Beverley
Hughes: I will not list for the hon. Lady the various
current regulations, because I want to focus on the steps we are
taking, which I think will achieve what she wants to achieve in a
different but equally effective way. She will be aware of the duty to
co-operate in sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004, which
applies to a range of health bodies and other agencies. The guidance
that flowed from that and the power to issue statutory guidance were
not implemented in relation to primary care trusts and health bodies.
Guidance was issued to health bodies but it was not
statutory—that power was not switched
on. I
give the hon. Lady an assurance that we intend to issue new statutory
guidance in relation to the powers in sections 10 and 11. The revised
guidance will be statutory for primary care trusts, strategic health
authorities, NHS foundation trusts and local authorities. It will cover
assessments of the physical, emotional and mental health of
looked-after children, health plans, the involvement of qualified
medical practitioners in assessments and reviews, the time scales for
completion of assessments and reviews, health promotion, the provision
of child and adolescent mental health services for looked-after
children—which the hon. Lady rightly says is
important—and the roles and responsibilities of health bodies
and local authorities in improving the health of looked-after children.
For the first time, the guidance will have the statutory bite that has
applied to other agencies under sections 10 and 11 of the 2004
Act. In
addition, we are using some of the architecture of the national health
service to build in a focus on looked-after children. The statutory
guidance will be complemented by the new joint strategic needs
assessment, the new NHS operating framework for 2008-09, and the
national indicator set for local government. For the first time, the
NHS operating framework includes keeping children well, improving
overall health and reducing health inequalities as one of the top five
priorities for the NHS. That marks the beginning of a new chapter in
the journey of the NHS to a focus on more preventive services for
children and young people.
Let me
explain how we will monitor that. In addition to our existing data
collection, there is a new indicator on the emotional health of
looked-after children. That will be particularly important in driving
up the supply of CAMH services. Under the children’s plan, we
asked Jo Davidson, the director of children’s services for
Gloucester, to undertake a review of CAMH services.
The call for evidence closes tomorrow, I think, and
Jo Davidson will report in the autumn on what more needs to be done in
that
regard. Annette
Brooke: Can the Minister give a time scale for publication
and implementation of the revised guidance? I am talking about the
statutory position. When will that happen?
Beverley
Hughes: It is part of our process of either revising
existing guidance or, in this case, introducing revised guidance with a
new status. I do not have information on the specific time with me, but
I might be able to get that if I keep talking long enough-albeit
without wishing to delay the Committee. Otherwise, I can write to the
hon. Lady. I am not clear on where it is in our list of work to be done
on guidance, but I can tell her that it will be published before the
end of this year—in 2008. With that, I hope that the hon. Lady
feels that the points she made have been covered and she will withdraw
the
motion.
Annette
Brooke: Again, the test will be in the monitoring to see
what difference statutory guidance makes and whether we will need to
return to the matter at a later date. I would just like to leave the
Minister with a thought about the availability of therapeutic treatment
across the country. There has been a long-term campaign on that by the
NSPCC—I am an ambassador for the NSPCC, so I ought to declare
that interest. I know that not having therapeutic treatment escalates
problems and leads to further incidents in society. I thank the
Minister for the fact that we have the statutory guidance. I hope that
that will result in change, but I feel that we have a long way to go
and we may well have to revisit this issue. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
motion. Motion
and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
28Limitation
period ‘In seeking to bring a
claim for damages in relation to any injury sustained during any period
in which C was a looked after child, the limitation period for bringing
such a claim shall
be— (a) three years from
the date of becoming 18 years of
age; (b) three years starting
from the date he discovers, or ought reasonably to discover, that he
has a legal claim; or (c) 10
years from the date of the act or omission which gives rise to the
claim, whichever is the
latest.’.—[Mr.
Kidney.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Kidney: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. Limitation
periods provide cut-offs on people’s ability to bring cases to
court. There are limitation periods in criminal courts and civil
courts. There are different limitation periods for different behaviours
and there are different rules about disapplying limitation periods and
extending them. The Law Commission was asked to examine the state of
the law in 2001 and concluded that the law was needlessly complex,
outdated and, in some respects, unfair. It gave as an example of
complexity and unfairness sexual abuse cases. Unfortunately, many
sexual abuse cases that have come to the public’s attention over
the years have related to children who were abused
in public care. They are particularly powerful cases, because the public
feel that very vulnerable children, whose protection the public were
charged with, have been let down a second time. We are seeing that all
over again at the moment in the cases being investigated in
Jersey. The
Law Commission said that the law should be reformed, and in 2002 the
Government said that that was a good idea and they would do that, but
still there has been no reform. Several hon. Members, myself included,
have been asking parliamentary questions about the Government’s
intentions. Last year—2007—the Government told me in
written answers that they would start to reform the law at the
beginning of 2008. When I asked a written question at the beginning of
2008, they said that they had not got round to it yet and they might do
so later in the year. Now we are in the second half of the year and
still there is
nothing. It
might be fun for me to criticise the Government for being slower than
they said they would be, but it is now several years since they said
that they would amend a law that has been shown by the Law Commission
to be complex and unfair. Still there are cases of people who have been
deprived, by a limitation period, of the ability to bring a claim for
compensation for sexual abuse sustained when they were in public care.
Potentially, other people will suffer in future years until we amend
the law. I am therefore trying to provoke a debate through new clause
28, at least in respect of children in care—I recognise that
limitation periods apply much more widely than simply to this group of
people and this type of case—to see whether the Minister can
tell me whether the Government will finally make some
progress.
Kevin
Brennan: There are three reasons why I am resisting my
hon. Friend’s new clause. I hope that I can also say something
at the end on his final point.
First, the
current law contained in the Limitation Act 1980, as interpreted by the
recent House of Lords ruling in A v. Hoare, already achieves
much of what the new clause is designed to achieve. Indeed, the current
law is in many ways more generous to claimants. I will write to all
members of the Committee to outline my reasons for saying
that— 3.10
pm Sitting
suspended for Divisions in the
House. 3.51
pm On
resuming—
Kevin
Brennan: I was on the first of the 47 points—I
correct myself, three points—that I was going to make in
response to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for
Stafford. My
first point was that the current law is more generous to claimants than
the new clause would be in practice. I said that I would write to my
hon. Friend and Committee members to outline why that would be the
case. Secondly,
there is no need to create a special limitation category for
looked-after children. My hon. Friend acknowledged that in his remarks,
and I shall be happy to elucidate in my letter.
Thirdly, any
reform of the law of limitation in this area should be undertaken as
part of a wider exercise addressing the whole topic. I sensed from my
hon. Friend’s comments that in tabling the new clause, he was
trying to stimulate action by the Government on the reform of the law
of limitation. I can confirm that it has taken longer than expected for
the Government to issue the consultation in this area. However, it will
be issued as soon as possible—hopefully, in the near future. If
it is deemed to be appropriate, based on the consultation, the
Government will consider legislating in this area. On that basis, I ask
him to consider withdrawing the
motion.
Mr.
Kidney: There are some inadequacies in the drafting of the
new clause so I will not press it to a vote. As the Minister says, the
issue is not simply limitation periods as they apply to former children
in care; a wide range of cases are affected. Some hon. Members will
recall that there is a lot of interest in this matter in relation to
health and safety at work cases for people who develop conditions such
as mesothelioma many years after they have finished work. There are
questions about when the limitation period stops them from making
claims against employers arising from events that happened many years
back. There
is a need to review the law in this entire area, as the Government said
it would in 2002. If we have helped to speed things along a little by
making this proposal and by the Minister making inquiries of the
Ministry of Justice about where it is with its proposals, we will have
done some good. I would like to stress to the Committee that in my
capacity as chairman of the associate parliamentary group on
looked-after children and care leavers, I still come across dreadful
cases of people who have suffered atrociously, first by going into
care, secondly by being sexually abused when in care, and thirdly by
their experience of the legal system, because they could not make a
claim for compensation when they finally realised that a claim was
possible. This
is an urgent and pressing matter and I hope that the Minister will
write not only to me and members of the Committee, but to the Ministry
of Justice to hurry it along. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion
and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
31Duty
to assess provision of independent advocacy
services ‘(1) A local
authority must prepare assessments of the sufficiency of the provision
of independent advocacy services (whether or not by them) for looked
after children for whom they are responsible (“advocacy
assessments”). (2) The
first advocacy assessment must be prepared before the end of the period
of one year beginning at the commencement of this
section. (3) Subsequent
advocacy assessments must be prepared at intervals not exceeding three
years. (4) The local authority
must keep an advocacy assessment under review until the independent
advocacy assessment is superseded by a further advocacy
assessment. (5) Regulations may
make provision requiring an advocacy
assessment—
(a) to deal with prescribed matters or be prepared
according to prescribed
criteria; (b) to be in the
prescribed form; (c) to be
published in the prescribed manner and in a manner that can be
understood by children. (6) In
preparing an advocacy assessment and keeping it under review, a local
authority must— (a)
consult such persons, or persons of such a description, as may be
prescribed including looked after children and those who provide
independent advocacy
services; (b) have regard to
any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of
State.’.—[Mr.
Kidney.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Kidney: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 32— Access to advocacy
services— ‘In section
26A of the 1989 Act (Advocacy services), after subsection (5)
insert— “(5A)
Every local authority shall make a report on access to advocacy
services in their local area annually to the Secretary of
State.”’.
Mr.
Kidney: I shall be brief, because we debated advocacy
fully in a previous sitting and we all agreed that advocacy in the
right place is a good thing and part of a good-quality service for all
children in care. Perhaps some of us on the Committee were more
enthusiastic about the range and rate at which advocacy should be
available to children in care, and perhaps the Ministers were not quite
so keen; nevertheless, we all agreed.
There is a
need to improve access to advocacy, so the new clause would require
local authorities to make assessments to show that they have an
adequate supply of advocates in their area and to keep that assessment
under review and up to date. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington,
South has linked that with new clause 32, which is about local
authorities providing a report on access to those
services. Helen
Southworth (Warrington, South) (Lab): I hope that my hon.
Friend accepts that new clause 32 is far more modest than new clause
31, and in fact encapsulates the drivers that would require new clause
31. Although it is brief and modest, it represents the least the
Government can do to ensure that advocacy services are
available.
Mr.
Kidney: I will not allow my hon. Friend to undersell new
clause 32, as it makes an excellent companion to new clause 31.
Together, they would ensure that local authorities had at the forefront
of their mind the need for adequate provision of advocacy services for
all the children for whom they are
responsible.
Beverley
Hughes: I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for
Stafford acknowledged the important debate that we had on Tuesday,
during which I set out our view on advocacy in the context of clause 11
and made it clear that listening to children is crucial to improving
outcomes for them, both individually and in relation to the system as a
whole, and to improving system-wide standards. New clauses 31 and 32
pick up
on the related issue of how local authorities contract and make
arrangements for advocacy provision, and how they should be making
effective provision for those services.
I can tell
both my hon. Friends that we already require local authorities to
monitor their services by keeping a record of each representation
received, its outcome and whether there was compliance with the time
limits set out in regulations. They are also required to compile a
report at the end of each financial year on the operation of their
complaints and representations procedure. However, I intend to go
further and through statutory guidance require local authorities as
part of that report to review their advocacy services annually, to
ensure compliance with national standards. We will set out that that
will necessarily involve local authority staff seeking regular feedback
from children about their experiences of the service.
In revising
that guidance and including that provision, we will of course consult
widely. We have no doubt that the expertise of third sector advocacy
services and the charities represented on the National
Children’s Advocacy Consortium will make an invaluable
contribution to ensuring that we get that guidance right and that it
takes into account good practice on how all children should be listened
to, including those who are hard to reach, such as those who require
additional communication assistance or help from translation services
so that local authorities can ensure that their views are heard. I do
not want to require local authorities to publish a separate assessment
of advocacy, but I think that extending the statutory guidance in the
way that I have outlined will cover the issues that my hon. Friends are
concerned
about.
4
pm I
will include another provision: the general quality of advocacy
services that we get from those reports and from elsewhere will be
included as an item in the annual ministerial stock-take of services to
looked-after children that we committed in the White Paper to having
every year. Moreover, when Ofsted inspects local authority services for
looked-after children, as it will do regularly in a thematic review, it
will take into account how local authorities, as corporate parents, are
listening to children’s voices and providing for the advocacy
service to enable complaints or representations to be made.
I hope that
that with those three additional levers in the system, my hon. Friend
will accept that we are strengthening the way in which local
authorities will have to monitor the quality of their advocacy
services, show compliance and take steps to improve them if that is
necessary. I hope that those assurances are sufficient to persuade my
hon. Friend not to press the new
clause.
| 
