in respect of the Bill in several ways by commissioning services from a variety of people. It is important that those responsible for commissioning the services are in the Bill; anyone whom they might use to discharge their duties and responsibilities under this and other Bills is therefore automatically included.
|
