Tim
Loughton: We have had a helpful debate, but for the sake
of clarity and Hansard, I shall refer to the inelegance of
terminology that the Minister just used. Let me make it clear that his
oratory was overcome not by an ejaculation but by a sneeze. We do not
want the readers of Hansard to get any odd ideas about what goes
on in Committee, do we? I know that his Welsh, fluent oratory can be
terribly exciting, but it is not quite that exciting.
The Minister
has said that the drafting of the new clauses is flawed—I would
hate to dupe the Committee into passing a measure that was
flawed—but he perfectly appreciates the aim of the proposals.
Perhaps we need to revisit the measures so that they would have
practical effects. However, I am still slightly confused. The Minister
referred to the 2004 Act and the 1989 Act. Section 85 of the latter
states that the accommodating local authority that has been notified
should “take
such steps as are reasonably practicable to enable them to determine
whether the child’s welfare is adequately safeguarded and
promoted while he is accommodated by the accommodating
authority”.
That measure is not
quite as definitive and rigorous as the measure proposed by the hon.
Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and that proposed by me and my
hon. Friends. It is not clear from what the Minister said whether the
terminology that is already in place, which is aided and abetted by
this legislation and the regulations that will come with it, would give
some of the additional safeguards that looked-after status would
convey, such as the appointment of an IRO, the allocation of a social
worker and contact plan, and so on.
I am pleased
and grateful that the Minister has, in a spirit of positivity, said
that he will look again at the issues to try to create change to
achieve what he has acknowledged is our shared goal, but, clearly, the
Every Disabled Child Matters campaign thinks that there is still a
serious gap. It needs further assurances that those extra safeguards
will be available to those children without formally offering them
looked-after status. If the Minister could come back on Report and give
rather more substantial guarantees to that effect, all sides might be
satisfied, on the basis that there is a defect in the new
clauses.
To go back to
the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, if some
establishments decline to accept and accommodate some of those 300 or
so children unless they have looked-after status, there is a problem in
the system. Perhaps that is because the authorities do not understand
the system or that they come up against practical shortfalls in
providing the level of support that they rightly deem the children will
need if they are accommodated. In any case, they need to know and we
need to send out a clearer message. We might have the opportunity on
Report for further debate on the proposals, and the Minister will get
the opportunity
to send out that clearer message. There is clearly some confusion among
various parties at the moment. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
11Scope
of inspections by the chief
inspector ‘In section 147 of
the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (c. 40) (inspection
of premises in connection with adoption and fostering functions) after
subsection (2)
insert— “(2A) The
Chief Inspector must consider the promotion of the welfare and safety
of a child when carrying out the inspections mentioned in this
section.”’.—[Tim
Loughton.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Tim
Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. Very
briefly, the issue dealt with in new clause 11 was debated and taken up
in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Morris of Bolton, who was
supported by the noble Lord Ramsbotham. It would ensure that the chief
inspector considers the suitability of the accommodation not only in
terms of door sizes and facilities and so on, but whether it is
conducive to supporting the welfare and safety of a child. The new
clause would broaden the scope of what is taken into account in an
inspection of children’s homes. As my noble Friend said in the
House of Lords, essentially the measure would place a duty on an
inspector to make inspections about more than just the number of beds
that a children’s home provides and the average costs of meals
for children per day. There is a fear that the inspections are a bit of
a tick-box exercise in some cases. In an earlier debate, I mentioned
some of my experiences of children’s homes in my constituency at
which, clearly, the level of care and supervision of the children was
woefully inadequate. In one case, an Ofsted inspection had said that
everything was okay with the physicality of the accommodation, but
everything was clearly not okay with the children’s
welfare.
It being
twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
