Standing Committee B
Tuesday 19 October 2004
(Afternoon)
[Dame Marion Roe in the Chair]
Clause 8
Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare
Amendment moved [this day]: No. 100, in
clause 8, page 6, line 46, at end insert—
'(l) courts with the power to sentence a child to detention or remand a child in custody.'.—[Mr. Dawson]
2.30 pm
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 112, in
No. 31, in
No. 101, in
clause 8, page 7, line 7, at end insert—
'(2A) In exercising their functions under this section courts must notify the Local Safeguarding Children Board in which the child is ordinarily resident of—
(a) any decision to sentence or remand a child to custody;
(b) any factors that could give rise to concern for the child's safety or well-being while in custody.'.
No. 113, in
clause 8, page 7, line 7, at end insert—
'( ) The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales shall ensure that—
(a) every child referred to them by a court for placement in custody is appropriately accommodated, having regard to the need to safeguard and promote their welfare, and
(b) where any child is not placed in the type of custodial accommodation considered appropriate under this section a record of the reasons for, and length of, such a placement is kept, and an annual report on such cases made to the Secretary of State;
(c) the Local Safeguarding Children Board in which any child in custody is ordinarily resident is notified of the details of their place of custody and any changes to their place of custody.'.
No. 102, in
Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab): Welcome back to the Chair, Dame Marion.
The amendments would bring the courts within the safeguarding framework, and require them to notify local safeguarding children boards of decisions to detain children in custody. I hope that the Youth
Column Number: 194
Justice Board could be required to notify LSCBs and to produce an annual report on children who are not placed in appropriate custodial accommodation. The Munby judgment in the judicial review of the case brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform decided that the Children Act 1989 applied to children in prison, but it is the local authority that has the duty under the Act to ensure such protection. Amendment No. 102 would ensure that the LSCB had oversight of all the children from its area who were in custody, whether they were in young offenders' institutions, youth treatment centres or local authority secure units. The reasons for the amendments are well known: there have been far too many tragic deaths of children and young people in custody. [Interruption.]
The Chairman: Order. I am suspending the Committee for a few moments as we are having a problem opening the far doors, preventing the public from joining us. We will resume when the doors have been opened. I do apologise to everyone.
2.32 pm
Sitting suspended.
2.33 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Dawson: The amendments would give significant duties to the courts, which have the power to put young people into custody, and to the Youth Justice Board, which is charged with the duty of finding them appropriate accommodation. They would ensure that the LSCB was notified of the whereabouts of those children so that it had an overview of their placement. We are discussing a situation in which young people are not only inappropriately placed in custody, but are inappropriately placed in the various institutions. Young offenders institutions offer a far lower degree of surveillance than youth treatment centres, which offer a far lower degree of care and surveillance than local authority secure units. Sadly, secure units are closing because of lack of use by the Youth Justice Board, and we are faced with the prospect of more and more extremely vulnerable children being placed in prisons which are not resourced and in which staff do not have the training to care for them.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): I want to speak to amendment No. 31. Subsection (2)(a) says that the bodies referred to in subsection (1) must ensure that
''their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children''.
The words ''having regard to'' are too weak in this context, and our amendment would strengthen the provision. We do not disagree with the intention behind the subsection, but we feel that the wording should be stronger, and suggest that it should say that the functions must be discharged
''in a manner consistent with the objective of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children''.
Column Number: 195
2.36 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.51 pm
On resuming—
Mrs. Laing: I have made my point, which is simple and brief. The phrase ''having regard to'' is not strong enough for the instructions that we should like to give in this clause, and amendment No. 31 would strengthen and improve the clause.
The Chairman: I call the Minister.
Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD) rose—
The Chairman: Order. The lifting of an eyebrow, a thumbs-up sign or a nod are not enough to catch my eye. You must stand in your place so that I can see you, because I am not telepathic.
Mr. Williams: I apologise, Dame Marion. With all the confusion of the Division and one thing and another I was not quite as quick on my feet as I would normally be.
The plight of young people in secure units causes us considerable concern. My hon. Friends and I have therefore added our names to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). Young people are often put in secure units a long way from their home. Many of them will never have gone far from home, let alone gone into a strange environment without the support of their family and friends. When they are at that great distance and suffering stress and anxiety they will need more support than ever.
The amendments suggest that the court should have regard to the welfare of children and young people and that the LSCB is told where a child will be held so that it can give the necessary support when the child is released. There have been cases of young people being given a train ticket and told to get home. One such child had never used a train before. The amendments give the Minister an opportunity to ensure that young people and children in secure units get the support that they need so that their lives can be changed in a positive way. When they come out, they will not only be less likely to offend, but more likely to live a positive and full life.
The Minister for Children, Young People and Families (Margaret Hodge): If I may, I will deal with the amendments in three blocks to try to make some sense of the group. Beginning with amendment No. 31, I must tell the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) that the language here is a lawyer's paradise. She would give the agencies a duty to discharge their functions
''in a manner consistent with the objective'',
whereas the clause requires the agencies to have regard to the need to safeguard children and their interests. From the publication of the Green Paper onwards, we have always said that the duty is not about giving agencies a function to safeguard and promote
Column Number: 196
children's welfare and interests; its purpose is to ensure that agencies exercise their primary function in a way that recognises and takes account of the need to safeguard and promote children's welfare and interests. It is important to recognise that all the agencies covered by the duties under clause 8 have their own functions. We talked about that before lunch. A change in the wording such as the hon. Lady proposes would mean that agencies' attempts to safeguard children compromised their ability to fulfil their primary purpose.
Let us imagine, for instance, that police officers investigated and arrested someone who had committed a crime of fraud. That person might be a loving parent; indeed, one might argue that the fraudulent activity led to more income in the household, thereby enhancing the children's quality of life. Amendment No. 31 would imply that the responsibilities of the police with regard to safeguarding and promoting the welfare and well-being of children were equal to their responsibilities as law enforcers, so they would not be able to carry out their function as policemen and women. That is why the clause is worded as it is.
I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that we already have a robust legislative framework to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and that sits in conjunction with clause 8. Under the Children Act 1989, for example, local authorities have a specific legal duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need in their area. In particular, social services departments have a duty to make inquiries if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. Other local authority services, such as education, housing and health, have a duty to assist social services. The police have a legal duty to investigate criminal offences committed against children, and such investigations should be carried out sensitively, thoroughly and professionally. The 1989 Act gives the police powers to take emergency action to protect children from suffering significant harm.
We have put much of that information together in two publications: ''Working together to safeguard children'' and the ''Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families''. Indeed, if the hon. Lady looks back at Lord Laming's report, she will find that he said that the legislative framework for protecting children is basically sound. The weaknesses are in the way in which it is interpreted and implemented, and we are attempting to address those problems through the Bill.
The clause adds to the framework for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of vulnerable children by taking the more proactive approach that much of what we are discussing is about. We do not want to compromise the ability of agencies to carry out their primary duties and functions. I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Lady will be happy not to press her amendment.
I now turn to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and Liberal Democrat Members. Amendments Nos. 100
Column Number: 197
and 101 would extend the duty in the clause to courts with the power to sentence a child to detention or remand a child in custody and to the Youth Justice Board. We share the aim of the amendment: to ensure, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) said, that young people in custody are accommodated in an appropriate setting, with full account taken of all the issues that confront those young people, particularly the most vulnerable. However, I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre because we do not agree that the Bill is the best way to achieve that.
The Youth Justice Board, for instance, has a very difficult job. It has to match the available places in secure accommodation with the young people referred to it by the courts. In doing that, it has to consider many issues, including the young person's age, special needs, closeness to home—which is very important—and any risk of harm. Good decisions can be made only by taking account of all relevant factors, and the risk with amendment No. 113 is that the placement would be viewed in isolation.
3 pm
Let me give another example. Closeness to home is an important issue—we all agree that it is better that a young person serving a custodial sentence should held be as close to home as possible. However, in the instance of a 17-year-old who has been convicted of a particular serious offence of violence, the institution closest to him may have a number of younger children who are more vulnerable and who have not committed the same sort of offence. Placing him in that secure accommodation may not be appropriate for the 12, 13 and 14-year-olds who are already in it. Putting a duty on the Youth Justice Board around a specific child would prevent it from having a wider view of how to operate.
Two points may help my hon. Friend. One is that youth offending teams are covered by clause 7 duties to co-operate and they are performance managed by the Youth Justice Board, which also sets their policy. That provides one close link into the board. Secondly, simply as a matter of practice, I meet the board regularly. Indeed, I am meeting the whole board in November. We work extremely closely together, and the intent behind the resolutions is shared by all the organisations and agencies for which I have responsibility, including the Youth Justice Board.
|
