|
Margaret Hodge: That is the hon. Lady's view, and I have a lot of sympathy with it. The issue for us as parliamentarians making the law is whether we should prescribe to local authorities how they determine the chairmanship of the board or leave it to local flexibility. In representations that we have received from children's charities and others, but clearly not from local government, as in this instance it would want to control the appointment, they have simply asked for the flexibility to determine the chair locally. In my view, the chair will mainly be the director of children's services, but it would be wrong for us to prescribe nationally, and that in no way detracts from the director's accountability and responsibility.
Mrs. Laing: I accept that the Minister says what she says in good faith, but I still have some considerable reservations about the matter, so I would not like to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment; I would like the question to be put to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 15.
Division No.
Column Number: 209
6]
AYES
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
Ruffley, Mr. David
Turner, Mr. Andrew
NOES
Brooke, Annette
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Dawson, Mr. Hilton
Fitzsimons, Mrs. Lorna
Hodge, Margaret
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Mole, Chris
Morgan, Julie
Munn, Ms Meg
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Tami, Mark
Taylor, Ms Dari
Touhig, Mr. Don
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mr. Roger
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Functions and procedure of LSCBs
Mrs. Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in
clause 11, page 10, line 27, after 'children', insert
'in the context of their families or otherwise.'.
Once again, we seek to strengthen the provisions of a clause that we support. The amendment would aim to ensure that promoting the welfare of children takes place in the context of their families. Our concern is that, quite rightly, a large number of bodies are involved in these matters and that the LSCB has a great many different interests involved in it. The one thing that has been missing in the discussion of the last few clauses is the role of the family. Although I support the good work done by social services departments, children's charities, all the other organisations mentioned in clause 10 and many other voluntary bodies besides, I believe the Bill should say explicitly that a child's family should be part of the safeguarding and welfare of that child.
Mr. Turner: I support the amendment, and want to do so by referring to the story of a child in my constituency, whom, for obvious reasons, I shall not name. The child is in the care of the local authority, is fostered, and has a family. His uncle and aunt sought to obtain information about the child's schooling. They knew that he was not attending school as he should have been, because he came to see them in school hours. The local authority very slowly began to take an interest in what they were saying, and the child moved foster parents and was sent to another school.
I regret to say that little was done by the first school or by the second school to establish that the child attended school on a regular basis. It was concluded that he was unsuitable for the full national curriculum, so some of his time was put outside mainstream schooling. The uncle and aunt then came to me and said that the process was not working. I have had the devil's own job getting the local authority to take the uncle and aunt seriously as people who may be interested in the child's welfare. It culminated in a letter that arrived only yesterday from the director of children's services, which said that the case was
Column Number: 210
nothing to do with me because I did not have the authority of the school, the parents, the local education authority or the child to raise the matter with them. I accept that the Minister is hoping to do something about that issue—indeed, I thought that Mr. Speaker had already done something about it, and that regulations had been passed to deal with it. That is why I believe it to be so important to include those words in the Bill.
As we know, families come in all shapes and sizes, but many of them, even at some distance from the natural parents, have a great interest in and great care for the welfare of the children in their family. That should be recognised in the procedures adopted by social services and children's authorities.
Margaret Hodge: We have tabled amendments to rectify the position, which limits our ability to represent our constituents properly. I passionately believe that we have failed to look after children in a whole range of ways. We will not have a great discourse on that today, although we may later in our proceedings. The amendment is not necessarily the correct mechanism for getting things right, but all of us, collectively in society, have failed the most vulnerable children, for whom we are the corporate parent. We must do better. To do otherwise is not good enough for our children.
I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Epping Forest about the importance of the family—again, we discussed that in a previous Committee sitting—but the amendment is unnecessary. We all acknowledge the primary role of parents in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. The principle that a child's family must be taken into account when decisions are made about safeguarding that child and promoting his or her welfare—for the vast majority of children, living with their families is the best way of doing that—is clearly established. It will be a clear consideration for all the LSCBs involved in safeguarding children and promoting their welfare. It does not need to be specified in legislation.
In the Children Act 1989, there is a duty on local authorities to
''safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and, so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families.''
That enshrines in legislation the principle that, as a general rule, children are best off living with their families, and ensures that local authorities are required to support that principle unless their duty to safeguard is inconsistent with the child's remaining with the family. We already have guidance that sets out the practice that arises from that principle, and instructs agencies to consider the parents' capacity to provide care and the environment in which care is provided. That guidance is included in the framework for the assessment of children in need and their families.
We accepted representations made in another place that parents were not sufficiently mentioned in the Bill and that their role was not sufficiently highlighted, and we made the amendment to clause 7, which I hope satisfies the hon. Lady's desire. It might give her further comfort to know that we will reiterate those
Column Number: 211
messages in the guidance that we issue on LSCBs under clause 13. We will make it clear that the views of service users—children, young people, and their parents, carers and families—should be taken into account in developing services and strategies for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the local area.
Mr. Turner: The Minister has referred to clause 7(3) on a number of occasions. I assume that she is saying that, notwithstanding that it says ''under this section'', the subsection has a much wider application?
Margaret Hodge: Clause 7 is a central part of the Bill because it deals with the duty of co-operation. How that duty is defined is dealt with in many of the remaining clauses. Clauses 7 and 8 are key: they deal with the duty to co-operate and the duty to safeguard, which then flow into many of the other clauses. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Epping Forest will feel it right to withdraw the amendment.
Mrs. Laing: Although I do not want to take up more of the Committee's time than is necessary, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and I feel strongly about the point about families. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and in particular to what she said about the Children Act and the words in that Act that bring in families. Under our amendment the Bill would be more consistent with the Children Act than it is at present. We are all familiar with cases in our constituencies in which grandparents, close aunts and uncles, or older brothers and sisters, are trying their best to help to promote the welfare of children and to safeguard them. They find that they have no locus to do so because all sorts of other bodies are included in legislation, but not members of a child's family. I must insist on pressing the amendment to a Division.
4 pm
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 10.
Division No. 7]
AYES
Clappison, Mr. James
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
Ruffley, Mr. David
Turner, Mr. Andrew
NOES
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Dawson, Mr. Hilton
Hodge, Margaret
Mole, Chris
Morgan, Julie
Munn, Ms Meg
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Tami, Mark
Taylor, Ms Dari
Touhig, Mr. Don
Question accordingly negatived.
Mrs. Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 220, in
clause 11, page 10, line 29, at end insert—
'(c) to have due regard for internet safety for children.'.
Column Number: 212
It should be obvious that this is a probing amendment, but it was tabled with great sincerity. I am honoured to have joined the Home Office taskforce on internet safety for children. I am a very new member, but at the one meeting I have attended I picked up the fact that there is concern about how the issue would be dealt with with the local safeguarding board. It may need to be dealt with in regulations, but if we do not discuss this incredibly important matter while discussing the Bill it could be overlooked. It is an area in which joined-up thinking across different Departments is vital. I accept that the local police are involved on the safeguarding board, but as we know from the sort of work done by the taskforce, much of it comes from national level.
I am raising the matter to ask the Minister what consideration she will give to address one of the most serious issues facing our children today. I cannot believe that the Bill does not mention it. There may be other ramifications and I would be pleased to hear that she is in discussion with her fellow Ministers, particularly those in the Home Office.
|
