|
Hywel Williams (Caernarfon) (PC): I rise to support the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, as part of democracy week, I visited Ysgol Dyffryn Nantlle in my constituency; I missed the later part of this morning's sitting as I was meeting young people from Ysgol Syr Hugh Owen, which is also in my constituency. Anyone who talks to young people knows that it would be difficult to underestimate the scourge of bullying in the lives of children and young people. I discovered from statistics that I came across in preparing for the Committee that one in 10 primary schoolchildren and 4 per cent. of secondary schoolchildren suffer from bullying, and that is just the recorded numbers.
Bullying takes a variety of forms, both physical and psychological. I was an approved social worker under the Mental Health Act 1983 and I know from my experience how bullying can blight people's later lives; it casts a shadow over the adult. We can truly say in that respect that the child is father to the man. We know, too, that being bullied often leads to the bullied people themselves becoming bullies. I know that is so from experience in my school career. Physical assaults can precipitate bullying, and the psychological pressure on children can be extreme, ranging from name calling or ignoring the child to racial abuse.
Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some children are particularly vulnerable to bullying? Is he aware that the National Assembly for Wales recommended that Gypsy and Traveller children should be mentioned specifically in bullying policies?
Mr. Dawson: I accept the hon. Lady's point entirely. I agree with her that Traveller and Gypsy children are in a uniquely vulnerable position because of the stigmatising and stereotyping of their parents' lifestyles. Another, less obvious, example is that of the rural-urban split in some schools. I was a town boy but, at school, kids from the country used to suffer all kinds of abuse because they were not townies.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred to the effect of bullying on the child's self-esteem, and it certainly affects the child's ability to learn, which has an effect on the school's success or otherwise. The amendments draw attention to the issue, and those that apply to Wales are very important to me; they
Column Number: 202
single out bullying as a particular issue and I support them. No hon. Member would tolerate bullying in the workplace and I see no reason why it should be tolerated in schools.
Margaret Hodge: In the interests of brevity, I will not indulge in a discourse on bullying. I will simply say that this is the biggest issue that is raised with me by most children. When hon. Members talk about it, they rightly refer to something that is vitally important to every child and young person. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said about the patchy implementation of our policies on bullying. However, one does not achieve change simply by adding a few words on the face of a Bill. One has to work with these people and organisations—be they schools, youth clubs, park attendants, the police service—to instil in them an intolerance of bullying.
We also have to work with children and young people themselves so that they understand that their behaviour with their peer group matters and can have a terrible and lasting impact on others. We are all at one on the intent of the amendment. However, unsurprisingly perhaps to my hon. Friend, I do not think that it is either helpful or necessary to add these amendments to the Bill. When we place legislative duties on our services, we must be clear about what we expect of them. Some of the agencies listed in clauses 8 and 23—probation boards, for example—do not have a significant role to play in relation to preventing bullying. I am not sure what a duty to have regard to the need to prevent bullying would mean in practice for such agencies.
If we list one issue that is of huge importance to children and young people, the inevitable question is what should one add to the list. One ends up in great difficulty. All hon. Members will have noticed that the Government are making terrific efforts and working closely with ChildLine and others to try to tackle bullying. The Anti-Bullying Alliance is a good move forward. It brings all the agencies and players together. We should work through that to try to diminish bullying, if not to eradicate it. Similarly the Prison Service is required to ensure that it does its best to eliminate bullying in secure establishments where it is often most extreme. I accept the sentiment, but reject the necessity for the amendment and so I ask my hon. Friend Member to withdraw it.
Mr. Dawson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: Order. I remind hon. Members that it was agreed this morning to move consideration of clause 9 until after consideration of clause 36.
Clause 10
Establishment of LSCBs
Mrs. Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in
clause 10, page 9, line 41, after 'Service', insert 'or its successor body'.
Column Number: 203
I commend this amendment to the Committee. It simply seeks to amend subsection (3)(h). Subsection (3) currently reads:
''For the purposes of this section each of the following is a Board partner of a children's services authority in England—''.
The eighth organisation mentioned in paragraph (h) is the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. It is widely recognised that that organisation does not work as well as it should. I put the point mildly. I would go much further and say that CAFCASS is not doing the job that it should do, but this is neither the time nor place to go into that in great detail.
Mr. Dawson: Given that CAFCASS has just changed its chairman, its entire board and its chief executive, is not the hon. Lady a little premature in that judgment?
Mrs. Laing: I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I was just coming to that point. We have discussed CAFCASS in other forums in the House in the past few months, and there has been a good report into its workings, which we all welcome. I sincerely hope that, given the new arrangements that he has mentioned, CAFCASS will work more efficiently and effectively in the future.
The concept of CAFCASS is good, and it ought to be providing a necessary service to the families and children who are much in need of it. I hope that it improves and that, in six months or a year, we will say, ''Oh good, CAFCASS is doing this; it is all working really well''; but it might not. Therefore, we have tabled the amendment simply to insert after the reference to CAFCASS the words ''or its successor body''. Quite simply, if there is no change to CAFCASS in the future, and it is still there, including those words in the Bill will have done no harm, because they will come into operation only if CAFCASS is changed or replaced with another body. It makes sense to include those words now so that should that change occur in the future, this provision will still continue to work as we want it to. The point is that we thoroughly support the inclusion of CAFCASS in the list of board partners. It is essential that it should be there, but if there is no CAFCASS, we want to ensure that whatever is in its place continues with that important role.
Margaret Hodge: That was an interesting contribution, because the hon. Lady's colleague, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), has said elsewhere that she intends to abolish CAFCASS. I think that that is badly conceived, and I agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest that the concept is a good one. If we can agree on that, we then need to try to ensure that it works properly. I accept entirely the criticisms from the Select Committee on Education and Skills, which we discussed in debate and which said that there was massive room for improvement.
Column Number: 204
Mrs. Laing: I just want to make it clear that I am entirely in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, who elsewhere debated that matter with the Minister this morning. I sincerely hope that CAFCASS will improve, but if it does not, my right hon. Friend is right to reserve our wish to change it completely.
Margaret Hodge: That is a semi U-turn, if I may say so. I agree with the hon. Lady in that if CAFCASS does not work, we need to think again, and I agree—I hope she takes on board that I am agreeing with her—that the concept is a good one. We are attempting to put into effect a whole set of changes that will make the practice one that children deserve, whether they are in private or public law cases. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, we now have a new chair for CAFCASS, a new board and a new chief executive, and why I identified, in a tight spending environment, an additional £12 million, which has gone to CAFCASS to support its efforts. It will now take a year or two to see a real step change in performance. We have to give it time to bed down under the new structure. We have put all the building blocks in place, and it is now up to everyone to deliver. For heaven's sake, let us not take a decision to abolish CAFCASS and cause disruption in the lives of children, which is how I interpret the suggestion that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead made when she was speaking elsewhere.
The amendment is not necessary, and it would be a matter for primary legislation were CAFCASS ever to be abolished. That would be the place for such a proposal.
3.30 pm
Mrs. Laing: I accept what the Minister has said. Under the circumstances, I will not force a vote on the issue. I have made my point strongly enough, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 227, in
clause 10, page 9, line 45, at end insert—
'(k) a representative of the faith communities in the area of the authority, appointed in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
I tabled this amendment because the spiritual welfare of children did not seem adequately covered—indeed, there is no reference to it in the Bill. I assume that it is included in the general definition of the welfare of children—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. However, just as, until recently, someone on local education authorities represented faith communities, there needs to be someone on the safeguarding children boards to take responsibility for representing faith communities and the spiritual welfare of children.
The amendment would insert a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations. I do not lightly propose additional powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations, and had I been able to think of a better method I would have suggested it.
Column Number: 205
|
