Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)]

The 0 to 25 years special educational needs and disability code of practice sets out that SEN support should follow a cycle referred to as “assess plan do review” to enable schools systematically to assess individual needs, plan support, put support in place and review progress. The code of practice is on a statutory footing and all schools have to take account of it.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State explain her U-turn in signing Labour’s amendments to scrap her own innovation clauses in the Children and Social Work Bill? Since her Minister and chief social worker were the key protagonists of those strongly opposed and dangerous clauses, will she explain how she can possibly remain confident in their ability to protect our most vulnerable children?

[Edward Timpson]

I am very pleased to see the hon. Lady back in her place. I know she has not been able to be here for some time. It is very simple: we were unable to build the consensus required to take forward the power to innovate. I remain absolutely committed to innovation and would welcome local authorities’ plans for how they can improve outcomes for children by redesigning their services and improving their outcomes in the process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

This Government allowed two local authorities rated “good” for children’s services to be granted exemptions from statutory guidance, even extending these exemptions when there was no evidence of improvement. Ofsted has since rated them both “inadequate”, finding that for too long children have been left at risk and are suffering harm. Despite growing evidence of the dangers of these opt-out practices, the Secretary of State is determined to push through massive deregulation in the Children and Social Work Bill, which will allow local authorities to opt out of not just guidance but vast swathes of primary and secondary child protection legislation. Why does she think it is okay to experiment with the lives of vulnerable children?

[The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)]

We had a healthy debate about the power to innovate in Committee, but I am afraid the hon. Lady still fails to grasp what we are trying to achieve. Local authorities and social workers tell us that when well-intentioned legislation prevents them from doing what is best for young people, they want to be able to try new ways to ensure that the outcomes for children improve. That is why a whole raft of organisations, including the Children’s Society, have told us that they welcome the Government’s commitment to innovation in children’s social care and support the intention to allow local authorities to test new ways of working in a time-limited, safe, transparent and well-evaluated way. I would have thought the hon. Lady would welcome that, rather than trying to concoct difficult arguments about the way forward that we want to take with the Bill. It is wrong, and she should follow the path that the profession wants to take.

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 12th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

As we have discussed previously in Committee in relation to my proposed amendments to clause 3, care leavers are particularly vulnerable to early pregnancy and to losing a child to the care system or adoption. That, on top of the feelings that many new parents have, brings additional challenges.

Under the Children and Families Act 2014, babies and children who are looked after, either under a care order or by way of a voluntary agreement under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 with the child’s parents, can be placed under foster for adoption with potential adopters who are approved as foster carers. That was a welcome move, but as with many legislative changes, some of the consequences and pitfalls of the legislation were not known until it became embedded. We now have a situation whereby a child who is looked after under section 20 may be placed in a foster for adoption placement without their young parents having had a right to free independent legal advice and representation, and without any court scrutiny of the process or any court decision that the child should be permanently removed from their parents. Once a child is living with a potential adopter, it is much harder for the parent to persuade the court that the child should be returned to their care, because of the status quo argument, which is aimed at minimising disruption for the child.

New clause 24 would deal with that injustice. It would ensure that where a parent was in care themselves or a care leaver and a foster for adoption placement was proposed for their child who was voluntary accommodated, that parent would be entitled to non-means-tested and non-merits-tested public funding. That would be entirely consistent with what is available to persons with parental responsibility during the pre-proceedings process.

There are also a small number of cases in which parents are not entitled to non-means and merits-tested legal aid when the court is deciding, following an application from the local authority, whether to make a placement order for a child. A placement order permits the local authority to place the child for adoption. In such circumstances, the local authority and the child will have a legal representative at court, but the parents may not, because there have been no earlier care proceedings—for example, where a voluntarily accommodated child has been in a foster for adoption placement, because in that situation a young parent may have had no legal aid—or because care proceedings have concluded and a placement order application is subsequently made.

Young parents who are themselves in care or care leavers are at particular risk of that injustice. The Centre for Social Justice reported in 2015 that 22% of female care leavers become teenage mothers—that is three times the national average—and that one in 10 care leavers aged 16 to 21 have had a child taken into care.

Sir James Munby, president of the family division, has cited the observation of Mr Justice Baker:

“The justification for automatic public funding in care proceedings is the draconian nature of the order being claimed by the local authority.”

Given that a placement order is equally if not more draconian, the same rationale should apply.

New clause 25 would close the loophole and give parents legal advice and representation when the state is proposing to remove their child or children from their care. Surely the Minister can see that, as things stand, there is the potential for miscarriages of justice, and that miscarriages of justice are taking place.

[The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling new clauses 24 and 25. They seek to extend access to free legal aid to parents who are themselves looked-after children or care leavers and whose children have been voluntarily accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and are to be placed in a foster for adoption placement or are subject to a placement order application. A long-established view enshrined in law is that children are best looked after within their family unless intervention in that family’s life is necessary. Indeed, that is one of the fundamental principles of the 1989 Act.

When children are looked after, provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 that came into force in April 2016 mean that legal aid is available to parents in specified public law family proceedings. That includes legal services relating to care orders, as well as placement and adoption orders, and incorporates advice in relation to orders that are contemplated.

A local authority cannot accommodate a child voluntarily under section 20 without parental consent, and in such circumstances the parents may remove them from the local authority accommodation at any time. However, when the local authority considers that the child is at risk and that it would be in their best interest to remain looked after, it may apply for a care order. When a local authority informs parents of the intention to initiate care proceedings, those parents, including those who are looked after or are care leavers, become eligible for civil legal services free of any means test in the usual way.

However, I understand the concerns that have been raised about the application of fostering for adoption to voluntarily accommodated children. When a local authority starts to consider adoption as an option for a child, the adoption agencies regulations already require the local authority to provide a counselling service for the child’s parent or guardian, including explaining to them the procedure and legal implications of adoption. They also require the local authority to notify the child’s birth parents in writing that it has decided to place the child in a fostering-for-adoption placement before the local authority’s nominated officer can approve the placement. Those provisions apply to all parents, including those who are looked after or are care leavers.

In relation to care leavers and placement order applications, we are not aware of any care leaver who has been refused free legal aid to challenge an application for a placement order. If the hon. Lady has examples or has been made aware of cases where that has happened, it would be helpful if she shared them with us to that we can investigate them.

When a local authority applies for a placement order outside care proceedings, the vast majority of care leavers will be entitled to free means-tested legal aid, as they are likely to meet the criteria. However, in the light of the points raised by the hon. Lady and, I believe, the Family Rights Group as part of this debate, I have asked my officials to talk to their counterparts at the Ministry of Justice, which holds responsibility for the legal aid budget, to see whether there are any gaps that need to be addressed. I hope that on that basis, the hon. Lady will withdraw the motion.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain

“(1) Schedule (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) ends at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)

This new clause would revoke provisions in the Bill that enable local authorities in England and Wales to place children in secure accommodation in Scotland, and vice versa, two years after the Act comes into force.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling the new clause, because she raises what is in some ways a very harrowing and real issue. If at all possible, and despite the many disappointments I have thrust upon her over the past few weeks, I will put her mind at rest and explain the current process with regards to child-to-child abuse as well as the work my Department has planned for the near future.

As the hon. Lady said, “Keeping children safe in education” is statutory guidance that all schools in England must have regard to when carrying out their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That guidance sets out that all schools should have an effective child protection policy that includes procedures to minimise the risk of child-to-child abuse and sets out how allegations of such abuse will be investigated and dealt with. The policy should also be clear on how victims of child-to-child abuse will be supported and should reflect locally agreed inter-agency procedures put in place by the local safeguarding children board and, in future—as a consequence of the Bill—any arrangements by the safeguarding partners.

If a child has been abused by another child, the school should raise a referral with the relevant local authority’s children’s social care department, and possibly, depending on the circumstances, with the police. Local authority social workers will also be able to consider conducting inquiries under either sections 17 or 47 of the Children Act 1989; those inquiries will consider both the abused child and the abuser.

Schools should work in partnership with social workers throughout those processes. Schools are best placed to handle each case of child-to-child abuse because of the unique circumstances of each of those cases, but with the help and support of social workers, guidance from the local safeguarding children board—and, in future, from safeguarding partners—and with reference to “Keeping children safe in education”. New, separate guidance is not the answer; making the existing framework and suite of guidance documents work more efficiently and effectively is. “Keeping children safe in education” is under review and will be updated as appropriate to address, among other things, any changes introduced by the Bill.

I am sure the hon. Lady is aware of the recent inquiry by the Women and Equalities Committee into sexual harassment and sexual violence, which we discussed during an earlier Committee sitting. In its response to the Committee’s report, and noting the hon. Lady’s view that the guidance on child-to-child abuse needs to be clearer, we are committing to reviewing how child-to-child abuse is reflected in that statutory guidance. My officials are in the process of setting up working groups with sector experts to do just that.

Any additional guidance for schools on child-to-child abuse would be best placed in the section already dedicated to that in “Keeping children safe in education”, because that is the main statutory document that every school has to follow. I assure the hon. Lady that my officials will work closely with those working groups to consider the best way to reflect any further guidance on child-to-child abuse in the statutory guidance as appropriate. That guidance will also address the changes to the multi-agency working arrangements provided for in the Bill as soon as possible.

Before I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause, I believe this is the last time I will be speaking at any length during the Committee stage of the Bill, and so I want to put on the record my thanks to you, Mrs Main, and to Mr Wilson for your purposeful and pragmatic chairing of the Committee. I also thank the Clerk and other Committee officials for their efficient and professional administration of proceedings; my Whip, for his exemplary stewardship; my Parliamentary Private Secretary and my hon. Friends for their considered attendance; Opposition Committee members for their engagement and constructive debate on these important issues; and finally, officials from my Department for the excellent support they have given me throughout the Bill’s Committee stage—I hope that that will continue on Report. With that ringing in their ears, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Without going through the same list as the Minister, I thank everyone. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1

Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain

“Children Act 1989

1 The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.

2 (1) Section 25 (use of accommodation in England for restricting liberty of children looked after by English and Welsh local authorities)—

(a) is to extend also to Scotland, and

(b) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for “or local authority in Wales” substitute “in England or Wales”;

(b) after “accommodation in England” insert “or Scotland”;

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii) and (b), after “secure accommodation in England” insert “or Scotland”;

(b) in paragraph (c), for “or local authorities in Wales” substitute “in England or Wales”;

(4) After subsection (5) insert—

(5A) Where a local authority in England or Wales are authorised under this section to keep a child in secure accommodation in Scotland, the person in charge of the accommodation may restrict the child’s liberty to the extent that the person considers appropriate, having regard to the terms of any order made by a court under this section.”

(5) In subsection (7)—

(a) in paragraph (c), after “secure accommodation in England” insert “or Scotland”;

(b) after that paragraph, insert—

“(d) a child may only be placed in secure accommodation that is of a description specified in the regulations (and the description may in particular be framed by reference to whether the accommodation, or the person providing it, has been approved by the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers).”

(6) After subsection (8) insert—

(8A) Sections 168 and 169(1) to (4) of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 1) (enforcement and absconding) apply in relation to an order under subsection (4) above as they apply in relation to the orders mentioned in section 168(3) or 169(1)(a) of that Act.”

3 In paragraph 19(9) of Schedule 2 (restrictions on arrangements for children to live abroad), after “does not apply” insert “—

(a) to a local authority placing a child in secure accommodation in Scotland under section 25, or

(b) ”.

Children (Secure Accommodation) Regulations 1991 (S.I. 1991/1505)

4 The Children (Secure Accommodation) Regulations 1991 (S.I. 1991/1505) are amended as follows.

5 In regulation 1—

(a) in the heading, for “and commencement” substitute “, commencement and extent;

(b) the existing text becomes paragraph (1);

(c) after that paragraph insert—

(2) This Regulation and Regulations 10 to 13 extend to England and Wales and Scotland.

(3) Except as provided by paragraph (2), these Regulations extend to England and Wales.”

6 In regulation 2(1) (interpretation), in the definition of “children’s home”, for the words from “means” to the end, substitute “means—

(a) a private children’s home, a community home or a voluntary home in England, or

(b) an establishment in Scotland (whether managed by a local authority, a voluntary organisation or any other person) which provides residential accommodation for children for the purposes of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968”.

7 For regulation 3 substitute—

“3 Approval by Secretary of State of secure accommodation in a children’s home

(1) Accommodation in a children’s home shall not be used as secure accommodation unless —

(a) in the case of accommodation in England, it has been approved by the Secretary of State for that use;

(b) in the case of accommodation in Scotland, it is provided by a service which has been approved by the Scottish Ministers under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 12 to the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010.

(2) Approval by the Secretary of State under paragraph (1) may be given subject to any terms and conditions that the Secretary of State thinks fit.”

8 In regulation 17 (records), in the words before paragraph (a), after “children’s home” insert “in England”.

Secure Accommodation (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (S.S.I. 2013 No. 205)

9 The Secure Accommodation (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (S.S.I. 2013 No. 205) are amended as follows.

10 In regulation 5 (maximum period in secure accommodation), after paragraph (2) insert—

(3) This regulation does not apply in relation to a child placed in secure accommodation in Scotland under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 (which allows accommodation in Scotland to be used for restricting the liberty of children looked after by English and Welsh local authorities).”

11 In regulation 15 (records to be kept by managers of secure accommodation in Scotland), after paragraph (2) insert—

(3) The managers must provide the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers, on request, with copies of any records kept under this regulation that relate to a child placed in secure accommodation under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 (which allows local authorities in England or Wales to place children in secure accommodation in Scotland).”

Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013 No. 1465)

12 In Article 7 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013 No. 1465) (compulsory supervision orders and interim compulsory supervision orders), after paragraph (2) insert—

(3) Where—

(a) a compulsory supervision order or interim compulsory supervision order contains a requirement of the type mentioned in section 83(2)(a) of the 2011 Act and a secure accommodation authorisation (as defined in section 85 of that Act),

(b) the place at which the child is required to reside in accordance with the order is a place in England or Wales, and

(c) by virtue of a decision to consent to the placement of the child in secure accommodation made under article 16, the child is to be placed in secure accommodation within that place,

the order is authority for the child to be placed and kept in secure accommodation within that place.”

Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (anaw 4)

13 In section 124(9) of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (anaw 4) (restrictions on arrangements for children to live outside England and Wales), after “does not apply” insert “—

(a) to a local authority placing a child in secure accommodation in Scotland under section 25 of the Children Act 1989, or

(b) ”.

Saving for existing powers

14 The amendments made by this Schedule to provisions of subordinate legislation do not affect the power to make further subordinate legislation amending or revoking the amended provisions.”.—(Edward Timpson.)

See the explanatory statement for NC1.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clauses 58 to 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Extent

Amendments made: 9, in clause 62, page 33, line 12, at end insert—

“(A1) Section (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) and paragraphs 2, 4, 5 and 14 of Schedule (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) extend to England and Wales and Scotland.”

This amendment would ensure that, where paragraphs of NS1 provide for legislation to extend to England and Wales and Scotland, the paragraphs themselves have the same extent.

Amendment 10, in clause 62, page 33, line 13, leave out subsection (1).

The subsection left out by this amendment is replaced by amendment 13.

Amendment 11, in clause 62, page 33, line 14, at beginning insert “Except as mentioned in subsection (A1),”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 9.

Amendment 12, in clause 62, page 33, line 15, leave out “enactment” and insert “provision”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 9.

Amendment 13, in clause 62, page 33, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“( ) Subject to subsections (A1) and (2), Parts 1 and 2 extend to England and Wales only.

( ) This Part extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”.—(Edward Timpson.)

This would ensure that the final Part of the Bill extends throughout the United Kingdom, as well as making changes consequential on amendment 9.

Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Commencement

Amendments made: 14, in clause 63, page 33, line 19, leave out “This Part comes” and insert “The following come”.

This amendment and amendment 15 would provide for NC1 and NS1 (placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) to come into force on the passing of the Bill.

Amendment 15, in clause 63, page 33, line 19, at end insert “—

(a) section (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) and Schedule (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain);

(b) this Part.”.—(Edward Timpson.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 14.

Clause 63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

Short title

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 12th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Timpson]

I have said that the process is ongoing. It has developed over many years, with Governments taking different approaches but all trying to improve our ability to respond to the convention in how we carry out domestic law in this country. I do not see that that process will ever have an end, so of course we need to remain open-minded about where we go in future. As things stand, we have set out a comprehensive programme of work, which gets to the heart of what will make a difference: that those charged with the responsibility of making or delivering policy have, at heart, an understanding and appreciation of children’s rights and an ability to have them at the centre of their thinking. I hope that that gives the hon. Member for South Shields a sense of the strong commitment of the Government to the UNCRC. I also hope that she will withdraw her amendment.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister and am pleased that he has made some acknowledgement of the fact that the Government’s way is not working and that there is more work to be done. I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis that my hon. Friends and I will be monitoring what the Government are doing very carefully. We look forward to a formal response to the UN committee’s concluding observations, which I am sure the Minister will provide in due course. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Sibling contact for looked after children

“(1) In section 34(1) of the Children Act 1989, after paragraph (d) insert—

“(e) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).”

(2) In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, after paragraph (c) insert—

“(d) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).”’.—(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)

This new clause would ensure that children in care are allowed reasonable contact with their siblings.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause relates to improving sibling contact for children in care. The Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to allow a looked-after child reasonable contact with their parents, but there is no similar provision for a looked-after child’s contact with their siblings or half-siblings. Work by the Family Rights Group shows that half of all sibling groups in local authority care are split up and that those in residential care are even less likely to be living with their brothers or sisters.

The Children and Young Person’s Act 2008 includes a duty on local authorities to place siblings together as far as reasonably practicable as that is generally the best option for them. I accept that in some cases, such as when there has been inter-sibling abuse, separation may be deemed necessary. However, the main barrier to siblings being placed together is a dire shortage of foster placements able or equipped to take sibling groups. Research has shown that the average number of sibling foster carers is one per local authority, and some have none at all. Even when there are sibling carers, there are no figures for how many siblings they can take. It could be a group of two, three, four or five.

That is the backdrop against which sibling contract is so important. If siblings cannot be placed together, they should have the same rights defined in legislation to have contact with one another as they do with their parents.

Many siblings who come from neglectful or abusive backgrounds often state that their only constant, positive and reassuring relationship is with their siblings. After all, they have a shared experience—and no matter how horrific it is, it is something only they truly know about. For a younger sibling, the older one is the only person who kept them safe. It is never appropriate for an older sibling to take on that role, but it is a fact that they often do.

Separating siblings in such circumstances can have consequences on placement stability and create anxiety for both the younger and older one. The younger may be worried about their new environment with strangers in an unfamiliar environment without their older protector, and the older may be in a similar situation, as well as not knowing how their younger sibling is coping or who is looking after them. If siblings have known only adults who cause them harm, the initial days in placement until they feel safe with their new carers are the most precarious.

Efforts to increase the number of carers who will take sibling groups have not matched the scale of demand. As the number of children in care rises, it is unlikely that the number of carers will catch up any time soon. In this context, it is right that sibling contact is given the same prominence as parental contact. It cannot be right that our legislation gives more weight to a child’s contact with those who may have or have caused them significant harm than with their siblings who are totally blameless.

Removing a child from a family home is one of the most traumatic and heartbreaking experiences for any children’s social worker. It means that the relationship dynamics of working with a family to improve children’s lives and to make sure they are protected from harm have reached crisis level. This may be an emotional overload for professionals, let alone the family, and often involves the police, violence, tears and aggression. The list goes on.

I recall from my own practice many occasions when I was left with a child alone in a car after the initial trauma of removing them, and having to explain to them at some roadside that not only were they going to be living somewhere else for a period that no one was sure about, but that they were going to be separated from their siblings. That is the most painful of all. No matter how the situation is explained, children often feel that that is the end—of not only their family, but their relationships with their siblings. As each child in a sibling group is dropped off at their respective placement, there is muted relief that they are safe, but deep sadness that they are completely alone.

The wheels of social services then spring into action. Solicitors for parents demand in court to have contact, as enshrined in legislation for parents, and that is arranged with urgency. In a resource-poor environment, what has to be done is often what is done first. Other issues, such as guidance that recognises the importance of maintaining contact with siblings, take a back seat and are deemed a lesser priority.

Many siblings see each other at contact with their parents, which can be three or four times a week for one hour, but they rarely have sibling-only contact. When they do, it will be monthly or considerably less often. Worse still, if that sibling is a newborn or not a full sibling, contact with their parents is separate and plans for their future are made separately. That breaks that early attachment between newborns and their elder siblings before it has fully developed, leaving an unimaginable feeling of loss for the siblings. However, the parents’ contact with the newborn is upheld, even if all of the children could be reunited at home with their parents, or if they are placed for permanence together, which again brings more difficulties when settling into a new permanent home.

The sibling relationships of children from abusive homes are the most enduring. A recent Ofsted study found that 86% of all children in care thought it was important to keep siblings together in care, while more than three quarters thought councils should help to keep children in touch with their siblings. A recent Centre for Social Justice report stated:

“One of our greatest concerns is that the bonds between siblings in care, which can lead to greatly valued lifelong relationships, are being broken.”

We all know that guidance is no substitute for a clear duty. While not everything can be in the Bill, if we really value and understand sibling relationships we should absolutely allow their voices to be heard in the legislation.

[Edward Timpson]

Again, I thank the hon. Lady for her amendment. I have a lot of sympathy for what she said and welcome many of the points she raised. Like her, I have extensive experience of situations in which decisions are being made about brothers or sisters’ futures together. Those are often difficult decisions, not only because of the circumstances in which those children happen to be, but often because of their complex family relationships.

The hon. Lady raised practical points about finding placements for them that meet all those children’s needs. I was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on looked-after children and care leavers before becoming a Minister, and I heard at almost every meeting of the need to listen to children who value their relationship with their sibling. I hope that most of us know from our own lives that it is our brothers and sisters who provide us with the most enduring relationships throughout our whole lives. Sibling contact can provide continuity and stability for a child—particularly those who are vulnerable at a time of uncertainty and, possibly, great change. It can help a child to maintain their identity in what could be an unfamiliar environment for them, and it can help to promote their self-esteem and provide them with additional emotional support.

I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Lady said. It is a matter of making sure that we have the balance right in legislation, so that those who are making those difficult decisions are able to do so against a backdrop of understanding the importance of those relationships for those children, but always in those children’s best interests. The new clause seeks to add an express duty to the Children Act 1989 for local authorities to allow a looked-after child reasonable contact with his or her siblings, which is absolutely right when it is in the best interests of the child.

I reassure hon. Members that that is already provided for under existing legislation, and any reading of case law, in Family Law Reports or elsewhere, will reveal that, in contact cases, sibling contact arrangements are carefully considered by the courts before they make a decision. Section 34(2) of the Children Act 1989 states:

“On an application made by the authority or the child, the court may make such order as it considers appropriate with respect to the contact…between the child and any named person.”

“Any named person” includes, as is well established in law, half and full siblings. Similarly, schedule 2(15)(1) to that Act requires local authorities to endeavour to promote contact between the child and any relative, friend or other person connected with the child if that is consistent with the child’s welfare and is reasonably practical.

Matters relating to sibling contact are also spelt out in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. If a child has a sibling for whom the responsible authority or another authority are providing accommodation, and the children have not been placed together, arrangements must be made to promote contact between them, so far as is consistent with the child’s welfare. Also, matters relating to contact with parents and siblings must be included in a child’s placement plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for that response. I hope that when we next meet to discuss all the matters he has committed to discuss with myself and others on the Bill, he is open to exploring how often this situation occurs, because the example I gave is not isolated. If the Minister is prepared to explore further incidences such as I have raised, I would be happy to withdraw the new clause.

[Edward Timpson]

As I indicated, I always have an open-door policy, and this is no exception. Because it is an area that both of us, as Minister and shadow Minister, have cause to remain interested in, it makes perfect sense for us to continue that dialogue beyond this Committee.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 18

Assessment of physical and mental health and emotional wellbeing needs

‘(1) In section 22C of the Children Act 1989, after subsection 11 insert—

“(11A) Regulations made under subsection (11) must make arrangements for—

(a) the assessment of a looked after child’s mental and physical health and emotional wellbeing needs, and

(b) the assessment of the mental and physical health and emotional wellbeing needs of relevant and former relevant children.

(11B) Subsection (11A) shall come into force at the end of the financial year ending with 31 March 2019.”’—(Tulip Siddiq.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make regulations for mental health assessments for looked after children. A time delay in commencement is included to allow time for the pilots to be completed before details of the regulations are decided.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is me again, Mrs Main—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The new clause provides that every local authority should designate a lead person who has responsibility for family and friends carers. As the Minister knows, there are a multitude of arrangements whereby a child may be cared for by extended family or friends. At times there will be no or limited involvement from children’s services in some of those arrangements. That can make it difficult for carers to know who to turn to should they need help or advice or if their situation changes. Having a senior lead manager within local authorities who can ensure that the authority is effectively meeting its responsibilities to all children in family and friends care and complying with statutory family and friends care guidance is important.

DFE statutory guidance on family and friends care states:

“The Director of Children’s Services should identify a senior manager who holds overall responsibility for the family and friends care policy. He or she will need to ensure that the policy meets the statutory requirements, and is responsive to the identified needs of children and carers.”

However, a 2015 study by the Family Rights Group examined 53 English local authorities’ family and friends care policies and found that one third made no reference to a senior manager with such responsibility. The new clause seeks for that to be a duty in primary legislation. It should not be an additional burden on local authorities as they should be complying already. In areas where that is not already common practice, the clause would provide family and friends carers and others clarity on who to contact. The duty already exists for adoption; adoption support services legislation states that an adoption support services adviser, whose role is to give advice both to adopters and to the local authority about adoption support and services, needs to be in place in each local authority. I can see no reason why other permanent carers of children under arrangements other than adoption should not be afforded the same support.

[Edward Timpson]

I am afraid it is also me again, Mrs Main—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I was not trying to tee that up, but I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their response. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for the proposed new clause, which would introduce, as part of the Children Act 1989, a new requirement on local authorities to appoint a designated lead for family and friends care who would be responsible for co-ordinating the provision of family and friends care services within their area.

I am sure we all recognise and appreciate the valuable contribution made by family and friends across the country who care for children who, for whatever reason, cannot live with their parents. It is important that all family and friends carers are aware of and able to access support services so that they can provide the high quality care that children require. Our statutory guidance on family and friends care already requires local authorities to publish a policy setting out their approach to promoting and supporting the needs of all children living with family and friends carers. The policy must be updated regularly and made available widely.

Importantly, the statutory guidance clearly states that a senior manager must hold overall responsibility for family and friends care to ensure that the local authority’s policy meets the identified needs of children and carers. As such, I do not believe it is necessary to appoint a designated lead for family and friends care. Such a requirement would be over-prescriptive and would reduce the ability of local authorities to respond to local needs in the way they consider best.

To ensure that local authorities are fulfilling their duties properly, I wrote to all directors of children’s services in October last year. In my letter I reminded them of their duty to have an up-to-date and comprehensive family and friends care policy, as well as a senior manager with overall responsibility for the policy that others would be aware of. I asked them to send a web link to that policy, and the details of their named lead, to the Family Rights Group. I will ask officials for an update from the Family Rights Group to ascertain how the situation appears as regards the details we have requested.

In addition, we provided £150,000 of funding to Grandparents Plus and three partner organisations in 2015-16 to develop an early help model for family and friends carers, to ensure that they are aware of, and can get access to, the support they need. The model includes website materials and bespoke training for professionals. I believe that that is the approach that is required. I have had the opportunity to have several meetings with the Family Rights Group during the passage of the Bill, and remain open to further constructive discussion about what more we can do with the group to improve practice on the ground. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that in the circumstances she can withdraw her new clause.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I was pleased to hear about the Minister’s proactive engagement with the Family Rights Group on the issue, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22

Extending Placement Orders to Special Guardianship Orders

“In the Adoption and Children Act 2002, after section 21, insert—

“21A Placement orders: special guardianship orders

(1) In this section a placement order is an order made by the court authorising a local authority to place a child, whom that local authority has decided should be placed under a special guardianship order, with any prospective special guardian who may be identified by the authority.

(2) A “prospective special guardian” is a person who is entitled to apply for a special guardianship order with respect to a child under section 14A(5) of the Children Act 1989.

(3) The court may not make a placement order in respect of a child unless—

(a) the child is subject to a care order,

(b) the court is satisfied that the conditions in section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 (conditions for making a care order) are met, or

(c) the child has no parent or guardian.

(4) The court may only make a placement order if the court is satisfied—

(a) that no other permanence order is appropriate and that only a special guardianship order will meet the needs of the child, and

(b) in the case of each parent or guardian of the child—

(i) that the parent or guardian has consented to the child being placed under a special guardianship order with the prospective special guardian identified by the local authority and has not withdrawn consent, or

(ii) that the parent’s or guardian’s consent should be dispensed with.

This subsection is subject to section 52 (parental etc consent).

(5) When making a decision in any proceedings where the court might make a placement order, the court must apply the welfare checklist under section 1(4) of this Act and must consider the whole range of powers available to it in the child’s case (whether under this Act or the Children Act 1989), including making no order.

(6) On the making of a placement order and until such an order is revoked—

(a) any existing child arrangement or supervision order ceases to have effect,

(b) no other order may be applied for, and

(c) a care order is suspended.

(7) A placement order continues in force until—

(a) it is revoked under section 24,

(b) a special guardianship order is made in respect of the child, or

(c) the child marries, forms a civil partnership or attains the age of 18 years.””—(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)

This new clause would extend the provisions for placement orders under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to special guardianship orders.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would extend the provisions for placement orders under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 to special guardianship orders. I have argued in discussion with the Minister at various times that there is a need for special guardianship to have the same status as adoption. Children who are placed with members of their wider family under SGOs have had the same difficulties as those placed for adoption. Often, they may never before have met the members of the wider or extended family with whom they are placed, and they may move to another part of the country, as is the case with adoption.

Unlike what happens with adoption, however, because there is no severance of parental rights many children under special guardianship maintain contact with their parents. The parents could have harmed them in some way—hence their removal from their care in the first place—so special guardians, in many instances, have even more difficulties than adopters. They must manage complex family relationships while attempting to build a relationship with the child in their care. I assure the Committee that that is far from easy.

That is why it is vital that when SGOs are made it is on the same robust terms as adoption, and there should be a requirement, as with adoption, for thorough and robust assessment, including placing the child with the new carers to assess the suitability of the placement. Only when those requirements are satisfied should the matter return to court, so that the applicants can be supported in the making of the SGO.

At present there is no comprehensive legal requirement for anyone to conduct a full, thorough assessment of a potential special guardian. The court can make the orders of its own volition. Statistics published by the Department for Education show that 3,830 special guardianship orders were made in the year ending 31 March 2016. The total number of SGOs granted has come close to doubling since 2010 when 1,780 were made. I have stated before in the House that because the process of applying for an SGO is less stringent and because an order can be made without any testing of the placement, meaning that that the process is less arduous and time-consuming than adoption, SGOs are being misused.

I know that the Department has already done some work to look at that, but I am not aware of any figures on SGO breakdown. However, I know anecdotally and from practice that it can be common, yet such an outcome can cause immeasurable harm to all those involved. A clear lesson learned from fostering and adoption is that the assessment process allows families the opportunity to conclude that it is not the right course of action for them. Under the current SGO arrangements family members are far too often hurried through an assessment process that allows insufficient time for proper assessment, and allows them no time to reflect on their commitment to a life-changing and lifelong decision.

In recent years the Government issued a statutory instrument requiring greater attention to be paid when reports on special guardians are prepared for the court to the needs of the child and to the potential of the special guardian to meet them in the short term and throughout the child’s life. However, that is clearly not enough. Courts are not allowed to make adoption orders easily, and they should not be allowed to make SGOs easily. That approach has widespread support from the family judiciary, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and many directors of children’s services. Knowing the Minister’s professional background prior to coming to this place, I would be very surprised if he was against this new clause.

[Edward Timpson]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the new clause, which seeks to improve decisions about whether to place a child under a special guardianship order. I recognise the problems that she is trying to address and agree that we need to improve decision making about permanence options for children who cannot live with their birth parents. Indeed, that is exactly what clause 8 seeks to do—to improve permanence decision making. Uncharacteristically, I not only agree with the synopsis of the hon. Lady but would say that in some ways, she has gone further than I would in trying to resolve the issue. Clause 8 is part of trying to do that. As Andy Elvin of the Adolescent and Children’s Trust—TACT—said:

“All of this is eminently sensible. In practical terms it will raise the evidential bar for all care planning. The biggest impact, rightly, will be on special guardianship order assessments.”

That needs to be addressed because, as the hon. Lady set out, we have seen an exponential rise in the use of special guardianship orders without confidence in the assessment process to establish whether the carer named in the order has sufficient ability to look after that child and meet its specific needs for the duration of its time in their care, up to the age of 18. Clause 8 seeks to look at the longer-term requirement.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I am not entirely clear where clause 8 refers to special guardianship orders. If the Minister could clarify that, it would be helpful.

[Edward Timpson]

Under clause 8, when a court is making a decision about a child’s future permanence arrangements, whatever order that may be under, it has to consider the child’s long-term needs and the abilities of the carer. The carer may be a long-term foster carer or a special guardian, or the child may be returning home, but they have to demonstrate the qualities and abilities necessary to meet that child’s specific needs in not only the immediate but the long term. That is an important distinction.

As the hon. Lady said, one concern is that some assessments for special guardianship orders have been cursory at best. That has led, in some cases, to the breakdown of the placement. We all know that that is the worst possible outcome for the child involved. We carried out an important piece of work with those in the court system, in children’s services and in the charitable sector to understand what was driving those decisions and the breakdown of those placements. Our response was to tighten up and make more stringent the assessment process required before someone is approved as a potential long-term carer for a child under a special guardianship order.

The hon. Lady asked about evidence on breakdown rates. I recall that Professor Julie Selwyn from Bristol University carried out an extensive piece of research a couple of years ago, which showed that the breakdown rate for special guardianships was around 6%—double what it was for adoption. I know the figure for those returning to care was much higher, and I can share that with the hon. Lady once it is to hand.

There is cause to look at rectifying that and coming up with the right approach. We must ensure that in doing so, we give the court the tools it needs to make not only the right decision but a timely one. However, I am not convinced that the approach the hon. Lady proposes in the new clause is the right way forward. I want to take a few minutes to explain why so that she is fully aware of the reasons we do not support the amendment.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Does the Minister not agree that it is important that an SGO placement, as it is the same as an adoption, has an opportunity to be tested to avoid further breakdowns? The Minister quoted Andy Elvin from TACT; the new clause has the support of TACT.

[Edward Timpson]

I am aware of that. Mr Elvin is also very supportive of the changes we are making in clause 8. It is worth reminding the hon. Lady that I do not think there is the universal support for the new clause that she suggested. There are mixed views about what the right approach is and that is why we need to tread with some caution on the way forward.

The majority of special guardianship orders are given to carers with whom the child is living. They are cases where the child already has that relationship or is already in a caring situation. For the few who are not, the proposal would provide an opportunity, as the hon. Lady has said, to test the special guardianship placement in practice and allow the special guardian to reflect on the additional responsibilities they are taking on.

In some cases, that is very sensible. However, we believe that there is already sufficient flexibility to allow for that in the current system if a local authority and court believe that more time is needed to carry out a full assessment of a potential special guardian. Without boring the Committee too much about my previous life at the Bar, I recall a number of cases where there were adjournments of hearings in order for that to take place. Courts have the right to adjourn care proceedings to allow more time for an assessment to take place.

Although we have encouraged courts to complete care proceedings within 26 weeks, the rules are clear that this time can and should be extended where it would be in the interests of children to do so. In many cases, that happens where a potential special guardian has been identified late in care proceedings. We hope that the emphasis now on more pre-proceedings work will ensure that there are fewer cases where at the last minute a new potential carer comes forward.

Other courts have granted care orders to allow the local authority to place the child with a foster carer or kinship carer who is a potential special guardian—that is another route to test a placement—and the special guardianship order is then applied for after the child has lived with the carer for a few months and after a full assessment of their parenting capacity and skills has been carried out.

Although good decision-making is crucial, I am not persuaded that the introduction of a new special guardianship placement order is the best way forward. Indeed, there might be some risk that an order of that kind could encourage delay or instability, if courts and local authorities were to use it as an opportunity for a trial period for an arrangement that has little potential to succeed. That could cause harm for the child in the long term, if they move to a new placement.

In agreeing with the hon. Lady about the synopsis, we part ways somewhat when it comes to the solution. As she has acknowledged, we are already making changes through regulation and in the Bill to ensure that any assessment for a potential carer as a special guardian is as robust as it would be for any other placement. We know that we need to try to improve the long-term stability of those placements to avoid the unnecessary breakdown that we are seeing in some cases. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will agree to withdraw the new clause.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Minister is consistent in disappointing me today. He said that the majority of SGOs are where children are already living with their carers. What about the minority? Surely they deserve the new clause to be in place, because one placement that breaks down for any child is devastating and we should not be allowing it to happen. I will therefore press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

Again, I thank the hon. Member for South Shields. I agree with the new clause in its entirety that, where it is appropriate, safeguarding partners and relevant agencies should work together across more than one authority area. That is provided for in clause 21 of the Bill. I suspect that the fact the hon. Lady did not refer to elements of that in her speech suggests that she is not pushing that issue.

Cross-area working relationships can also be beneficial in respect to arrangements made to support foster carers. We recognise the challenging but valuable and rewarding role that foster carers have, and the positive impact that they make to the lives of many vulnerable children and young people. My own parents fostered for more than 30 years, so I am fully versed in not only the demands of foster care but the huge benefits that it can bring not only to the children being looked after but to the foster family themselves.

I have no doubt that all such foster carers, some of whom were recognised in the new year’s honours list only a few weeks ago, are among the most impressive people. They give up not only their time, but their homes and often their lives in order to look after children who have no blood connection to them. Whether through altruistic tendencies or a need to reach out, they feel a strong urge to be there for those children, often in difficult circumstances. We recognise the challenge, and it is important that all foster carers are seen as a key part of the team working with a child. They should receive the right support and training to meet the emotional and physical needs of the children in their care.

Regulations, statutory guidance and the national minimum standards apply across England. They make it clear that fostering service providers should make available the training, advice, information and support that foster carers need to look after the children placed with them. That includes practical, financial and emotional support. Fostering services are, however, given some flexibility to deliver in a way to best meet local need. The Government also recommend a national minimum allowance for foster carers. It is for the fostering service to decide the payment systems, but we expect all foster carers to receive at least that allowance, and many receive more.

We recognise, however, the need to keep the fostering system under review. That is why we have committed to undertake a national fostering stocktake. As the hon. Member for South Shields is aware, the stocktake will be a fundamental review of the whole fostering system. It will consider, among other issues, the allowances, support and training that foster carers receive.

The stocktake will be an opportunity to examine many of the issues that the hon. Lady has raised, as well as local variations in practice, and to identify good practice—for example, in how local authorities work with other agencies to recruit and support foster carers. The movement is national and needs a national response. Crucially, the stocktake will help us better understand what changes are needed, and identify practical next steps to bring about sustained improvement to the foster care system. We will work closely with all partners to understand how best to improve outcomes for children in foster care.

We have already begun work on the stocktake. We have started a thorough analysis of available data and statistics. Alongside that, we have commissioned a literature review of all the available evidence on foster care. Both those pieces of work will be completed in the first quarter of 2017. Further information, including the launch of a call for evidence, will also be published in the next few months.

I share the hon. Lady’s commitment to ensure that foster carers are valued, for both personal and professional reasons, and that the right support is in place. We now have an opportunity for her and other colleagues to contribute to the stocktake, to ensure that we continue to support what I think is one of the most precious roles in our society, and one that we should help to nurture for the future of vulnerable children in our care.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Given the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mr Syms.)

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Timpson]

Part of the evaluation is through the expert panel, which is involved in ensuring some independent oversight of the pilot, but it would need to be evaluated locally, as well as nationally. In addition to local government, the Department will keep a close eye on the development of the pilot; I will say a little more about that later.

If a pilot is not successful, it will be monitored locally, as well as nationally by the Department, to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on children. For example, we can track the relevant performance metrics, and random case audits are a helpful tool as well. As I mentioned in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, the expert panel will scrutinise the proposed monitoring arrangements locally and by the Department to ensure that they are robust in what they are evaluating. If the Department gains intelligence through those processes that a pilot is not working in the best interests of children, that would be investigated and acted on immediately.

All regulations can be revoked through the negative procedure at any point. To answer a question posed earlier about whether a pilot can be terminated within the three-year period, I should say that it can be revoked at any point, should that be deemed necessary. That is clear in regulation. We will also want assurance in the application from a local authority that it will end a pilot immediately if there is evidence of an adverse impact on children.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I am not sure whether the Minister will include this in his comments, but is not putting in the provision that a pilot can be revoked at any point if it is causing harm to children a backward way of doing things? Will he not accept the comments made by me and my hon. Friends that there should be robust consultation? The Bill should be built on the evidence now—not after the fact, to remedy mistakes once they have been made.

[Edward Timpson]

I understand what the hon. Lady says and take it in good spirit, but it misses the point of what these clauses are about: building an evidence base. We cannot future-proof all of children’s social care on the basis that we are already seeing failure—I will come to the geographical spread of success and failure across the country—irrespective of the fact that we have a very rigid and complex legislative framework within which all these local authorities have to work. In itself, that framework is providing the inconsistencies that it is meant to prevent. What we are trying to do in the Bill, in a careful and controlled way, is enable different ways of working that are not about what local authorities have to do but about how they do it. That is the purpose of the new clauses.

Hon. Members also asked what would happen if there was a situation where more than one local authority was in a pilot. New clause 9 makes provision for combined authorities to apply for use of the power set out in it. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked in particular about the Greater Manchester combined authority, which I think involves 10 local authorities that are currently working on their own devolution settlement. Of course, that may involve children’s services, because I understand that such services are part of their agenda. Where there is a combined authority, we will want to see any application made under these provisions, just as we would for any individual local authority.

Similarly, if a local authority was running a pilot and subsequently became a combined authority, it would need to reapply for any change or extension of the pilot. We will make sure that that is set out in statutory guidance, because that would clearly be a change in circumstances in respect of what would have been approved originally by Parliament. As a consequence, the authority would need to seek further approval.

The hon. Member for South Shields also returned to the issue of profit making. As I have said before and will say again now, the power to innovate has absolutely nothing to do with profit making in children’s social care. The clauses make it clear that it cannot be used to revisit the established position on profit, and we have also been clear that pilots are granted on the basis of achieving better outcomes for children and not on efficiencies. I do not see any evidence that this process could be linked to profit making and we will make it clear in statutory guidance that the local authority will be expected to use the financial impact assessment as part of its application, detailing the expected costs and benefits of a pilot. That information will also be available to the expert panel when it scrutinises applications.

[Edward Timpson]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s first point is yes, but of course the authority still has to comply with all the elements put in the applications and the process that follows in respect of the scrutiny of the application, and whether it is approved. There need to be very clear lines of responsibility and accountability within that, because ultimately it is the local authority that is responsible for providing those services; it holds that function.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about the Mayor, it is not one that I have been asked directly before; I know that it is becoming more relevant in some parts of the country. My initial view—I will clarify it later; if he does not mind, I will take some time to do that—would be that this is something approved by Parliament, which cannot be superseded by a Mayor or their powers. However, I will certainly seek to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets chapter and verse on that point.

I also wish to consider the issue around consultation, which hon. Members have raised. The Department has had a period of very open consultation about the power and it has spoken with a wide range of organisations, including representative bodies of social work, local government, the voluntary sector, children’s organisations and others. Those meetings have been instrumental—indeed, critical—in forming our thinking on the new clauses, but we will of course continue to consult as we develop the detail of the process. We have committed to consult publicly on the statutory guidance to accompany the clauses and, as I have said before, there will also be consultation on each individual use of the power.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Does the Minister not accept the information I shared with the Committee earlier: that there are far more organisations, practitioners and experts who are against the new clauses than are for them? More than 100,000 people have signed a petition against the measures. If the Minister really wanted to listen to the sector and the public, would he not be going back and deeply re-thinking the new clauses? Even the NSPCC has said:

“Despite numerous conversations with ministers and officials, the evidence for the need for this power remains unconvincing and does not justify the potential risks of suspending primary legislation.”

More than 50 organisations in this country who are experts in the field share that view. Why is the Minister not listening to them?

[Edward Timpson]

Of course I respect all the views expressed about the Government’s view on any policy. I am not somebody who will not listen; in fact, I dare suggest that I have a good track record of listening to those who have views on matters that fall within my portfolio. The truth is that no legislation under her party’s Government or this one has ever passed where people have expressed only one side of the argument. Can the hon. Lady tell me any different?

It is my job to listen to both sides of the argument but to come to a considered and informed view as a decision-maker in a position of responsibility to make legislation. I have already alluded to the many representations I have had that I cannot ignore, from the likes of the Local Government Association and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. I also mention the support from the Children’s Commissioner for the new clause, which I did not mention before. There is a balance to be struck. I accept that this is not an uncontroversial piece of legislation. It has provoked strong views, but is one on which, on balance, I think we have come to the right conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

My hon. Friend is right: the whole purpose is to ensure that this is a grassroots movement from a local level. There is no direction from Government about how local authorities decide they would like to provide the services they are responsible for. If no local authority applies, that is the end of the matter. The reason we are debating the clause is that local authorities have come forward and said that they want to be able to do that. It is important that we listen to those who are on the frontline, charged with making decisions and bringing policy into action, when they come to Government with a very clear view about what they think needs to be done.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I take the Minister’s point about consultation; there are always two sides to the argument, but the balance is heavily weighted against him on this measure. Other colleagues may correct me if I am wrong, but I have always held the belief that there is a history in this House of making child protection legislation—legislation that protects our most vulnerable children—on more of a cross-party consensus, as was the case with Children Act 1989, which is the flank of legislation used by all practitioners and all agencies when discharging functions in relation to protecting children.

The Minister said that local authorities are coming forward. I do not want to embarrass anyone, but when I asked one local authority that he had cited before as coming forward what power it wanted to be exempt from, it could not say. Is it not the case that there is just not enough support out there for these measures at all? The new clauses should be scrapped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman took the time to read the letter that I sent round to all Committee members, which set out a number of examples of how local authorities think the power can be used. There is no presumption that those would be granted, of course: any application would need to go through robust scrutiny before it was agreed, as I have set out.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Timpson]

I am just answering the question from the hon. Gentleman, if the hon. Lady could be patient for a few moments. If the hon. Gentleman rereads the letter, he will remember that it talks about testing changes to the planning processes, trialling new approaches to the independent reviewing officer, more agile approaches to adoption and fostering assessments, and looking at different approaches to assessing friends and family carers.

Of course, the whole point of the new clauses is that it is not me telling local authorities, “This is what you must do”; it is for them, over time, to come up with their own ideas about how they think they can improve their services. It is not what they have to do, but how they do it. If that is a concept that some struggle with—not necessarily the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps some in his party—I am afraid we are never going to have a meeting of minds; we are not going to find the consensus that, I agree, we are able to reach in the majority of cases on child protection.

There is a fundamental disagreement about what we are trying to achieve and the way we go about it. I am absolutely sure that the approach we are taking will do what local authorities want and what Eileen Munro set out in her report almost six years ago.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Timpson]

I will now give way.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Minister is being extremely generous. I read his letter in depth and the fact sheet that went with it. As I said in my opening comments, there are four examples that would get rid of vast swathes of legislation that protects children. Evidence from CoramBAAF to this Committee debunks every one of those four examples and highlights the extremely dangerous pitfalls there would be if that were to take place.

The Minister keeps quoting Eileen Munro, as if in her review in 2011 she recommended dispensing with primary legislation. She never did. That is what the Minister is trying to do, but Eileen Munro never recommended that.

[Edward Timpson]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady takes that view, because I was under the impression that the review into child protection carried out by Professor Eileen Munro in 2011 was widely welcomed and respected across the political spectrum. That is exactly what is reflected in the many Hansard reports I have read from across the House, in which hon. Members all lauded a report that finally got down to the nuts and bolts of why we need to have a system that, as the tri-borough rightly expressed in relation to this clause, gets social workers out working directly with families and away from being in front of a computer at their desks.

The reason why I keep quoting Eileen Munro is that she was the person charged by Government to provide an independent review, which has been considered, scrutinised and generally approved by this House as the way to go. I am often held to account for how many of Eileen Munro’s recommendations we have implemented, so I place credence in what she has to say about what we are trying to do, because she has already considered it and come up with a solution for Government, in her independent capacity. She says:

“I welcome the introduction of the power to innovate set out in the Children and Social Work Bill. This is a critical part of the journey set out in my Independent Review of Child Protection towards a child welfare system that reflects the complexity and diversity of children’s needs.”

I cannot ignore that, because it demonstrates that her report is still relevant in many ways. I would like to know whether the hon. Member for South Shields agrees with the Munro report. If she does, but disagrees with what Eileen Munro is saying now, what has changed? What is different? I cannot see where the logic would take us.

That is why it is important to allow local authorities such as Hampshire, North Yorkshire, the tri-borough and others—such as Richmond and Kingston with their “Achieving for Children” in Richmond—to try out new ways of working. They might not know, at the moment, exactly what those will be, but they need the opportunity to try them in a controlled, safe way. The Bill provides that without removing swathes of legislation. It enables them to trial or pilot a new way of working, exactly as was done with social work practices under the last Labour Government. Then a decision can be made about whether to go forward with it.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Minister seems to be painting the picture that I disagreed with Eileen Munro’s recommendations. I certainly did not. In fact, I strongly supported recommendation 10 that councils should have a legal duty to provide enough early intervention services, which this Government rejected. He listened to my opening comments. He knows why I disagree with the new clauses, and he knows why thousands of people outside this House do as well.

[Edward Timpson]

I am not sure what question the hon. Lady wants me to answer on the back of that, but I can reassure her that Eileen Munro said in her conclusion:

“A move from a compliance to a learning culture will require those working in child protection to be given more scope to exercise professional judgment in deciding how best to help children and their families.”

I still do not understand what there is in our clauses, according to the hon. Lady, that contradicts that approach.

There are a number of other issues that I want to cover before I conclude, because it is important that every question asked by an hon. Member receives a response. One question was about which of the measures would be within the scope in the Bill. IROs in particular have been mentioned as an example; it is only an example. There has been some debate about the possibility of relaxing IRO support. The local authorities interested in that approach are talking not about getting rid of the role in its entirety but about using it more flexibly; it is an important distinction to make.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked where improving outcomes is now in relation to the Bill. We have expanded the requirements that we set out in relation to new clause 2, replacing them with a more detailed set of requirements to ensure that the outcomes that we are seeking for the relevant children, whom I listed earlier, are much more clearly defined. We have also extended the consultation requirements on local authorities to go beyond safeguarding partners to include other relevant persons, particularly in relation to children and young people. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned schools, which are important and which we must ensure are part of the consultation where relevant.

Depending on the impact that the use of a power will have, it might be appropriate for local authorities to consult publicly, as they would in other circumstances. If the Secretary of State were dissatisfied with the extent of consultation, she could ask local authorities to widen it before agreeing to grant an application.

I risk of falling out a little further with the hon. Member for South Shields. She unhelpfully raised the link between funding and local Government support for these new clauses. I can categorically say there is no link between them and funding received by any local authority. The chief social worker was simply urging the profession to take this opportunity. I am sorry that the hon. Lady chose to try and suggest, or at least insinuate, otherwise and I hope she will disassociate herself from those comments.

In closing, I want to reiterate two points that must not be overlooked. First, this power is about grass-roots innovation. It is all about believing in and trusting professionals to test new approaches, and it is hard. The purpose of the power is to improve the services we deliver for children. If we look at who is calling for this power, it is not private companies or failing children’s services seeking to cut costs, but some of our country’s most inspirational leaders and innovative charities. To characterise this as something that is intended to take away support from children or even enable privatisation is to misrepresent our ambition and undermine the integrity and professionalism of staff who work with children on the frontline.

The new clauses being debated by the Committee today are significantly different from those debated in the other place, and I hope the Committee recognises that the Government have listened and taken substantial steps to put safeguards in place around the power. I remain ready at any time to discuss these new clauses further, but in the end, they are a genuine attempt to help local authorities test different approaches and better ways of working in the interests of children. I urge the Committee to support them.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I want to make some brief concluding comments.

If Government Members want to vote for this, they should be able to articulate with total conviction and clarity which primary legislation—out of the lists provided by concerned organisations and individuals under threat— they are and are not comfortable with a local authority, even their own, opting out of. They must be able to articulate why they are happy to give local authorities the opportunity of opting out of supporting disabled children in their area or visiting vulnerable children in their area and why they are satisfied to do so against a groundswell of objection outside and inside the House, even among Government Members. What culpability are they prepared to accept when children in their area have been harmed as a result and claim redress from the state?

The Minister asked for support, but he has not articulated a case, built on strong evidence and stakeholder engagement, for why these clauses are needed. He has not offered any comfort or explanation to people who are seriously concerned about the threat that these clauses pose to vast swathes of legal protection, on which the most vulnerable children and young people rely. I have not been reassured that the endgame is not the marketisation of social work.

These clauses have been the main thrust of the Bill from the outset. They epitomise this ideologically driven Government at their very worst and set a precedent, as Liberty, CoramBAAF and others have said in their evidence, for changing the fundamental rules on how our country’s laws are made and how we are governed, which MPs on all sides of the House have always adhered to. I am deeply disappointed that this Minister, of all people, is going along with this. We on this side will never, ever go along with it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

This is a new form of accreditation and assessment. Over time, all practitioners who want to work in the field will need to be accredited against the new standards set out in the knowledge and skills statement. The difference now is that there are three different tiers. One of the things that has led to our bringing in this proposal is the strong feeling that there has not been a clear career pathway for children’s social workers. When they become experienced they may even become Members of Parliament or they end up in management, away from the frontline but still using their great expertise and knowledge about how to deliver good social work. They have an opportunity to supervise practitioners or to become a practice leader.

Those who are already accredited and have shown that they have relevant experience will be well placed to meet the new accreditation standards that are being set for supervisory and practice leader role. We hope that over time that will enable more of those very high-quality, well-versed and experienced social workers to remain active in social work, rather than our losing that precious commodity as they move into corporate roles within their organisation. I hope that explanation finds favour with the hon. Gentleman and that hon. Members will support the new clause.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I have a few brief comments and questions for the Minister. I am a little concerned that we are seeing an attempt to put back into the Bill powers for the Secretary of State to determine professional standards and assess whether social worker practitioners meet them or not. It is right that Ministers should want to take action to improve standards, but will the Minister explain what those standards will be as they will be subject to secondary legislation and therefore not to intense parliamentary scrutiny? It is only right that the Committee is clear about the intention of the new clause and understands why the Secretary of State feels the need to determine professional social worker standards. It is also a little concerning that after the success in the Lords of the noble Lord Hunt as regards an arm’s length social worker regulatory body, new clause 10(1)(b) is now proposed. Will the Minister explain the rationale for the new clause and give assurances that there will not be Government interference, influence or Government-funded assessment activities of social workers against improvement standards?

The new clause attempts to reassert the role of the Secretary of State in setting standards and developing assessment benchmarks post-qualification. Could that not result in confusion and conflict with the role and functions of the proposed social worker regulatory body, or is the intention that the Secretary of State and persons appointed to assess improvement will be a de facto second regulator? I am sure the Minister agrees that that could have the adverse effect of creating confusion about who is setting and who is assessing standards. It could create more bureaucracy in an already highly complicated arena and would have an adverse effect on recruitment and retention—an area in which, as the Minister knows, the sector is already struggling.

After this morning’s debate, I cannot help thinking that there is an attempt to do something else with the new clause, especially as it has been introduced once again without any consultation or discussion with the social work sector. In answering my questions, can the Minister convince us otherwise?

[Edward Timpson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her reasoned and helpful questions to try to establish what the new clause proposes. I think I have set that out in some detail already, but I will try to address some of the specifics that she has raised.

I have already given a picture of what the consultation has involved to date. It is also worth reminding the Committee that more than 1,000 social workers have volunteered to test out the assessment accreditation process as it is rolled out so that we can be sure that what we have at the other end is fit for purpose. There has been widespread involvement of the social work profession. This is not a new phenomenon. It is being brought in very carefully as regards this important change for those working on the frontline.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, which would ensure that all local authorities would provide accurate, age-appropriate personal, social and health education, including age-appropriate sex and relationship education. I believe that we speak for most of the hon. Members in the Committee Room, and in the House more broadly, in saying that steps in such a direction are necessary and important to ensure that children can stay safe, happy and healthy in the 21st century. The current guidance in the area, as my hon. Friends have said, is out of date, and therefore woefully unable to address the challenges and possible dangers they outlined. The education system must respond to change in society to provide young people with the skills and knowledge they need to be safe. While guidance in PSHE and particularly in sex and relationships education is not able to do that, the dangers are clear, as is the case for acting.

I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Education Secretary seem to be coming round to the cross-party consensus on the issue, with suggestions in the media that the Education Secretary is planning a change of policy in that area. The issue is not about politics or partisan point scoring, but about protecting the best interests and the health of children. I am sure all Members in this room will agree that that must be one of our highest priorities.

The Bill offers an ideal opportunity for the Government to make the changes in our education system that are so badly needed. I hope the Minister will support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow.

[Edward Timpson]

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Walthamstow on a stoic effort when she is clearly under the weather? I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Members who have spoken in what has been a helpful debate in teasing out the issues that surround these sensitive subjects. Now is the time to make sure that every child has access to effective, factually accurate, age-appropriate sex and relationships education and PSHE. That is why we are responding positively and strongly to calls for further action. I am grateful to the hon. Members for tabling this new clause.

Perhaps surprisingly, we have ended up with a greater level of consensus on this new clause than we have had on previous new clauses. As I have said in previous debates on the Bill, we hear the call for further action on PSHE and we have committed to exploring all the options to improve delivery of SRE and PSHE. We are actively looking at how best to address both the quality of delivery, rightly raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, and accessibility to ensure that all children can be supported to develop positive, healthy relationships and to thrive in modern Britain today. We welcome the support in delivering this in a timely and considered manner.

The Secretary of State herself has made this a personal priority, as we have heard, and we will be able to say more at a later stage in the Bill about how the Government intend to secure provision that is fit for purpose, inclusive and supports all young people growing up in our country today. It therefore seems to me that we are all pursuing similar aims. We all welcomed the excellent report published on 13 September by the Women and Equalities Committee and the considered recommendations within it. We are unanimous that sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools in any form is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. We are much more alive to that and need to make sure that that is properly reflected in the way that we equip children in future.

As part of our response, published on 9 November, the Government have committed to work with other interested parties over the coming months to produce a framework to support schools to produce their own new codes of practice, setting out the principles for a whole-school approach to inclusion and tolerance to combat bullying, harassment and abuse of any kind. Alongside that we have also committed to building our evidence base to better understand the scale and scope of the problem, as well as providing best-practice examples of effective ways to work with boys and girls to promote gender equality and both prevent and respond to incidents of sexual harassment and sexual violence. We will also set up an advisory group to look at how the issues and recommendations from the Committee’s report can be best reflected within existing Department for Education guidance for schools, including the statutory guidance, “Keeping children safe in education” and our behaviour and bullying guidance.

Clearly, there is more that we need to do, which is why the Secretary of State is prioritising progress on the quality and availability of PSHE and SRE. In doing so, we must of course, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, look at the excellent work that many schools already do as the basis for any new support and requirements. As we know, sex education is already compulsory in all maintained secondary schools. Academies and free schools are also required by their funding agreement to teach a broad and balanced curriculum, and we encourage them to teach sex and relationships education within that. For example, many schools cover issues of consent within SRE, and schools draw on guidance and specialist materials from external expert agencies such as the PSHE Association, which produced the “Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) for the 21st Century” guidance in 2014. This supplementary guidance was developed by the PSHE Association, Brook, and the Sex Education Forum. It provides specific advice on what are sadly all too modern issues, including online pornography, sexting and staying safe online. The guidance equips teachers to support pupils on those challenging issues, developing their resilience and ability to manage risk.

In addition, Ofsted publishes case studies on its website that highlight effective practice in schools, including examples of how SRE is taught within PSHE. Examples include a girls’ Catholic secondary school that has used pupil feedback to enhance its programme to equip students to learn about healthy relationships and issues of abuse and consent. I do not dismiss out of hand the suggestion by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak that innovation might have a place in this arena. There is much to commend his suggestion, and I will take it away and give it further thought.

We are also actively considering calls to update the guidance on SRE. As hon. Members have said, the guidance is out of date, and attempts since 2000 to update it have not come to fruition. The guidance is already clear that young people should learn about what a healthy relationship looks like, but it does not necessarily equip children with the skills and knowledge that they need in the world as it is today or ensure that the timeless nature of SRE that the hon. Member for Walthamstow spoke about is properly reflected.

Whatever we do, as hon. Members have said—including my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, in relation to faith schools—we must attempt to allow everybody with a view a chance to make their case. It is a sensitive issue, as everyone is aware, but we want to ensure that we bring as many people with us as possible. The broader the consensus, the greater the prospect that any change will be successful. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow is aware, I have already said that work is in train and we will return to these issues later, at a stage of the Bill when the whole House will have an opportunity to debate them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling these new clauses. They would place a duty on local authorities to secure sufficient accommodation for care leavers up until the age of 21 and would extend the existing Staying Put duty to those children leaving residential children’s homes. I understand the purpose behind both the new clauses and agree that care leavers should be supported to access the accommodation they need.

As a backdrop, it is worth going to the start of these Committee sittings and remembering some of the other aspects in the Bill in respect of corporate parenting principles, the care leaver offer and the extension of the personal adviser to every care leaver up to the age of 25 when requested. This is not an area where we have been neglectful. On the contrary: we are the first Government I am aware of who have managed to pull together a comprehensive cross-Government strategy on care leavers and get commitment from a whole range of Departments in areas where we know care leavers particularly require help and support.

I remind the Committee that local authorities are already responsible for providing suitable accommodation to all care leavers aged 16 to 17. When care leavers reach age 18, local authority leaving care teams are responsible for helping care leavers access suitable accommodation. Their new home must be suitable for their needs and linked to their wider plans and aspirations—for example, living close to work or college.

The tapered support offer that already exists for care leavers, which clause 3 will strengthen, is designed to help move young people away from dependence. The corporate parenting principles we are introducing in clause 1 will also ensure that local authorities remain focused on providing appropriate support as care leavers move to independence.

When a care leaver is homeless or at risk of homelessness, the homelessness legislation provides strong protection for them. Local housing authorities have a statutory duty to house care leavers under the age of 21 if they become homeless and people over 21 who are vulnerable as a result of being in care. Statutory guidance for councils also makes clear that those leaving care should be treated as a priority group for social housing.

The Government recognise the importance of improving practice and are funding the homeless charity St Basils to work with local authorities to improve joint working between children’s and housing services, to help them develop accommodation pathways for care leavers that provide a range of options, reflecting care leavers’ readiness to live independently. The Government are also supporting the private Member’s Homelessness Reduction Bill, which will place duties on local housing authorities to provide targeted information and advice for care leavers on preventing homelessness.

Another accommodation option for young people leaving foster care—it has already been mentioned—is Staying Put, which we introduced in 2014. That enables young people to stay living with their former foster carers where that is what they both want. The latest data show that, encouragingly, more than half of 18-year-olds who were eligible for Staying Put are now choosing to do so.

New clause 20 would extend Staying Put to young people leaving residential care. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak that those young people should have the same opportunity as those in foster care to maintain relationships with their former care givers. That is why earlier this year, after the research that the hon. Gentleman mentioned from the NCB and others, we asked Sir Martin Narey to conduct a review of residential care. Like the hon. Gentleman, Sir Martin believed that simply extending the Staying Put duty to those leaving residential children’s homes was not the right answer and that the Government should test variations of Staying Close—I am afraid we are back into innovation territory—as an alternative to Staying Put for those leaving residential care. In July, we accepted his recommendations and committed to introducing Staying Close for all those leaving care through that route.

We are not biding our time. On 21 December, we invited local authorities to bid to run pilots, through which we will learn what works to deliver Staying Close, as recommended by Sir Martin Narey. We will use that information to make sure that the future roll-out is fully effective and properly targeted.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will there be an option in Staying Close for children in residential care to remain in their residential placement if they wish to, or not? Mr Wilson, I should probably have declared at the outset that I am a patron of Every Child Leaving Care Matters, which campaigns on this issue.

[Edward Timpson]

The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that we have been working very closely with the Every Child Leaving Care Matters team, so that it is able to positively contribute to the work and look at the different models that we need to test out through the piloting of Staying Close. In that way, the needs of each individual young person can be met by the range of models available. Some of the early innovation that has already taken place through the children’s social care innovation programme has shown, interestingly, that there are different types of arrangements that work for different young people.

For example, in North Yorkshire we have the No Wrong Door project, which is centred around having a consistent keyworker throughout not only the young person’s time in care but also their time leaving care, irrespective of the place that they are then in. That is built around the concept, which has come through the care inquiry and other routes, that helping maintain those important relationships through that transition can be as beneficial as anything else that we do to support them.

The House Project in Stoke has set up a housing co-operative run by care leavers, who are responsible for managing their tenancy. They have formed their own community, have a good social network and continue to be well supported, but they are starting to gain a sense of independence. I think that the answer to the hon. Lady’s good question is that we want to ensure, through the piloting, that we allow the opportunity to try all the different options available for young people leaving residential care. There are already some residential care settings that keep on young people beyond 18. We need to discover through the pilot what level of demand there is for that and where it is right for that to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Just to clarify the option to remain in some of the models that the Minister has said are being explored, will there be an option for children who want to remain in residential care to do so, or will there not? I am not clear from his response so far.

[Edward Timpson]

We have accepted the recommendations of Sir Martin Narey that there should not be a duty to provide that for every young person leaving residential care. Through the piloting of Staying Close, we want to consider the different opportunities to find not just the right accommodation solution but the right relationships and pathway into independence for each of those young people.

I think that that is the right approach, and a sensible and proportionate way to respond to the consistent view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak on staying in residential care. Having now understood the basis for his new clause, I hope that I have given him a sense that we are travelling in a direction that accords with where he hopes to go. However, there is still some work to do, and we have committed in our response to Sir Martin Narey’s report to rolling the measure out across the country, so that every young person leaving residential care will have the opportunity to continue with the support received by those in foster care.

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Timpson]

Happy new year to you, Mrs Main, and the rest of the Committee. It is wonderful to be back and to see everyone looking bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and ready for what we hope will be a constructive last few days in Committee.

The Government amendments in this group, introduced via new clause 1 and new schedule 1, are necessary to fill a legislative gap relating to looked-after children being placed in secure children’s homes in Scotland by English and Welsh local authorities. The new clause and new schedule make various amendments, some of them technical, to various pieces of primary and secondary legislation, with the aim of making clear the ability of local authorities in England and Wales to place looked-after children in secure accommodation in Scotland.

Reciprocal provisions already exist that allow Scottish local authorities to place children in England or Wales under compulsory supervision orders, so this is not a new or even emerging position. Placements in Scottish secure homes have happened commonly over time, with the option to place children in Scotland increasing the diversity of specialist secure provision available to local authorities in England and Wales, which is in the best interests of our most vulnerable children.

Government amendments 9 to 15 will make the relevant changes to the Bill’s extent provisions to reflect new clause 1 and new schedule 1 and provide for them to come into effect when the Bill is passed.

It is right to say that extensive discussions have taken place with officials in the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and Ministers from both those Administrations have indicated their support for the Government amendments as drafted. Scotland is currently progressing its own legislative consent motion to that effect.

The hon. Member for South Shields will want to speak to her new clause, and I will no doubt want to respond to the points that she makes, but I urge the Committee to see the Government amendments for what they are: a technical solution to a gap in the law to allow the continuation of a well-established practice.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be back in Committee, Mrs Main. I, too, wish everyone a happy new year.

I rise to speak to new clause 27, which is in my name. It was with a mix of anger and sadness that I tabled the new clause, which would give Ministers two years to sort out a situation that has arisen on their watch: the intolerable lack of secure places for our country’s most vulnerable children. Those are children who are looked after by the state and who the courts have found to be at risk of significant harm and injury or a risk to others by their being looked after by local authorities. They are our responsibility.

I will briefly share with the Committee a small example from the Department for Education’s own research of a child who was placed in secure accommodation:

“Marie was referred as a very young child because of sexual abuse and severe neglect. She was removed and placed for adoption aged four with two younger siblings but went on to experience three adoption breakdowns. This was partly due to the children’s sexualised behaviour but also events that couldn’t have been predicted—including the death of two adoptive parents. She returned to the care system for the last time aged nine with a severe attachment disorder.”

We owe it to children like her to ensure that when they are in crisis, the best possible support is available to meet their needs.

Two years is enough time for the Government to fix this problem if there is sufficient political will. New clause 27 is a pragmatic response to a situation that should never have been allowed to happen. I have decided reluctantly that seeking to block the Minister’s amendments would not be in the immediate interests of children who are desperately in need of secure care. Children have been sent from England to Scotland because of a lack of provision close to their families, local services and communities. The legal cases that I understand led to the Minister tabling his amendments concern children from Blackpool, Cumbria and Stockport being detained in Scotland. Those are looked-after children who are attempting suicide and self-harm, and who are in acute states of distress. Courts have made orders for them to be detained because they are not safe in ordinary children’s homes or in foster care.

We should not routinely send those children to another country, where they will have to adapt to a different education system and risk disruption to their mental healthcare. We are talking about placing children hundreds of miles away from their families, social workers, independent reviewing officers, independent advocates, visitors and lawyers. Will the Minister explain how we can be sure that their detention will be effectively monitored—particularly as he has not extended the duty on local authorities to establish secure accommodation reviews with independent input?

The legal situation of children looked after by English councils but detained in Scotland must be remedied as a matter of urgency—I totally accept that—but I do not support the Minister’s new clause because I do not believe it is a good policy decision. Let us be clear: the new clause, which will allow for the lawful detention in Scotland of looked-after children from our country, has not come about because social workers, researchers and young people have told the Department for Education that authorising the use of secure units in Scotland for looked-after children from England and Wales would be in their best interests, or that sending those children hundreds of miles from home would make them feel safer and more secure.

The changes are the result of the courts being put in the invidious position of deciding that a looked-after child fits the criteria for a secure accommodation order, but being then informed by the local authority applying for such an order that there is no secure place for that child in England. Orders have been made by the High Court that have bypassed the Children Act 1989, because that legislation does not allow for looked-after children to be detained on welfare grounds in Scotland. The Act does not allow any looked-after child to be placed outside England and Wales without the consent of the child or his or her parent—although that can be overruled in certain circumstances. That provision has been law since, I believe, 1980. Without any consultation with young people or professionals who work with them, the Minister’s new clause strikes out the need for the child’s consent and for parental consent. We are talking about vulnerable teenagers whose lives have spiralled out of control. How can we expect to help them to regain and build up their self-esteem and show they are valued if we send them to another country without asking for their permission?

The research I mentioned earlier found that local authorities viewed detaining a child on welfare grounds as necessary for a small number of children, but all of those authorities agree that that is often a draconian step—and that it is more draconian to send a child to a different country to be locked up. It is a well-established social work principle that looked-after children fare better when they are close to their families, friends, schools and the health professionals supporting them. That principle is well-enshrined in the Children Act 1989.

Since 2011, the number of children placed in secure accommodation for welfare reasons has increased. In March 2011, 62 children in England and Wales were placed in secure accommodation on welfare grounds, while in March 2016, 105 looked-after children in England and Wales were detained in secure accommodation on welfare grounds.

The Government have clearly not been paying attention. This situation needs a national strategy and national leadership—especially when we take into account that The Scotsman reported just last year that children from Scotland may have to be placed south of the border owing to a lack of spaces there. I took a quick look at the availability of secure places in Scotland, and the latest information, as of 6 and 8 January, is that only one of the five secure homes in Scotland has any vacancies; the rest are entirely full. St Mary’s Kenmure centre, on the outskirts of Glasgow, has only three places available, yet serves the whole of Scotland. What assurances can the Minister give that Scotland’s secure centres have room for children from England and Wales? What research has his Department done to establish the capacity of Scotland’s secure care provision? If there has been any research, will he please share it with the Committee?

I fear that if we leave the Minister’s amendments as they are, and do not exert any pressure on the Government to sort out this mess, children may suffer greatly. I am not aware of any consultation, policy document or impact assessment published by the Department about these legislative changes. The amendments are not minor formalities; they fundamentally alter the legal protection given to our most vulnerable looked-after children. The Minister’s exemption clauses could lead to the removal of even more safeguards from that cohort of children; we are talking about legal protections that have been in place for decades. I hope that Members will support my pragmatic new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

I may come back to the hon. Gentleman with further information, but I can tell him that in Scotland there are 89 welfare places in secure children’s homes. They are available to children both in Scotland and in England and Wales, as has been the case for a considerable time. On the range of provision in Scotland, every decision made for each individual child is based on what is in their best interests. Clearly, therefore, some specialist provision in Scotland is deemed suitable as the best for a child in England with their particular needs.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman chapter and verse on exactly what each secure children’s home offers, but I undertake to provide further detail, so that he is reassured that the decisions made by the courts are such that those very vulnerable children and young people are getting the best possible care and support. Furthermore, all those children and young people who have been placed in Scotland will still have placement visits from their social worker and regular reviews of the quality of that placement, even when they have been placed in Scotland or Wales.

Part of the care plan for a child or young person is about how their educational needs will be met. It will have to be set out and approved by the court before the placement is allowed to go ahead. However, I will look carefully at what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said, because I wholeheartedly agree with her that, wherever a young person is placed, it is important that they need to have opportunity—to advance themselves as an individual and in what they are capable of achieving academically and in getting into the workplace—and some stability in their life. That placement must meet all those requirements. I will look carefully at what she says and perhaps have a further conversation with her about how we ensure that children and young people in those circumstances are not missing out on the benefits of the education that is vital to their life chances.

Although I understand the points that have been made—I hope I have shown that I appreciate what hon. Members have said—I go back to where I started: the amendments do not seek to change existing policy or the practical circumstances in the system of secure children’s homes. They provide a technical fix to clarify the legal position of a long-standing and mutually beneficial arrangement that works for and should continue to work for our children.

We need to look carefully at how to continue to co-ordinate across England, Scotland and Wales and at how to improve provision in England. That is what the co-ordination unit is trying to do and why we are working hard with the LGA and the ADCS to see how we can make sure that the provision meets the future needs of this small but important and group of vulnerable children and young people who deserve the best possible support. I hope that on that basis the Committee will support the Government’s amendments and that the hon. Member for South Shields will be sufficiently reassured not to press her new clause.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I am concerned that without acceptance of the new clause the practice the Minister is proposing may become the norm. I have not heard anything from him today about whether the Government are working to increase capacity throughout England, Scotland and Wales. What will happen when Scotland runs out of capacity, if it is being used as the overspill, for want of a better word, for children from England and Wales? I highlighted in my opening comments the fact that Scotland is running out of capacity. What will then happen to these children? The Minister has not given any assurances on where we are going with this. He has agreed that my new clause needs to be looked at and to have conversations with me, but ultimately, if my new clause is agreed, it will holds the Minister to account and will make sure that within two years he has found a solution. I would like to push my new clause to a vote at the appropriate time.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Power to test different ways of working

‘(1) The purpose of this section is to enable a local authority in England to test different ways of working under children’s social care legislation with a view to—

(a) promoting the physical and mental health and well-being of children, young people or their families,

(b) encouraging children or young people to express their views, wishes and feelings,

(c) taking into account the views, wishes and feelings of children or young people,

(d) helping children, young people or their families gain access to, or make the best use of, services provided by the local authority or its relevant partners (within the meaning given by section 10(4) of the Children Act 1989),

(e) promoting high aspirations for children or young people,

(f) promoting stability in the home lives, relationships, education or work of children or young people, or

(g) preparing children or young people for adulthood and independent living.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations, for that purpose—

(a) exempt a local authority in England from a requirement imposed by children’s social care legislation;

(b) modify the way in which a requirement imposed by children’s social care legislation applies in relation to a local authority in England.

(3) Regulations under this section may not be used so as to remove any prohibition on a local authority in England arranging for functions to be carried out by a body whose activities are carried on for profit.

(4) Regulations under this section may not be used to exempt a local authority in England from, or modify, its duties under—

(a) section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (duty to provide appropriate services to children in need);

(b) section 20 of that Act (provision of accommodation for children who appear to require it for certain reasons);

(c) section 22 of that Act (duty to safeguard and promote welfare of looked after children etc);

(d) section 47 of that Act (duty to make enquiries and take action to safeguard or promote welfare of children at risk);

(e) section 10 of the Children Act 2004 (duty to make arrangements for promoting co-operation to improve well-being of children);

(f) section 11 of that Act (duty to make arrangements to ensure that regard is had to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children).

(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section relating to a local authority in England only on an application by that authority.

(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to regulations under this section that only revoke earlier regulations under this section.

(7) Regulations under this section may be made in relation to one or more local authorities in England.

(8) Regulations under this section may include consequential modifications of children’s social care legislation.”

This new clause would give the Secretary of State a power to enable local authorities in England to test different ways of working under children’s social care legislation for one of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1). Subsections (3) and (4) include safeguards on the use of the power. The power may only be exercised on an application by a local authority. See also the following, which are related: NC3, NC4, NC5, NC6, NC7, NC8 and NC9.—(Edward Timpson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Edward Timpson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

The hon. Lady makes a strong point. We are talking about others who are relevant to that child and need to be consulted, and I concur with her that it will be important for the school to be involved in the consultation to make sure that there is a full and rounded view of what the impact may be on children in that area.

When the local authority has completed its consultation, it will make an application to the Secretary of State, and Government new clause 6 provides that if she decides to take the application forward, she should consult the expert advisory panel, which will provide significant independent scrutiny of any application. The panel will consist of two standing members, the Children’s Commissioner and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector. The Secretary of State will also appoint other individuals who hold expertise relevant to the subject matter of an application, including representation from local government, social work practice, the voluntary sector and experts in the evaluation of pilots. The panel will be able to comment in full on an application.

In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, the panel, which is independent and has relevant expertise, will be able to comment fully on any application by a local authority under this provision. It will be asked particularly to provide advice on three key areas: first, the impact of a pilot on children; secondly, the capability of the authority to achieve the purpose of the application; and, thirdly, the adequacy of the monitoring arrangements. The panel’s advice will be published to ensure the process is transparent. When the Secretary of State has considered the panel’s advice, she will decide whether to continue with the process and, if so, she must gain Parliament’s approval. Government new clause 4 sets out the parliamentary scrutiny that each application to use the power must undergo before it is granted.

We have already sought to strengthen scrutiny in the other place to increase the types of application that would go through the affirmative resolution procedure. Changes to both primary and secondary legislation that originally passed through the affirmative procedure will follow that affirmative procedure. Only secondary legislation passed through the negative procedure and applications by the Secretary of State to end a pilot by revoking regulations will be subject to the negative procedure.

In addition, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an explanation of how the purpose is expected to be achieved and an assessment of the impact on children. That, alongside the panel’s advice, will provide a critical means for Members to scrutinise the pilot before agreeing that it can proceed or be rejected. I contend that this very comprehensive process will ensure that full and proper safeguards are in place.

Government new clause 3 makes it clear that all pilots should be time limited to a maximum of three years, after which they will automatically come to an end. There is provision for the pilot period to be extended only once for an additional three years. Such an extension could be used when a pilot is successful but the Government need further time to make provision to roll it out across the country. Before a pilot can be extended, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament that clearly identifies the extent to which the pilot has achieved its specified purpose up to that point.

To ensure that the monitoring and evaluation of pilots is transparent and learning is shared, Government new clause 8 requires the Secretary of State to provide an annual report for each year a pilot has been in place. This report will provide a central source of information on the progress of pilots and bring together resulting learning. Government new clause 7 sets out a provision for the Government to issue statutory guidance to local authorities that will include how the power should be used, or not used, in particular circumstances; how it should be monitored and evaluated; and the qualities local authorities will be expected to demonstrate in applying for the power. The guidance will ensure that there are clear standards and expectations of local authorities in applying for the power. We will consult publicly on the statutory guidance so that all interested parties have a say in how the power works.

I appreciate that this is a new approach, so it is understandable that some colleagues have raised questions and have sought additional safeguards. We have listened to such concerns very carefully and the new clauses before the Committee are substantially different from those that were discussed in the other place. The scope of what could now be allowed is much tighter and the safeguards, consultation and transparency are even more robust. That has allowed some leading members of the children’s services voluntary sector to lend their weight to our ambition and comment positively on the new clauses.

For example, the Children’s Society, one of the country’s leading children’s charities, feels that changes we have made enable it to support the new clauses. It says:

“The Children’s Society welcome the Government’s commitment to innovation in children’s social care and are supportive of their intention to allow local authorities to test new ways of working in a time-limited, safe, transparent and well-evaluated way. We are of the view that the Government have listened to the concerns raised by the sector and have taken significant steps to ensure that the intention behind the power is clear, and that robust safeguards have been put in place.”

Similarly, Barnardo’s supports the power and the changes that we have made. It says:

“During the passage of this Bill, the Government has taken on board a number of our concerns, and we believe that the current proposed system for testing innovation will be safer and more transparent than what the Government originally sought to introduce. We particularly welcome the provisions which ensure that local authorities will not be permitted to question the fundamentals of what they do to support children whilst allowing scope for piloting new ways of working. Stronger safeguards have also been put in place to improve consultation and accountability.”

Those are strong endorsements of the approach the Government have taken from those who have a strong interest in ensuring that children get a better deal from the community and the services that they require.

Before I ask hon. Members to support the new clauses, I want to end by saying that I would not be doing this or asking the Government, as they have, to support these new clauses in the their entirety, if I did not have a strong view that their sole purpose—and the motivation behind them—is to improve outcomes for vulnerable children.

If I thought there was a better way to deal with the current system, where too many children are still being failed, I would welcome it. We are working to ensure that where children’s services are inadequate we tackle that. Since 2010, we have turned around 34 local authority children’s services that were deemed to be failing children in their areas.

What I am not prepared to do is just accept the status quo, when I have local authorities telling me that they could do a better job for children if they were given the opportunity to do so. The new clauses seek to provide them with that opportunity whilst ensuring that their responsibilities for those children remain as strong as ever. I do not intend to do anything for children other than try to make their lives better, and I hope hon. Members will agree.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I apologise at the outset that my comments are rather long but they are entirely relevant to the Government’s new clauses. As I listened to the Minister, I hoped he would offer some clarity on a number of key issues that have rightly plagued these Government plans to allow councils to opt out of primary and secondary protective legislation for vulnerable children and young people. I want that sentence to sink in with the Committee for a moment.

The Minister is asking us to approve a power that threatens vast swathes of hard-fought legislation that was carefully crafted in the proper way, rooted in robust evidence and consultation with the sector, children and families, often in the wake of tragedies and failures that should not have occurred, and that had cross-party commitment to better protect and provide for children and young people.

Of course, not all children’s social care legislation has evolved because things have gone desperately wrong. Many statutory requirements in the care system, in leaving care and in support for families have emerged through creative practice and innovation, but I fear that after the Bill, innovation will be forever associated with the removal of legal protection. That does a terrible disservice to all the excellent projects, pilots and world-leading practice that have developed in children’s social care across the decades.

The Minister is asking us to hand the Secretary of State unprecedented power to dispense with primary and secondary legislation without any prior Green or White Paper consultation, any public evidence sessions, as there should have been for such a radical change, or any evidence that any of the endangered legislation works against children’s welfare. Once an exemption or modification to the law has been authorised, the trials could last up to six years—that is a long time for a child reliant on the state for his or her care and protection.

Our most vulnerable children are being used as guinea pigs. That is no exaggeration. Look at the transcript of the Lords debate that led to the first incarnation of these awful clauses being kicked out. These so-called innovation clauses were described several times by noble Lords, even those on the Government side, as an experiment. Do we really want to give consent to such high-risk experiments when local authorities are facing extreme funding pressures and increased demand? Nagalro warned in its evidence to the Committee:

“Anything which helps spread the budget further is going to be greeted”

with great enthusiasm in County Hall. It also warned that the Bill risks introducing perverse incentives into a system already buckling under great strain.

To say that I am deeply disappointed that the Government have chosen to reinsert the measures in new clauses despite their blistering defeat in the Lords is a total understatement. The fact that the Lords succeeded in deleting a whole set of clauses—a rarity in either House—should have been a red-flag warning that the proposals are dangerous. Yet here they are again, with further amendments, none of which allay the serious and substantial concerns raised in the Lords and elsewhere. The Committee has received extensive evidence from concerned organisations and individuals about the grave risk to children and young people. We have been warned that the new clauses give the Government a blank cheque to remove legal protection. We are being asked to agree a job lot of measures where virtually every requirement made for all vulnerable children and young people could be axed for some at a future date.

The Minister claims that he has listened to the views expressed by peers and other stakeholders and that he has made substantial changes to the clauses, but he has not, and the risks to children and young people have not gone away.

[Edward Timpson]

The hon. Lady says that we have not made any substantial changes, so what has she to say about the quotes that I gave from the Children’s Society and the Barnardo’s, which say that we have done precisely that? The Children’s Society said that

“the government have listened to the concerns raised by the sector and have taken significant steps to ensure that the intention behind the power is clear, and that robust safeguards have been put in place.”

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Minister, like me, will be well aware that while the charities may have expressed support in their submissions to the Committee, they have also expressed concern. The fact is that there are only three organisations, so far as I am aware, that support the new clauses.

[Edward Timpson]

I am happy for the hon. Lady to make her case. The purpose of having this Committee and the debate is for the House to make a decision, but I am afraid that what she says is simply not the case. Among those who support the new clauses are Anthony Douglas from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Mark Costello from Foster Care Associates, the Children’s Society, Barnado’s, SOLACE, which is the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, and Chris Wright, chief executive of Catch22. Debbie Glassbrook from the National Independent Reviewing Officers Managers Partnership, a whole host of local authorities and associated bodies—including Achieving for Children, Leeds City Council and others—and the ADCS and the LGA also support the new clauses.

The hon. Lady has to be careful that she does not characterise the debate as all being on one side of the equation. There are those who have listened carefully to the arguments, including Barnado’s and the Children’s Society, and who have always supported innovation. They are clear that they are happy that the changes we have made reassure them enough to support the measures.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. He mentioned approximately 10 or so organisations that he feels are in support.

[Edward Timpson]

Non-exhaustive.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

However, there are nigh-on 50, if not more that are against this. I will discuss this later in my comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I will come on to that later in my comments. To clarify, I have nothing against local authorities knowing what is right for them and making decisions. [Interruption.] However, this is a slightly different case and if the hon. Gentleman keeps calm and listens, I will get to my point.

Another change concerns statutory requirements selected by the Government for special treatment. There are six sections of the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004 and one part of one schedule to the Children Act 1989 that cannot be touched by this new power. I am sure I am not alone in wondering how the Minister came to select this list of core legal duties. Can he explain how he decided that the many remaining duties in the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004 and their associated statutory instruments could, in principle, be disapplied? How did he decide that none of the children’s social service functions in any of the following Acts of Parliament are worth saving: the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the Mental Health Act 1983, the Housing Act 1996, the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Children and Young Persons Act 2008, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and the Care Act 2014?

Are we really being shown a glimpse of a brave new world where all that will be left of children’s social care legislation could be these six saved sections of two Acts of Parliament? I point the Committee to some of the frightening scenarios sent to us by Dr Ray Jones. We cannot say that we have not been warned how dangerous these new clauses are.

Children’s rights charity Article 39 has listed a number of statutory requirements that could be removed. These include—although this is not exhaustive—a local authority’s duty to provide accommodation to children it is looking after, assess the support needs of disabled children as they approach adulthood, allow children in its care to have reasonable contact with their parents and visit children it looks after. Is the Minister really convinced that none of these duties are fundamental to promoting and safeguarding the welfare of vulnerable children and young people? Why is there such resistance to undertaking a public consultation prior to the introduction of these clauses? Does the Minister not want to ensure that he and his Government have got this 100% right?

Let us also remember that part of this Bill will also be under threat of exemption once—and if—it receives Royal Assent. In fact, every single future children’s social services function that this House introduces will have a fragile and uncertain existence if we allow these new clauses to go ahead.

The Minister has written to the concerned parties, claiming these new clauses are about empowering the frontline. The frontline does not want these powers. The vast and varied range of organisations that have submitted evidence to the Committee want us to reject these new clauses. In fact, 47 organisations have come together specifically with the goal of opposing these new clauses.

The Government set out their stall on this radical new power in their strategy “Putting children first”, which was published in July last year, two months after the Bill appeared. It said that exemption trials would offer

“a controlled environment in which we could enable local authorities to test deregulatory approaches that are not currently possible, before taking a decision to make substantial changes to existing legislation that would apply across the board.”

Any proposed full repeal of legislation would have to come back to Parliament—I understand that—but for trials to have any credible and reliable influence on future legislation, they must be ethical and robust. Nagalro has correctly told us that if a local authority obtains an exemption, all the children in its jurisdiction will be subject to it whether they agree with it or not. They will have no individual say in the matter. What on earth does the Minister envisage happening if some children who do not agree come back to a future Government and claim that they were treated wrongly compared with those in neighbouring authorities?

In “Putting children first”, the chief social worker for children and families asserted:

“We must be enabled to use our professional judgment in flexible and creative ways, rather than having to follow a procedural path”

or a set of “legal rules.” The chief social worker avoiding having to follow legal rules is concerning and not a positive message for social workers or those considering joining the profession. Who would choose to work in a local authority that has fewer duties to vulnerable children and young people than its neighbouring councils?

[Edward Timpson]

I am grateful to hon. Lady for giving way again—she is being generous. I want to probe her point about legal rules and people working in children’s services not wanting to be more expansive in using their professional judgement around those rules. Does she think that the opportunity that some local authorities have taken of pulling together their initial and core assessments to have a single continuum of assessment, and not having to comply with the strict timescales set out in regulation, is a good idea? We must bear in mind that the evidence suggests not only that the quality of those assessments has improved as a consequence, but that the timescales have improved as well, because not working to a 40-day or any other time limit has resulted in more timely assessment.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that was in secondary legislation, not primary legislation. These new clauses are about changing primary legislation. He has said that 34 local authorities have been turned around, and that was without changes to primary legislation. What prohibits social workers from doing their job—they see this time and again—is not primary legislation but guidance that varies from authority to authority, such as local authorities prescribing that children under two have to be visited every other day. We do not need primary legislation to change such things.

[Edward Timpson]

Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Those were indeed regulations that I was referring to, but I was trying to tease out from her whether she disagrees as a matter of principle with what the chief social worker was trying to say—that religiously following rules does not always lead to the best service being provided to children, and that local authorities that are more innovative and find different ways to provide services can be successful on the back of such changes. I wanted to find out whether she objected to that approach, or whether there was some other reason why she feels that something that happens under secondary legislation would not be appropriate for primary legislation.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I have a problem with the chief social worker wanting to opt out of legal rules that have been in place and protected children in this country for decades and that are in primary legislation. That is our argument today.

Children England says that the exemption clauses would represent an unprecedented constitutional challenge to the principle of universal application of primary legislation everywhere and at all times throughout the land, and an equally fundamental challenge to the primacy of Parliament. At most, an exemption would require an affirmative resolution in Parliament, and such motions are almost never opposed. Historically, Parliament has passed 9,999 of 10,000 resolutions since 1965. What is the emergency that causes such far-reaching legislation? No evidence has been presented to explain why we are being asked to agree to the undoing of decades of protection. The fact is that it is not legislation that hinders effective children’s social care.

Professor June Thoburn, who received a prestigious award last year for her outstanding contribution to social work, said that none of the substantial body of research—some Government-funded and some independently funded—on the workings of the Children Act 1989, as amended, points to the need for any specific sections of the legislation to be suspended on the grounds that they are impeding flexible and good-quality practice. Action for Children and the NSPCC briefed the Commons in December, stating:

“Despite numerous conversations with ministers and officials, ?the evidence for the need for this power remains unconvincing and does not justify the potential risks of suspending primary legislation.”

The Department’s own factsheet accompanying the amendments states that local authorities have raised some ideas on how this power could be used, such as removing the requirement for an independent reviewing officer to be present at all reviews because some—only some—children say they do not want IROs present or to chair their reviews. That wrongly suggests that reviews are nothing more than a meeting or that the law prevents children from chairing review meetings. As the National Association of Independent Reviewing Officers has explained, IROs have a great deal of discretion in how they manage reviews for children and young people and are guided by the young person as to how they wish to make arrangements for their own reviews.

In 2015, the care planning regulations were amended by the DFE to allow children in recognised long-term foster placements to have increased flexibility in how their care plans are reviewed, and in particular to reduce the number of meetings if they wish. It is therefore a concern that there is so little understanding of the IRO role among those who seek to reduce or remove it.

IROs were created in response to judicial concerns that care plans agreed in care proceedings were not being followed. They are completely independent from day-to-day decisions. Without that independent oversight, a child may well be very unhappy in their placement, with no one to turn to. What if that child’s situation changes? Worse still, what if they are abused and have no relationship with their social worker and no IRO, and their carers are complicit in that abuse? We remove safeguards such as this at our peril.

Besides bringing an end to universal IROs, the factsheet includes four more examples affecting disabled children, adoption and fostering assessments, and care leavers. There are five examples in all in the Minister’s factsheet, with fewer than two pages of information, that could extinguish swathes of our legislation.

The Committee has been presented with more evidence against these amendments in a single month than the Government have managed to produce in favour of them in eight months. We have received detailed submissions from distinguished academics such as Professor Mike Stein, who has been researching the problems and challenges faced by care leavers for more than 40 years. He warns of the risk of returning to the failures of a discretionary system that resulted in both territorial and service injustices.

For robust critiques of each of the examples in the factsheet, I recommend that Members look at the submission from CoramBAAF. It says that removing legal protection from children on the basis of geography legally entrenches a postcode lottery, which the Minister has acknowledged and referred to as some small-scale variations in the past. He should be focusing on ending variation in children’s social care provision, not legitimising and increasing it.

I will repeat a line I have quoted before in this Committee from the NAO report “Children in need of help or protection”:

“Nationally the quality of help and protection for children is unsatisfactory and inconsistent, suggesting systemic rather than just local failure.”

The amendments do nothing to remedy that—indeed, experts tell us that they are likely to make matters a whole lot worse. Children and families living close by but across local authority boundaries could have different rights, and councils could have different statutory responsibilities. Courts would cover local authority areas where the law, as amended by the Secretary of State, was not uniform and not consistent. That could create a dangerous patchwork of legal protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

I ask the hon. Lady to be very careful. I would like to know what she is insinuating.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister; I will get to what I am insinuating very soon.

Some local authorities are being placed in an impossible situation. If they do not back the Government, is it fair to assume that they will not receive funding—especially given that, last October, many of them received a rather threatening letter from the chief social worker stating that if they did not back the new clauses they could never again complain about bureaucracy and grandly suggesting that this was a once-in-a-lifetime chance for them all to do the right thing? If she is so certain that this policy is in the interests of young people and children, why has she not shared her thinking with the Committee? It is telling that the Committee has received no evidence from her.

The fact is that the Local Government Association is being placed under immense pressure to back the new clauses. Is it not the case that only a small number of local authorities, if any, back them? Can the Minister tell the Committee that the Secretary of State’s intervention powers will never be used to coerce local authorities into applying for exemptions?

My final comments concern the Minister being well aware that much of the anxiety about the new clauses comes from the fear that they pave the way for the privatisation of child protection services. Despite new clause 2(3), those fears legitimately remain. If the Government are so resoundingly against profit in child protection, why, in the explanatory memorandum attached to the 2014 regulations, do they advise companies that subsidiaries of profit-making companies are not banned from running such services?

The Deregulation Act 2015 now means that social work services to individual looked-after children and care leavers operating outside local authorities are no longer required to register with Ofsted. Add to that the LaingBuisson review, commissioned by the Department at the behest of the chief social worker and two others, which gives advice on how the market could flourish in children’s social work and says that independent providers are happy to play the long game on a journey to whole-system outsourcing.

Companies such as G4S, Serco and Virgin Care have all attended meetings with the Department to consider how they can play a role in delivering and shaping statutory children’s social care services. It is little wonder that very few trusted the motivation behind the original clauses or that fears persist that behind this power is an insatiable appetite for breaking up children’s social care. The Minister has tried to distance himself from this report for which his Department wrote the terms of reference and which it funded, yet refused to release for a considerable time. Perhaps it is waiting until the Bill has passed through both Houses.

If the Minister really means what he says about profit and child protection, he should be seeking to prohibit subsidiaries of profit-making companies from delivering social care functions. Getting legislation right in children’s social care is extremely important. Our legal duties are vital in protecting those most in need. We should always approach change in this area with great care and caution, to ensure that children and young people are not put in any jeopardy.

The new clauses have no place at all in the Bill. I implore hon. Members to reject them and to bring an end to the enormous fear and concern that have built up outside the walls of this place. The Minister has not fully responded to the comprehensive critique from the Lords, and there remains a gaping black hole as to which legislation the sector is crying out to be exempted from, and who on earth is crying out for the exemption.

The Government should withdraw the new clauses as a matter of honour and out of respect for the vulnerable children and young people who depend on the legal protections that Parliament has given them over decades. The Minister may then undertake some robust and meaningful consultation, and could return to the House later if he wished.

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 15th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to support the amendment. Amendments 16 and 17 will ensure that safeguarding partners safeguard and promote the welfare of unaccompanied refugee children, and that any guidance given by the Secretary of State must be developed in accordance with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. They will help to protect the rights of some of the most vulnerable and unprotected children.

Every child, whatever their circumstances and background, deserves the support that they need to get a good start in life, and to succeed in their education and in life. I am sure that the Minister agrees, in view of the corporate parenting principles in the Bill. However, we have too often failed in that obligation to unaccompanied refugee children, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow outlined.

Unaccompanied refugee children are perhaps the most vulnerable young people in society. They have fled humanitarian disasters, wars, and horrors that none of us could begin to imagine. If they arrive in this country we have a moral duty to ensure that they receive the support they need; otherwise there is a risk that they will fall through the cracks and face a danger of being exploited. They have fled from terrible things and we must do all that we can to ensure that they get a better life here. That is no less than any of us would want for a child of our own. By ensuring that safeguarding partners have regard to unaccompanied refugee children, amendment 16 will go some way to ensuring that we rise to our moral duty. I am honoured to support my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow.

I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will lend their support to amendment 17. After all, I cannot imagine that they would object to any of the rights set out in the convention on the rights of the child. If they will not support the amendment, perhaps they will explain which of those rights they believe should not be extended to every child in the country.

I gently remind the Minister that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child published its findings on the Government’s compliance this year, and they are failing in many areas. Accepting the amendments would go some way towards repairing that terrible record.

[Edward Timpson]

I am grateful to hon. Members for the amendments, which I recognise seek to ensure the best interests of this very vulnerable group of children, and I assure the Committee that I appreciate the good will and passion that sits behind them.

I turn first to amendment 16. Under section 16E of the Children Act 2004, which will be inserted by clause 16, safeguarding partners will be required to make arrangements for themselves and any relevant agencies that they consider appropriate to work together for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of all children in the local area. I assure hon. Members that, when making those arrangements, safeguarding partners will be required to take account of the needs of unaccompanied refugee children. That will be the case even in areas where the numbers of such children are small.

In addition, we have also announced our plans to publish a safeguarding strategy for that particular group of children by 1 May 2017, as called for by Lord Dubs in the other place. The Government strategy will seek to ensure the utmost protection for unaccompanied, asylum-seeking and refugee children in this country, as well as those who are being transferred here from Europe, whether they are reunited with family members or become looked after by a local authority.

As part of the strategy, we will set out plans to increase foster care capacity for those looked after children, and will consider what further action can be taken to prevent them from going missing. We will also review what information is communicated to those children about their rights and entitlements; revise statutory guidance for local authorities on how to support and care for them; and regularly review the level of funding provided to local authorities for the care and support of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. As this point was raised earlier in the debate, let me say that local authorities were asked to submit their costs of caring for that group. Current funding is higher than 50% of local authorities’ costs, and we will keep that under review to ensure that their needs are being met. Those commitments are already being progressed in consultation with others, including local authorities and non-governmental organisations.

The safeguarding responsibility for those children who have been identified for transfer but are yet to arrive lies with the member state where the children currently reside, not the local authority in which they will ultimately reside. We have supported the French in their efforts to move all children from the Calais camp to safe alternative accommodation across France. While they remain in France, their welfare and safety is a matter for the French authorities.

Since the Home Secretary’s statement to Parliament in October, when the French operation to clear the Calais camp started, teams of specialist staff have been working in France, in close liaison with the French authorities, to ensure that children eligible to come to the UK continue to be transferred as quickly as possible. We continue to work in partnership with the French authorities to transfer children to the UK with close family here—who qualify under the Dublin regulation—and those children who meet the criteria of section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. To date, around 200 children have been brought to this country under such arrangements. I can tell the hon. Member for Walthamstow that more eligible children will be transferred from Europe, in line with the terms of the Immigration Act, and we will continue to meet our obligations under Dublin II. We will announce the number of children to be transferred to the UK under the terms of the Immigration Act in due course.

I think it is worth making it explicit to the Committee that the guidance of 8 November applies only to the Calais operation, which is now complete, but that the Dubs process has not ended. More eligible children will be transferred, and I know the Home Office will make a further announcement on how that process will take place. I will undertake to make sure that all of the points raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow in this debate and on Second Reading are made clear to the Home Office and the Ministers there, so that they are fully aware of those issues as they develop the next iteration of that process. The hon. Lady has undertaken stoic work in trying to make sure that all of those points are understood.

On amendment 17, the Government are committed to children’s rights, and we are determined to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children—including unaccompanied refugee children. We are equally committed to giving due consideration to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child when making new policies and legislation, and when developing guidance for local agencies. In fact, another written ministerial statement that I laid before Parliament—I have had a habit of creating them in recent weeks—set out our commitment to do so right across Government, making sure that every Department is playing its part. I know that the permanent secretary in my Department is speaking with his counterparts in every other Department to ensure that that is followed through within the civil service.

One of the commitments in our safeguarding strategy will be to publish a revised version of the statutory guidance for local authorities on the care of unaccompanied and trafficked children. The guidance we have is good, but it needs updating to reflect the new circumstances that we find ourselves in as well as the diverse nature of the group of children that we are talking about to ensure that local authorities are aware of the duties they must undertake to support and promote the best interests of these children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 17, page 14, line 12, leave out subsection (6).

This amendment would remove the role of the Secretary of State in determining certain arrangements for the working practices of safeguarding partners, ensuring that they remain locally accountable.

The spirit of the amendment is much the same as that of previous amendments concerning the child safeguarding practice review panel. It relates to unacceptable levels of involvement by the Secretary of State, this time in local child safeguarding reviews. Improvements in local safeguarding reviews are much needed.

There is huge variability in the quality and usefulness of serious case reviews, and there are questions about the suitability of board members and their closeness to those who might have a role in a serious case being scrutinised. However, the fact remains that a top-down approach whereby the Secretary of State advises each local authority—familiarity with which he or she cannot possibly be expected to have—about the criteria being taken into account, the choice of reviewers and, in particular, the content of the review cannot be either wise or a productive use of the DFE’s time or the local board’s time.

If serious case reviews are to have the desired effect of improving practice and procedure in response to tragedies, it is crucial that the review be locally accountable and locally owned. The purpose should be for those involved to reflect on possible mistakes and propose ways in which they can improve. Will the Minister explain why the Government feel there is a need for the Secretary of State to have such heavy involvement in these issues?

[Edward Timpson]

Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the amendment. Clause 17 sets out the requirement on safeguarding partners for a local authority area to identify and, where appropriate, carry out local child safeguarding practice reviews. Subsection (6) of proposed section 16F of the Children Act 2004, inserted by clause 17, sets out a list of provisions on which the Secretary of State may make regulations in order to assist local safeguarding partners to identify appropriate cases and carry out reviews where they consider appropriate, as set out in subsection (1).

It is important that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations to help safeguarding partners in the process of local reviews. Subsection (6)(a) will enable the setting of criteria to be taken into account by the safeguarding partners in determining which cases raise issues of importance in relation to the area. That will not remove or reduce the local accountability of the safeguarding partners to make decisions. It will promote a more even and balanced consideration of the issues across the country, so that we get consistency.

The safeguarding partners will be responsible for appointing the reviewer for each review they commission. They will also be responsible for removing the reviewer if need be. Subsection (6)(b) will enable the regulations to provide for reviewers to be appointed from a list provided by the Secretary of State.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Can the Secretary of State then override the local decisions?

[Edward Timpson]

No.

If such a list was provided, safeguarding partners would still be accountable for decisions taken on whom to appoint, taking into account the experience of the reviewer concerned and their independence from the local area, among other factors. The aim of a list will be to improve the overall quality of reviews, given that many have acknowledged that as being deficient in the current serious case review system, as have Members on both sides of the Committee today.

Subsection (6)(c) allows for regulations to specify when a report should be provided to the Secretary of State or the child safeguarding practice review panel and published. In receiving copies of all local reviews, the panel would be in an ideal position to review both the quality and timeliness of reports and the learning that emerges from them. Regulations would enable timescales to be set for that process.

Subsection (6)(d) refers to the procedure for a review, which may include the establishment of terms of reference. Finally, subsection (6)(e) allows regulations to make provision about the form and content of the reports. It should be noted that such provisions would not be unduly prescriptive as they would be entirely about promoting the overall quality of reviews.

I want to reassure hon. Members that, in making regulations, we will consult on their content widely before bringing them before Parliament, which will give the hon. Lady an opportunity to scrutinise them in more detail. Indeed, we have already begun to talk to a range of interested parties about some of these important issues. I hope that, with those clarifications, the hon. Lady feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I do feel able, thank you, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 18 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Guidance by Secretary of State

Amendment proposed: 17, in clause 22, page 17, line 5, at end insert—

“(3) Guidance given by the Secretary of State in connection with functions conferred by section 16E in relation to unaccompanied refugee children must be developed in accordance with the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.”—(Stella Creasy.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

As we have heard, the clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to prohibit relevant employers who carry out children’s social care functions from discriminating against those applying for roles in the children’s social care sector on the basis that it appears to the employer that the applicant has made a protected disclosure. This includes when the employer refuses the application or in some other way treats the applicant less favourably than it treats others for the same application. I am pleased that we were able to work so productively with Lord Wills in the other place over the summer to produce these important protections.

For the benefit of the hon. Member for South Shields, let me clarify that social workers employed in the NHS are already covered by the 2006 provisions and will be captured in the relevant regulations, with the consultation due in the new year. That is another consultation that I suspect she will want to keep a close eye on, and to which she might wish to contribute.

The Government are clear that those working with the most vulnerable must be able to report their concerns. They deserve effective protection when they make a protected disclosure. Workers with such concerns can already make a disclosure to their employer or the prescribed bodies for child protection and wellbeing social workers. We agreed with Lord Wills’s proposals that, in addition, we should protect those seeking employment with specified bodies in roles relating to local authorities’ children’s social care functions. We are delighted to have worked with him to produce a suitable amendment.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Chapter 2: consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government motion to transfer clause 32 to the end of line 39 on page 19.

[Edward Timpson]

I will be brief. The clause introduces a second set of consequential changes to legislation contained in schedule 1 to the Bill and relating to the provisions in chapter 2. The motion to transfer is another administrative exercise to tidy up this chapter into three smaller chapters.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,

That clause 32 be transferred to the end of line 39 on page 19.—(Edward Timpson.)

The consequential amendments introduced by clause 32 are in Part 2 of Schedule 1. They replace or remove references to Local Safeguarding Children Boards (abolished by clause 30). Transferring clause 32 would enable it to appear in the new Chapter relating to the safeguarding of children (see the explanatory statement for the motion to transfer clause 11).

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 33

Social Work England

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Regulation clauses in part 2 of the Bill deal with the establishment of a new regulator for both children’s and adults’ social work across all specialisms. It will be called Social Work England. The Department for Education and the Department of Health, without any prior consultation or dialogue with the social work profession, propose to end regulation by the Health and Social Care Professionals Council and to replace it with an inevitably much more costly bespoke regulatory system.

In recent years there has been a lot of flux in relation to social work regulation. There was the General Social Care Council, the college and then the Health and Care Professionals Council, and now we will have Social Work England. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this ever-changing landscape is going to cease and that we will not be debating another regulator in another year or so, because all that this change does is create constant disruption in the profession.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I appreciate that.

Even with the amendments to the clause, the original proposition was outrageous. It has left a bad taste in the mouths of many in the sector, and distrust and scepticism behind the whole idea of the new regulator. What assurances can the Minister give that will ensure that social work regulation has the appropriate autonomy and distance from prevailing Government policy, and that it focuses on public protection, which is the proper priority of regulation? Will he tell us why social work is always treated differently from other health and social care professions?

Regulation of all professions should focus on assuring fitness to practise and public protection. All other professions are regulated to ensure consistent and safe practice. That arrangement provides continuity through the changes that inevitably come from successive policy developments under different Governments. Given that there is little cross-party consensus on children’s social care policy at the moment, and that subsequent Governments could take a different path, this is particularly worrying.

Although the amended proposals for a non-departmental public body regulatory body suggest more independence than was first proposed, a NDPB can mean a wide range of governance and independence options. We are challenging the detail of current proposals that intend for the Government to directly appoint the leadership of the organisation. We expect that the key roles of chair and chief executive officer, as well as the board, will be appointed without political control of process and decision making. Current Government proposals mean that the Secretary of State for Education controls those appointments.

It would be better for regulatory standards to be set out through a profession-led process. The British Association of Social Workers and its partners should drive that; BASW has always supported and campaigned for regulation to ensure high standards and to protect the public. If independence from Government control is not instituted in these new arrangements, that will detract from the profession developing its own standards and setting capabilities and a culture of responsibility for excellence at every single level.

We are also concerned that the proposals risk fostering resistance to regulation and might lead to social workers choosing to deregister if a new regulator focuses on delivering current Government policy and sets requirements for registration that inappropriately narrow down the options for how social workers can demonstrate their fitness to practise. That risk is exacerbated by the probability of significantly increased fees for social workers from an expensive and bespoke regulator. There has recently been a decline in the number of social workers being trained. There is a further risk of decline with proposed changes to training bursaries disincentivising good candidates from the profession. Problems in retention persist. The profession and our public services cannot withstand the further risk of a drain of talent and capacity from the registered workforce. I hope that the Minister understands that and will sum it up in his comments.

[Edward Timpson]

Clause 33 underpins our ambition to improve the practice of social work and raise the status of the profession. It establishes a new body corporate, Social Work England, which will be a new, bespoke regulator for this vital and unique profession.

First, I will set out the case and motivation for reform. In many ways, the easiest thing would be to do nothing and not prioritise social work as a key plank of the Government’s efforts to transform children’s social care. I think we all agree that high-quality social work can transform lives and that social workers play a critical role in our society. They deliver a range of vital services, from safeguarding the most vulnerable to supporting those with complex needs to live life to the full. Every day, social workers deal with complex and fraught situations that require a great depth of skill, knowledge, understanding and empathy. When social workers are not able to fulfil their role competently the consequences can be catastrophic, which is why the Government have developed a significant reform programme to improve the quality of social work and of the systems that support social workers. That includes investing £750 million since 2010 in supporting both traditional and fast-track routes into the profession and investing £100 million to date in the children’s social care innovation programme, so that local authorities and others can evidence how to reform services and practice to be more effective.

More is needed. To underpin the reforms, social work needs a regulatory system that meets the needs of this unique profession. Such a regulatory system will help to improve public safety and promote the status and standing of social work. The need for an improved system of regulation for the social work profession in England has been highlighted in recent independent reviews.

The hon. Lady asked why the social work profession should have a different regulator from the health profession. The approach of the current regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council, is designed to maintain minimum standards of public safety and initial education across a range of professions, rather than to drive up standards in any one profession. Driving up standards is vital for a profession in which the safety of our most vulnerable people is inextricably linked to the highest standards of practice. I would argue also that social work is a distinct and highly skilled profession and that its practitioners manage complex risks and work with vulnerable children and adults on a daily basis. A new specialist regulator for social work reflects that reality and will be able to focus on the unique nature of social work practice and on the education and training needed to support it in a way that is, unfortunately, not currently possible.

Clause 33 provides for the establishment of a new regulator for the social work profession in England. It makes it clear that our intention is to set up a regulator that is a separate legal entity at arm’s length from Government. It is important to maintain appropriate distance between the new regulator and Government, and I make it clear that it has never been our intention to give Government the power to make decisions about the fitness to practise of individual social workers.

The clause also introduces schedule 2, which sets out the new body’s governance and accountability arrangements. We may want to discuss that in more detail later, but our ambition in establishing a new bespoke, independent regulator for social work is to continue improving the practice of social work and raising the status of the profession.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

I am always happy to talk with the hon. Gentleman at any time about the details of policies and their implementation, and this is no exception. Despite the short time I have had to prepare an answer, I will do my best to give him the details that he seeks.

The Government will significantly support the establishment of Social Work England as a regulator in terms of the set-up costs. We anticipate that about £10 million will be provided by the Government from the Department of Health. The Government will also contribute up to £16 million over the rest of this Parliament to support the running costs of Social Work England. We anticipate that it will become a self-sustaining model. For the reasons that the hon. Gentleman set out, we want to ensure that, during that period, that is exactly what we work towards.

The administration and workings of the new regulator will be overseen by the Professional Standards Authority, which will be keeping a close eye on its ability to be sustainable. At the moment, we are looking at individual registration, but I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman said about whether there are other mechanisms. The important thing is that we are confident that every person who is meeting the necessary standards is doing so as an individual, as opposed to as part of a team. It is that person’s professional capacity that we are most interested in.

The regulator is not an improvement body; it is purely a regulator. One point I will pick up on for the hon. Member for South Shields is that we want to work with the various professional bodies that support social workers so that we have a single body that can help social workers with their improvement journey through their career, so that they feel supported in the process.

We have established an advisory group that includes the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, the British Association of Social Workers, Unison, the Local Government Association and the PSA, which will act as our critical friend and provide effective challenge to help us to develop the detail and the practical delivery of the new regulator. The first meeting took place on 9 December. The intention is that the group will meet every six weeks to discuss the challenges that the changes will have for the wider social workforce, and to help support the development and detail of Social Work England. There are requirements in the Bill for Social Work England to consult on its standards, so there is another opportunity to look at those more closely. On that basis, I hope that the clause stands part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 34 to 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Fees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

There are concerns that the new regulator, Social Work England, has been developed without any prior consultation or dialogue with the profession. There is a worry that it is likely to have cost implications for social workers in the form of high registration fees. I hope that the Minister can today confirm that that will not be the case, and that the Government can protect already practising social workers and require that fees for the new regulator’s initial five years of existence be set no higher than the projected fees over that time for the existing regulator.

Social workers are already grossly underpaid for the work they do. The job is done seven days a week. It involves great personal and financial sacrifices and affects their mental and physical health. They should not have to bear the burden of paying for a new regulator that they never asked for.

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 15th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. We are all sad that Mr Wilson is not with us today, but we all agree that you are a fantastic and exemplary replacement.

Clause 8 will expand the factors that courts must consider when deciding whether to make a care order in respect of a child, and it will ensure that consideration is given to the impact on a child of any harm they have suffered or may be likely to suffer; the child’s current and future needs, including any needs arising from that impact; and the way in which the long-term plan for the upbringing of the child will meet those needs. Those are all key considerations when courts are deciding whether to place a child in authority care and are considering all the permanence options available.

The family is, of course, the most important building block in a child’s life—every child deserves a loving, stable family—but it is important that we find children who cannot live with their birth parents permanent new homes without unnecessary delay. It is common knowledge that children who enter care are particularly vulnerable, often having experienced abuse, neglect and disruption—experiences that can have a significant detrimental effect. That means such children have additional needs now and later in life, something I know all too well from my own family.

Research confirms that these children need quality care and stability, in particular, in order to secure their future chances in life. However, there is concern that, at present, those factors are not always at the forefront of decision makers’ minds and, consequently, some children may be missing out on placements that would be right for them.

The Department’s review of special guardianship orders in December 2015 found that potentially risky placements were being accepted. For example, in some cases special guardianship orders were being awarded with a supervision order because of reservations about the guardian’s ability to care for the child in the long term. That was never the intention when the Children Act 1989 was introduced, so clause 8 seeks to ensure that courts also consider the individual needs of the child now and in the long term, particularly in light of any abuse or neglect that they have suffered, and assess how well the proposed placement will meet those needs.

By ensuring that information about children’s current and long-term needs is made available when key decisions are taken, we aim to ensure that the best placement option is pursued in every case—in other words, the placement that is most likely to meet a child’s needs throughout their childhood. Those working with children in this area support the clause. Andy Elvin, the chief executive of the Adolescent and Children’s Trust—TACT—the UK’s largest fostering and adoption charity, has said:

“All of this is eminently sensible. In practical terms it will raise the evidential bar for all care planning.

The biggest impact, rightly, will be on special guardianship order assessments. The logic of this is that these will have to move to be on a par with fostering assessments. The court is being asked to make a decision that will last not only the child’s minority, but impact the rest of their life.”

Dr Carol Homden, the chief executive of Coram, has said:

“Recent research shows that many people underestimate the significance of harm that all too many children experience before coming into care. Therefore, we particularly welcome that this Bill calls courts and local authorities to focus on the impact of any harm a child has previously suffered and their life-long future needs when making decisions about their care.”

These are clearly important measures that have the strong support of those outside the House.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. The Opposition do not have a problem with the clause. In fact, when I first entered the House three years ago I questioned the Minister on SGOs, so I am pleased that he has now listened. In practice, I would routinely do this in care plans any way, and I think a lot of social workers do. We welcome the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Adoption: duty to have regard to relationship with adopters

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

If the Department had spent this much energy on social worker recruitment and retention and invested in family support and early-years help, we might not be where we are now, with the highest number of children in care since 1985.

The Professional Association for Children’s Guardians, Family Court Advisers and Independent Social Workers commented on the Department for Education’s adoption policy paper this year. It said:

“We note the Policy Paper does not address how to prevent children entering the care and adoption systems in the first place…We are concerned that despite the intention to ‘strengthen families’, no more is said on this point and that there is no discussion of support for disadvantaged families despite the worrying increase in the numbers of children subject to care proceedings.”

[Edward Timpson]

Will the hon. Lady accept that the adoption paper is about adoption, and that there is another Government paper—we have referred to it previously in Committee—called “Putting children first”, which deals with all children who are going through the care system? It is not unusual for a Government to put forward different policy papers that cover different policy areas.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I completely agree, but if the Minister lets me continue with my point, he will see where I am going with this.

The professional association continues:

“The scale of reduced spending on early intervention in children’s services and the way this leads to greater costs elsewhere is well analysed”

in a number of reports.

“The key point…is that by significantly reducing early preventive work, more public money has to be spent on costly proceedings, foster care, mental health provision, adoption agencies and so forth, which potentially could be avoided by better focused spending at an earlier stage…We strongly warn against an ‘evangelical approach’ to adoption, whereby it is perceived as a good in itself. This perception is contrary to the majority view of European and western thought and jurisprudence, and it fails to appreciate it represents a serious and draconian step and a measure to be considered only ‘when nothing else will do’…We strongly advise against performance indicators that positively promote an increase in adoptions as these inevitably lead to a distortion of professional activity in favour of adoption at the expense of other choices”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Thank you, Mrs Main. I will of course sum up very quickly.

The damage caused by the adoption targets is not being considered in the Bill, but it must be. Evidence reported just this week by The Guardian shows that local authorities are using targets, sometimes combined with financial incentives. It is worth remembering that adoption is far cheaper for councils than foster placements, because once a child is adopted, they are off the council’s books for good. Adoption is also cheaper than providing services that might ensure that vulnerable parents can care for their children, but what of the money being saved? What about the lives of those destroyed by the separation?

The Bill is concerned in part with improving the situation of care leavers, which is important, but we make a mistake if we focus on their needs without considering why so many children are being taken into care and what we can do to reduce that. It cannot be right that we are talking about resources for corporate parents while saying nothing about resources for children and families who have been impoverished by austerity policies. The Government need to take a serious look at the patterns and trends in child protection, adoption and fostering, but instead they have continued on this damaging path of pro-adoption, and they are using a small clause in the Bill to strengthen that further. I hope the Minister will explain in his response why, despite evidence to the contrary, they are continuing on that path.

[Edward Timpson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution to the consideration of the clause. Mindful of the narrow nature of the clause, I say from the outset that the Government have always been clear that the right permanence option— whether that is adoption, special guardianship, kinship care, residential care or even long-term fostering—will always depend on a child’s individual needs and circumstances. As the law clearly states, the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration, and that is as it should be. That is why I have to say to her that it is a little depressing to see the same arguments and rhetoric on the Government’s plans for children in care, saying that we only have eyes for adoption. That is simply not borne out by the facts.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Timpson]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me explain. This Government introduced the first ever legal definition of long-term fostering; none existed previously. We brought in quality standards on residential care a number of years ago, and 79% of children’s care homes are now rated good or outstanding. The hon. Lady has already alluded to the work that we do with care leavers to make sure that during the period when they leave care they have much better support.

What we are trying to do with adoption, however, is tackle two issues, which Tony Blair tried to tackle in the late 1990s and early 2000s—not in the way he did it, which was by setting national targets, but by ensuring that when adoption is right for children they can be adopted and by making sure that when that happens it is without unnecessary delay. I do not think that anyone would argue it is acceptable for children to have to wait an average of 26 months from the time of entering care to move to an adoptive placement.

Those are the issues we have been tackling. What we are doing is not based on an ideological fantasy. We know from the research of Professor Julie Selwyn that adoption has a huge number of benefits for the children it is right for. It has the lowest breakdown rate of any permanent placement—about 3%, with special guardianship orders at about 6%. I have seen from my family the huge benefits that adoption can bring, but I have also seen from my family the huge benefits that long-term fostering can bring. I know from personal experience that each child will need to follow a different path.

What we are doing is not a mission to try to ensure that every child who comes into the care system ends up being adopted; we are trying to stay clearly focused on making sure that, where it is right for a child, that is exactly what happens. In the past couple of years, on the back of the Re B-S judgment, there has been a fall in the number of adoptions, not a rise. That is because we have to face up to the fact that there are still people who believe that adoption is not the right course of action for children. I am saying that we should not stand in the way in cases where it is right for them.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Would the Minister share something with the Committee, to support his argument? His Department has made 20-plus changes to adoption since 2010; how many changes has he made to other areas of care, and what is the comparative cost? If adoption is not seen as the gold standard, surely other areas of care will have the same number of policy changes and the same spending.

[Edward Timpson]

I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Lady’s premise. It is not the number of things that are done, but whether the things that are done have a discernible impact of the kind that we want, and achieve the outcomes that we want to be able to celebrate. I do not accept that the amount of activity created is directly comparable to commitment or achievement of objectives.

I want to make it clear that local authorities’ decisions on the most appropriate permanency option are based on the child’s needs. That is what the law says. That is what the Bill does in making sure that those needs are given full and thorough attention when courts consider not just adoption but all permanent options. Clause 9 will ensure that courts and adoption agencies consider the relationship between a child and their prospective adopters when deciding about the adoption of a child in cases where the child is already placed with the prospective adopters.

That is an important point. It is not a matter of children who have no relationship with the prospective adopters, and have not met them or had time to get to know them. It is about those who are already placed, where there is already a relationship. The relationship between a prospective adopter and a child placed with them will clearly be a fundamentally important and relevant consideration when a court considers whether an adoption should be granted, because, ultimately, it is a court’s decision, based on the best interest of the child, and with their welfare as the paramount consideration.

In the past two years there have been a small number of cases in which decisions have been taken to remove children from settled adoptive placements in favour of alternative arrangements with relatives who have come forward at a late stage. That may have potentially serious implications for the child, given the disruption to the attachments the child is likely to have already formed with their carers. That needs to be taken into account when making that final decision.

Where the making of an adoption order is being considered, in most cases the child will already have been living with their prospective adopters for between six to 12 months. During that time, the prospective adopters and the child will have established a relationship, and the child may have built a significant attachment to their carers. I have met adopters who have told me just that. The Government believe it is important that that attachment should be considered in the balance when final decisions are made about a child’s adoption.

That is not to say that prospective adopters are prioritised over birth parents or other family members in those considerations. The existing legislation already makes it clear that the court is also required to consider the relationship that the child has with their relatives, including their mother and father, and the relationship they have with any other person the court considers relevant, such as close friends or wider family. That express and mandatory requirement is not changing, so there is no hierarchy here—just a fair, balanced consideration of each of the significant relationships a child has, based on their own needs.

I also point out that the court is required to consider the wishes and feelings of family members when making an adoption decision. In addition, the court must consider the value to the child of the continuing relationship with their relatives. That is already clearly set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which was introduced by the last Labour Government, so relationships with the birth family and the child’s relatives are therefore central to the court’s considerations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

Clause 11 seeks to retain the Government’s ability to intervene and drive improvement in combined authorities, in the same way that we do now in individual local authorities where children’s social care services are failing vulnerable young people. The motion to transfer this clause is a housekeeping part of the Bill and we propose that chapter 2 of part 1 of the Bill be divided into three shorter chapters with this provision appearing in the third. I move that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,

That clause 11 be transferred to the end of line 12 on page 22.—(Edward Timpson.)

This motion would facilitate the division of Chapter 2 of Part 1 into three shorter Chapters, to be entitled “safeguarding of children”, “children’s social care: different ways of working” and “other provision relating to children”. Transferring clause 11 would enable it to appear in the Chapter entitled “other provision relating to children”.

Clause 12

Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I hope to get some clarity from the Minister regarding the industry’s and the Opposition’s concerns about the clause and the introduction of the child safeguarding practice review panel. I will give a more specific analysis when we debate amendments to clause 13, but I will put them into the context of clause 12.

The British Association of Social Workers is worried about the independence of the child safeguarding practice review panel and the possibility that the Secretary of State could use the panel to hammer on local authorities that she would like to take over. There is widespread alarm in the sector that the warnings in the National Audit Office report, which we discussed in Tuesday’s sitting, are being ignored by the Department. Within recent weeks we have seen yet another Labour-led council being told to transfer its statutory duties to an independent trust. I hope that when the Minister responds he will point me toward evidence that trusts do better and can achieve what local authorities could not have done without support.

The clauses also allow for the creation of a national child safeguarding review panel that can choose to identify and review complex or nationally important child safeguarding cases and make recommendations. I completely understand the rationale for overhauling the local serious case review process, as there have been widespread inconsistencies in the quality of such reports. However, while local learning can be patchy and distorted by local political and inter-agency dynamics, local-led investigations also keep local agencies engaged and involved and enable local knowledge to inform the process and the recommendations. I hope the Minister will be able to explain how the local aspect will not be lost.

There are a few examples of independent expert boards set up by recent Secretaries of State and the Department for Education. In 2014, they created the innovation fund to promote new practice within children’s social care, with a board to oversee operations and to set strategic direction. It appointed three people with financial services and investment banking experience, plus the chief social worker for children, who we know sees herself no longer as the independent voice of the profession, but as a senior civil servant, yet she is the only person on the board with practical experience in children’s social care.

When the Government sought to promote and publish more serious case reviews in the same year, we saw yet another expert panel. The four members of the panel were a journalist, a barrister, an air traffic accident investigator and a former career civil servant who had been the chief executive of the Big Lottery Fund. No one on the panel had any front-line experience in child protection or its direct management. It appears that there is a worrying recurring tendency. I hope the Government will reflect, rethink and build relationships with those who know most about helping children. At the moment, it appears that the DFE sees little value in using the professional experience and expertise of those who work to assist and protect families. Can the Minister shed light on how many former or still registered social workers are in his Department? When the Government appoint experts to oversee and direct children’s services, they have consistently considered commercial and financial expertise more relevant than direct experience. That is why there is some wariness about the intention to set up expert panels to advise DFE.

It is also intended that the Department for Education will have control over who can be a social worker, whether they can continue to work, how they are educated and trained and who will provide this education. The current preference is for that to be provided outside universities by Frontline, a fast-track programme that is premised on moving practitioners as quickly as possible from practice into management and threatens the continuation of traditional university courses.

The other big part of the Bill, which was removed in the other place, will create a system of inconsistencies. Rather than innovative, that system might less generously be described as an increasingly threadbare safety net. Control of social work and social workers should be in the hands not of politicians but of the profession itself.

[Edward Timpson]

Clause 12 requires the Secretary of State to establish a child safeguarding practice review panel. The clause will add new section 16A to the Children Act 2004. The Government first announced their intention to centralise the serious case review process in December 2015. The background to their decision to legislate to introduce such a panel was set out in their response to Alan Wood’s review of the role and functions of local safeguarding children boards. I remind the Committee that Alan Wood is a former director of children’s services at Hackney. His review demonstrates that the Department is more than willing to ask people from the profession to advise and assist it in its decision making. The panel is being established in response to his recommendation that the Government should

“establish an independent body at national level to oversee a new national learning framework for inquiries into child deaths and cases where children have experienced serious harm.”

He suggested that the body that supported a centralised review process should be

“one that is independent of government and the key agencies, and operates in a transparent and objective fashion to ensure learning is the key element of all inquiries.”

The Government agree entirely with that recommendation.

I should add that we intend to establish the panel as an expert committee. I expect its chair’s appointment to be subject at least to a full, open Cabinet Office public appointments process. I envisage that panel members will come from various backgrounds, including social care, and have the relevant expertise and experience to fulfil the role. I expect the number of panel members to be sufficient to enable the panel’s effective operation, and the chair to be able to draw on the expertise that he or she considers necessary for effective decisions and recommendations to be made about cases.

The Secretary of State will be responsible for removing panel members if he or she is satisfied that they are no longer able to fulfil their duties, for example due to a long-term or serious health condition, or if they have behaved in a way that is incompatible with their role, such as by releasing confidential information that is provided to the panel or making use of such information for their own purposes. Those are usual conditions, and while such action is extremely unlikely to occur, it is right to make provision for the removal of panel members should the need arise.

The clause will also allow the Secretary of State to provide whatever assistance is required to enable the panel to carry out its functions, including staff and office facilities. The Secretary of State may pay remuneration or expenses to the chair and members of the panel, and make further arrangements to support the panel’s functioning, including, for example, the production of an annual report.

The establishment of a strong national panel is an essential component of the Government’s plans to develop better understanding of the factors leading up to serious cases, for the reasons that the hon. Member for South Shields set out, to inform policy and practice nationally, and to support local agencies in improving the quality of the services that they provide to vulnerable children and families. The new panel will be independent of the Government.

The hon. Lady quite rightly raised the need to ensure that local learning is not lost. To some extent, there are clear benefits in ensuring that we have a flexible approach, and I assure her that we will increase local flexibility at the same time as creating a national panel. Centralising review decisions will enable the new panel to identify national trends and issues that may benefit from a single national review. At the same time, the bulk of reviews will be local and will address cases that raise issues of local importance and relate to local safeguarding partnerships; that will increase local flexibility. We anticipate that the number of national reviews will be relatively small and the majority of reviews will take place locally. Most importantly, we must not just look at what happens when things go wrong but understand why and spread that understanding much better. I will go into more detail as we discuss clause 13 on how we will go about achieving that.

On that basis, I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Functions of the Panel

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 13, page 11, line 9, leave out

“unless they consider it inappropriate to do so”.

This amendment would ensure that the Practice Review Panel publishes a report on the outcome of any review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Amendment 36 would ensure that the new child safeguarding practice review panel publishes a report on the outcomes of a review. The current wording of the Bill allows the panel to pick and choose the cases it deems necessary to review, but does not compel it to publish a report if it does not think it is appropriate.

It is not appropriate for a national board to weigh in on highly sensitive local cases and then refuse to publish its findings. If the new panel goes ahead, preferably with guaranteed independence from the Secretary of State, it must do so as transparently as possible. Child death and serious cases of abuse have to be treated very carefully, especially by a new national panel which will naturally be met with some suspicion by front-line practitioners in particular, who might expect the panel to act as yet another mechanism for publically blaming and shaming them when things go wrong. That is not a baseless fear; social workers have had to learn the hard way, with previous instances of central Government interference in local cases. I am certainly not opposed to rigorous national oversight of serious cases—the more we can review and learn lessons, the better it will be for vulnerable children—but if lessons and improvements are very much the purpose of the exercise, the panel must have a duty to publish its report in every case it takes on.

The Government’s reason for creating this new panel is that it will pick up on cases that have wider implications than just those for the local authority, while ensuring that local authorities do not repeat mistakes that might have led to a child death or serious abuse. I want to know how the Minister can ensure that the national or local interest can be served if the reports are kept under lock, in secret.

Subsection (5) of the clause compels the panel to publish any suggested improvements arising from its report, even if it does not think that the publication of the report is appropriate, but that does nothing to solve the problem because improvements suggested out of any context are unaccountable. Who will guarantee that the suggested improvements arise from evidence presented to the panel? Amendments to mitigate the involvement of the Secretary of State in the business of the panel offer some reassurance, but the fact remains that if the mistakes are not published, suggested improvements cannot be properly owned by the managers or front-line practitioners that need to implement them in the local authority in question and nationally.

Under the Bill as it stands, the panel could publish a list of improvements to front-line practice that would leave practitioners open to public blame without recourse to a public document that explains their role. If front-line practice is at fault, that too needs to be made clear. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Edward Timpson]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for the amendments and the important issues that she has raised. As I said a few minutes ago, the Wood review into the role and functions of local safeguarding children boards published earlier this year highlighted a number of long-term issues with the current system of serious case reviews, including reviews being of poor quality, taking too long to complete and failing to identify required improvements to front-line practice.

In response, the Bill establishes a new system of national and local child safeguarding practice reviews to help resolve those issues. National reviews will be undertaken by the child safeguarding practice review panel into cases identified as raising issues that are complex or of national importance that it considers it appropriate to review. Commissioning of local reviews will remain with local areas and will be carried out into cases where local safeguarding partners consider that there are issues of importance in relation to the local area and that a review should be carried out.

Amendments 36 and 37 relate to subsections (4) and (5), which set out the requirement on the child safeguarding practice review panel to publish reports unless it considers it inappropriate to do so. If, on rare occasions, it does consider publication inappropriate—for example, where publication might lead to risk or distress for children or adults involved in the case—the panel is required to consider what information it is able to publish about improvements to be made following the review. As in the current serious case review system, reports commissioned by the panel will need to be written from the outset with the presumption that they will be published, and reports should be written in such a way that publication will not be likely to harm the welfare of any children or other individuals involved in the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

The report that will be published will be the redacted report, which will then be publicly available. We want to ensure that as much learning as possible can be extrapolated from that report. That is why we are setting up the What Works centre, which will be a repository for all serious case reviews. Practitioners and academics will be able to use the findings from those reviews to inform their own understanding and practice.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I will not detain the Committee much longer on this point. I completely understand the Minister’s response that it is not always appropriate to publish such reports, but he did not comment on the fact that social workers are very anxious and scared that this might be used as another stick to beat them with. I hope that he will make some comments in the public domain or make some reference to that later in the Committee.

[Edward Timpson]

I am happy to repeat what I have said before: this is not a blame game. One problem that has arisen is that in the past, a serious case review, which is about learning from things that have gone wrong and having an open and honest discussion about how things can improve—an acceptance of failure—has turned into a finger-pointing exercise. That is not always in every case helpful in really getting to the bottom of what has gone wrong. We are absolutely not trying to turn the clock back to that type of approach. The aim is to have a very clear way to ensure that we learn and change the way in which we deliver practice for children, so that they are protected as much as possible.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

If the hon. Lady was to look at any serious case review now, she would see a clear timeline setting out the facts of the case that stated what the decisions were and what lay behind them. It is up to the panel members to call those who have been part of that particular case to come forward with their evidence, in order to inform that report—subject to any medical reason that would preclude them from assisting. The purpose of the clause is to make sure that we get as full and frank disclosure within the report as possible, to inform both the panel’s recommendations and the subsequent learning that we want to spread across the system.

The hon. Member for South Shields referred to practice direction 12J, which covers child arrangements and domestic violence and harm. It is judicial guidance to the family court on how to deal with allegations of domestic violence or abuse, and is issued by the president of the family division, with the agreement of Ministers and in accordance with process provided for by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

The explicit reference in a statute to such a practice direction, which the amendment would introduce, assumes a specific content for the direction. However, practice directions being made in the way I have outlined are open to amendment, revocation or replacement by further directions, so the hon. Lady’s amendment would aim at what is likely to be a moving target. It is worth noting, in this regard, that the president of the family division has already asked a senior High Court judge to review the operation of practice direction 12J in the light of some of the concerns raised by Women’s Aid. I am happy to share any further information I can glean from the Ministry of Justice and my colleagues in that Department with the hon. Lady.

Finally, I turn to amendment 42. It seeks to add to the circumstances set out in subsection 1 of clause 14, under which a local authority must make a notification to the child safeguarding practice review panel. As in my response to the previous amendment, I recognise the concerns about domestic violence and the risks that can be posed to both children and adults by potentially unsafe contact arrangements. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the risks to a particularly vulnerable group of children. Great consideration was given to defining the circumstances under which a local authority must notify the panel in order to come up with the criteria as currently set out in the Bill.

Inevitably, any such definitions cannot be exhaustive, include all circumstances or cover all settings in which children might suffer injury or harm. However, the intention has always been that all cases in which a local authority knows or suspects abuse or neglect, including cases in which factors such as those outlined by the hon. Lady are a feature, must be notified to the panel under the general duty to notify cases of death or serious harm.

With that explanation, and following the helpful debate that explored some of the wider issues around the subject—I am sure we will all want to return to that at a later date, if not in the Committee, then in the House—I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for his response. Like me, because of personal experience he totally understands the complexity of contact between children and parents through the courts. I appreciate that this matter may need discussion with his colleague at the Ministry of Justice. I hope he will commit to that and report back to us.

The reality is that the wrong decisions are being made, and those decisions are costing lives—the lives of children and women. In this place, we should and can always do more. I hope he will give us an update in the near future on what the Government are doing in this area. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 13, page 11, line 31, leave out subsection (8).

This amendment would remove the role of the Secretary of State with regards to giving guidance on serious child safeguarding cases to be reviewed, therefore ensuring the local authority’s independence for this process.

We believe it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to provide any guidance as to which serious cases are to be reviewed by the panel. Policy makers cannot be policy enforcers. There has to be a separation of the two to guard against policy being used to target specific local authorities. The panel will need to tread carefully in order to be seen as a constructive ally and critical friend of children’s services, and therefore political neutrality is vital.

It will be impossible for the panel to make a credible claim of political neutrality if the Secretary of State is able to choose which serious cases are subject to review. For the same reasons, the Secretary of State cannot be seen to interfere in reviews that are under way either by deciding whether a review is making adequate progress or by rubber-stamping reports as being of adequate quality. If the Department wanted to consider an annual audit of all reviews to ascertain quality and function, that would be another matter, but on a case-by-case basis this involvement of the Secretary of State cannot reasonably be deemed acceptable, and I hope the Minister agrees that it could well hinder the efficient working of the panel.

[Edward Timpson]

Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her amendment, which seeks to remove clause 13(8), which enables the Secretary of State to give guidance to the panel on the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for a national child safeguarding practice review to be undertaken by the panel. I assure hon. Members that any such guidance will not undermine the panel’s independence. The Secretary of State will not be able to direct the panel to carry out a review, and the panel will have sole responsibility for deciding which cases it should review, determining whom it appoints to carry out the review and the publication of the final report.

Subsection (8) also states the Secretary of State’s ability to set out in guidance matters to be taken into account when considering whether a review is being progressed to a satisfactory timescale and is of satisfactory quality. Earlier, the hon. Lady quite rightly raised, as did I, the two issues of the variable quality of serious case reviews and the length of time many were taking before being published. There are sometimes legitimate reasons for cases not being published in a shorter timescale—for example, because there are ongoing criminal proceedings. However, there are still some unacceptable delays in publication.

We want to ensure the two aspects of the current system that have not been functioning well are kept closely under review, so that we have a better functioning system. As I set out earlier, we are committed to addressing the apparent weaknesses in the current system of serious case reviews, including the poor quality of final reports and the length of time it takes to complete and publish reports. This guidance will help the panel to avoid the deficiencies in the current arrangements, but it will not undermine the panel’s decision-making processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

First, it will be set out in the guidance that accompanies the Bill, so for the first time there will be a clear mechanism with a trigger for a report to be published by a certain date. That does not currently apply and at the moment there can be a drift, without any way to try to bring the process to an end.

The detail will be in the guidance. I am happy to provide the hon. Lady with a draft as we continue to develop it, but the underlying principle remains the same—to get a way of avoiding unnecessary delay in the publication of reports, so we can get the learning out there into the working environment as soon as possible. On that basis I ask the hon. Member for South Shields to withdraw the amendment.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The fact is that local authority budgets have faced swingeing cuts since the Tories first took office in 2010. The Bill simply passes more roles on to local authorities without ensuring that they have the necessary resources. That reflects the very worst of this Government’s approach to local government: to cut budgets first and to devolve power and responsibility later, without ensuring that the local authorities can properly deliver the services.

I do not wish local authorities to take on their corporate parenting responsibilities as a tick-box exercise. If they did, I fear that that would indicate that they had fallen at the very first hurdle in terms of good practice. I do think, however, that it is important to give the principles the weight that they deserve by ensuring that they are as robust as possible.

Flexibility in practice is important, but strengthening the wording in no way prohibits local authorities from carrying out their functions as they see fit. If a new system is to become embedded in a nationally uniform way and not to become another postcode lottery, it is crucial that local authorities know from the outset that the corporate parenting principles are a priority and not an option. Too often, the services that children most in need of state help receive are reduced to a postcode lottery. That can be seen in the funding for children in need of help and protection: the local authority with the highest funding has available more than 13 times the funding per child than the most poorly funded authority.

We are concerned that the corporate parenting principles as drafted will amount to another postcode lottery. Simply requiring local authorities to “have regard to” the principles of corporate parenting, rather than there being a statutory duty, will add to the risk. When local authorities must only have regard to principles, the serious risk is that only those local authorities with the resources that others do not have will be able to deliver. To address that, the Government should guarantee a legal duty to abide by the corporate parenting principles to deal with the underlying challenges facing local government—challenges of the Government’s own making.

Corporate parenting is one of the most important roles that a local authority has. Local councillors take the responsibility extremely seriously. It is important that the role is not diluted and remains closely linked to democratic accountability. However, the principle of corporate parenting cannot simply end with local authorities. All agencies working closely with looked-after children and care leavers, although they are not corporate parents, should co-operate in support.

Children who rely on the corporate parenting principles will often have complex needs. Local authorities alone will not always be able to meet those needs. A full range of agencies, despite not being corporate parents themselves, will need to work in co-operation to support those young people’s complex needs. In particular, health and education have a vital role in ensuring the best possible outcomes for children in care. Once again, however, the Government have not gone far enough with the principles to ensure that young people in the care of the state will get the support that they need.

We welcome and support the principles of corporate parenting, but the Government seem to be simply hoping that new responsibilities for local authorities “to have regard” will be enough. In reality, unless the principles are a duty, they will for some children remain meaningless—empty words in an Act of Parliament, without any real impact on their lives. Those children need actions and not words, and “having regard to” something rarely translates into real action.

[The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, both this side of Christmas and in the new year. In the run-up to Christmas, I am looking forward to a cracker of a Committee, full of joy and, I hope, understanding.

I know the hon. Member for South Shields will be wondering what present I have brought for her this year, but I will wait to hear what she wants first. I apologise in advance if what she asks for is either out of stock or outside my budget range. I will listen carefully to the case she makes and do my best to try and fulfil her wishes.

I am also grateful to the hon. Lady for this opportunity to re-emphasise the importance of clause 1, which in many ways is the beating heart of this Bill. The intention behind amendments 18 to 25 is to ensure that the corporate parenting principles cannot be ignored and are meaningful. I am equally determined to ensure that. That is why the clause states that a local authority “must…have regard to” the needs identified in the clause as the corporate parenting principles, rather than simply “may” have regard to them. A local authority must take account of the needs articulated in subsection (1)(a) to (g) whenever they carry out any local authority function in relation to looked-after children and care leavers.

Framing the duty in terms of “having regard to” is the right approach. Local authorities already have a range of statutory duties in relation to looked-after children and care leavers that derive from the Children Act 1989 and its associated regulation, which set out a long list of statutory duties that underpin our current child protection system and also create a strong and robust system within which the corporate parenting principles may be operated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that we have already tightened the rules on the use of bed and breakfast—local government welcomed that—to try to get the right placement for each young person, depending on their circumstances. I do not want him to give the impression that the principles are the only thing the Government have introduced to try to improve experiences and outcomes for children in the care system.

I want to challenge the hon. Gentleman on his point about the health and education of children in care deteriorating during their time in care. That is not what the evidence suggests. He will have seen the report from the Rees centre, whose research showed that care has an overall positive impact on children. Those in care do better than children in need, in terms of educational improvement. There is no evidence that their health deteriorates, although of course there are individual cases where that does happen. They are more likely to have health checks while they are in care than when they are not.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my job title, Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, does not affect my other responsibilities; in fact, I have even more responsibilities than I did when the name of my portfolio did not include the word “vulnerable”. Part of my mission involves the clear and consistent approach that the Government have set out in the “Putting Children First” policy paper, which the hon. Gentleman will have read. That sets out our ambition to improve services in every way, for children in care and for care leavers. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Gentleman has the paper in front of him—he has made my Christmas.

The paper sets out a clear and comprehensive strategy for the period from now to 2020, across the system, for the people working in children’s social care, the practice system that they work in, and the governance and accountability that will ensure we know what works and what does not. As a consequence, we will have the opportunity to see more children, with the principles in place, being looked after by those charged with the responsibility. That is the right approach.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn raised the issue of how local authorities will be able to do what we envisage, at a time when local government funding is falling overall. The amount that local authorities have been spending on child protection has risen in recent years. That is partly because the number of children in care has gone up, but also because local authorities are taking the responsibility seriously. I welcome her support for the principles, but as for the impact of funding on the quality of children’s social care services, she will have seen that there is no correlation that can be determined between the amount that a local authority spends on services, and their quality and the outcomes for children. Some of the lowest-spending authorities have the highest outcomes for children in their care, and some of the highest-spending have some of the worst outcomes.

I suggest that the hon. Lady look at Hackney, not all that far from her constituency, to see how it turned around children’s services to the extent of being able to bear down on the overall cost. The services there work earlier and better with families, reducing the number of children who come into care, which means they can spend the money they have on improving services for the children who are in their care. I challenge the presumption that if we spend more money we get better services. That is clearly not the case. Of course we need to ensure that local authorities have sufficient funding to carry out their functions, but there is also room for them to ensure that they get the best possible value for the children in their care.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Minister has said that spend has increased and that is not related to quality in some local authorities. How does he explain that? Does he agree with the National Audit Office conclusion that that indicates that none of his Government’s reforms since 2010 have yielded the desired results?

[Edward Timpson]

The hon. Lady is right to reference the NAO report, because the NAO was the proponent of the suggestion that there was not a correlation between spend and quality of service. We need to understand better why some local authorities are able to deliver better services for less money. As she will appreciate, this is a complex area, and there is still work to do to get under the skin of why the looked-after population is still rising in some local authorities but falling in others. That is partly to do with greater awareness and earlier intervention in families. In the past, particularly in cases of neglect, children were left in the care of their parents for too long.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Timpson]

I am trying to give the hon. Lady a full explanation. Different circumstances in different local authorities drive decisions about funding and the outcomes that that funding achieves. We have recently signed a formal agreement with Ofsted so that we can more effectively share our data with one another—the NAO report asked for that—and have much more contemporaneous read-outs of how local authorities are performing, help them make better decisions about how to spend money and understand better as a Department what baseline funding local authorities need to carry out an efficient and effective service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. He touched briefly on early intervention. Does he accept that one of the reasons why more children are coming into care is perhaps that his Government’s cuts have led to a lack of early intervention services, family support work and Sure Start centres? I know from practice that those things can keep families together and prevent children from going into care.

[Edward Timpson]

It will be no surprise to the hon. Lady that I do not accept that proposition. As I say, this arena is more complex than that. It is worth reminding the Committee that not every child who comes into contact with a children’s centre inevitably ends up in the care system. Only a small proportion do so and have some support off the back of that. We want to capture those children as early as possible—I agree with her about that—but we must also provide targeted support for children in need who are on the edge of care so that their families get the support they need to keep them together, as Hackney has done successfully, rather those children slipping into and sometimes bouncing in and out of the care system, which is often the worst of all worlds for them.

I pray in aid the work that we have done through the innovation programme to try to improve local authorities’ response to this difficult and complex issue. I accept that there is more work to be done, but the programme that we set out in the “Putting children first” policy paper is a good and strong response to that challenge. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response. The key thing he said, which sticks in my mind, is that these principles should be those of all good parents. Any good parent would therefore see these principles as a duty, not something to “have regard to” or ignore at will. They would not do that, and neither should any of us. I will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I am astonished that I had not picked up on what the Minister said. I hope that he will clarify.

[Edward Timpson]

Dear oh dear, Mr Wilson; we were all getting on so well. I am afraid that what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, has said is not a fair representation of the point that I made. I ask the hon. Member for South Shields to take in good faith the point that I made, which is that children who are in care do better educationally, in terms of improvement, than children who are on the edge of care with child protection plans. It is wrong to suggest that being in care holds back the child’s education. If we compare children in care with the most closely aligned group—those on the edge of care—they do better. That was the point that I made, and I hope that is the point that the hon. Lady will take away.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. I am sure that Hansard will show us all exactly what he said.

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Many children who have left care go on to be fantastic parents, but those who need an extra bit of support should be recognised in the legislation. This amendment seeks to achieve that.

While the Government have suggested that existing statutory guidance makes some reference to young people who are young parents, we need to recognise and respond more robustly to the additional vulnerabilities of this group of care leavers in a way which is not presently provided for in primary or secondary legislation. Evidence from the Centre for Social Justice in 2015 based on data provided by 93 local authorities revealed that 22% of female care leavers became teenage mothers. That is three times the national average. The same report identified that one in 10 care leavers aged 16 to 21 have had their own children taken into care. Care leavers are particularly vulnerable to early pregnancy, early parenthood and losing their child to the care system.

A recent research project carried out by Professor Broadhurst based on national records from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service between 2007 and 2014 examined cases relating to 43,541 birth mothers involved in care proceedings. The study estimated that around a quarter of these mothers who had a child subject to care proceedings will have sequential care proceedings about another of their children. The study found that young women aged 16 to 19 years were most at risk of experiencing repeat proceedings, with almost one in every three women in this age group estimated to reappear. Provisional results from the study’s further in-depth analysis of court files indicate that more than six out of 10 others who had children sequentially removed were teenagers when they had their first child. Of those mothers, 40% were in care or had been looked after in the care system for some of their own childhood.

Like most parents who are subject to the child protection system, young parents often feel lost, angry and scared. However, many of these young parents, particularly care leavers, also have multiple challenges. Some of them are alienated by prior negative experiences of state services in their childhood, making it difficult for them to engage with professionals. At times, this lack of parental co-operation can be a trigger for the issuing of care proceedings. Young parents often feel judged by their youth and background rather than by their parenting abilities. That is particularly the case for care leavers, who often feel that being in care itself counts as a negative against them. Previous childhood experiences including suffering abuse, mental health problems and exclusion from school may adversely impact on their resilience, their resources, their support networks and their ability to deal with both the challenges of transitioning to adulthood and being a parent. Young parents who are care leavers also identify that even where support has been provided to them in their capacity as young people leaving care, the support often ignores their role as parents or fails to assist them in safely raising and keeping their child.

As referred to in new clause 16, a national offer for care leavers would go some way to mitigate the financial challenges that care leavers face, which are only exacerbated when they become parents themselves. Our amendments would ensure that their needs as parents were fully taken into account.

[Edward Timpson]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling amendments 28 to 31, which would provide that when a local authority assesses care leavers’ needs, they must take account of that young person’s requirements in relation to their physical and mental health, their emotional wellbeing and their needs as a young parent if that applies. Amendment 29 would require that any mental health assessment should be conducted by a qualified professional. I recognise that these issues are important, and that they could impact significantly on the lives of care leavers, whose health and wellbeing outcomes tend to be worse than for young people who have never been in care. The likelihood of care leavers becoming teenage parents is also much greater than for their peers, for the reasons set out by the hon. Lady in her speech.

There are, however, many other wider issues, such as health and development, education, training and employment, and financial and accommodation needs, which are also vital to care leavers’ transition to independent life and adulthood. All these issues— it would not be practical to list them all—are arguably of equal importance and will be different for every child, so I do not agree with giving some more weight than others. It is also unnecessary because these and other issues are already comprehensively covered in volume 3 of “The Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations”. The statutory guidance is clear that local authorities must produce for each care leaver a comprehensive pathway plan, which must be based on an up-to-date and thorough needs assessment taking into account how to support their health and development and their physical, emotional and mental health needs. I shall read a small extract from that guidance, which states that pathway plans must address the

“young person’s health and development building on the information included in the young person’s health plan established within their care plan when they were looked after”

and that personal advisers, who, under the clause, will cover all care leavers up to the age of 25,

“should work closely with doctors and nurses involved in health assessments and would benefit from training in how to promote both physical and mental health.”

I reiterate that the Government have established the expert group on the mental health of looked-after children and care leavers, and we have asked them to recommend the most appropriate way to deliver the care. The group have already met twice, and I have met them, and they are free to make recommendations during the period of their work. Their remit is substantial and wider than that which they had in relation to the Education Committee, albeit that that also had worth.

On the initial assessment when a child comes into care, it is not just a strengths and difficulties questionnaire, as regulations already require the responsible authority to ensure that all looked-after children have an initial health assessment by a registered medical practitioner, who should cover their emotional and mental health as well as their physical health needs. The reason we wanted the expert group to consider the matter is that there will be circumstances where it is not appropriate for a child coming into care to have a mental health assessment at that specific moment, either because they have suffered trauma at the moment of coming into care, or because they are a newborn baby, or because other elements in their circumstances might require it to be done in a more individually appropriate way. That will ensure that the right decisions are made about how to get to the bottom of what may be underlying issues due to pre-care experiences. We do not want to set a single process that restricts those who are charged with responsibilities to ensure that they take the appropriate action for that child.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that the process is clearly set out in law. I am not making that judgment; I am reflecting on the evidence provided by others about the experience of children who are brought into the care system. The whole point of the expert group is to try to ensure that the care pathway that is created for each child coming into care will ensure that they get the right support based on the right diagnosis at the right time. We want to avoid ending up with a process at the inception of a child’s time in care that does not enable that pathway to be created in a way that meets their individual needs.

The hon. Member for South Shields spoke about the most vulnerable mothers who have had multiple children taken into care. As we know, that group includes a disproportionate number of care leavers. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Pause programme, which seeks to break the intergenerational cycle of care, which the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned. Pause has been operating in Hackney for some time and has now been extended to six other local authority areas, with funding from my Department’s innovation programme.

Last month, the Secretary of State announced funding to roll out the Pause programme in a further nine areas, bringing Government funding support to more than £6.4 million in the next four years. The programme works intensively with young women to prevent repeat pregnancies and the subsequent removal of their children into care. The initial findings are extremely encouraging and, by extending the programme, we want to reach out to more parts of the country so that more mothers who find themselves in that situation get the support they need so that they can make good life choices and have a future that is not just about turning up at court once every few years to fight for custody of their own child.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Notwithstanding the good work being done through the Pause programme, does the Minister accept that the work is rather piecemeal? It is not happening in every local authority. As I said earlier, we should be offering such services to everyone across the board, not just to some people who live in certain local authority areas. What happens when this innovation money runs out? Do we just go back to where we were?

[Edward Timpson]

I will answer that question in two parts. First, interested parties always ask for evidence when we try something new. Before we roll out a programme nationally, we want to be able to demonstrate that it will be effective in tackling the issue that it was set up to try to resolve.

Secondly, of course we want to ensure that we get uniformity right throughout the country, but the only way we can establish whether the care leaving services work well is by having a strong legal framework backed up by strong accountability. When services work well—we now have four or five councils with an outstanding care leaving service—we need to get better at spreading that good practice. The new What Works centre is going to be a good way of achieving that. We must ensure that we find out where local authorities are falling short. That may be in the transitional work they are doing on the care pathway that is put in place to plan for the young person’s future, including the need to secure their emotional and mental health needs.

I do not disagree with the hon. Member for South Shields about the concerns she has expressed, which is why we are trying to tackle the problem through the innovation programme and the extension of the role of the personal adviser, who has an important part to play in providing mentoring support and engaging young people in the services they need, pushing their elbows out on their behalf so that by the time they reach 25 they are in a much stronger emotional, mental, physical and financial state than would otherwise have been the case. I do not think the approach the hon. Lady is suggesting would help in the way that she would hope. For the reasons I have set out, the Government are taking this approach because we want to try to tackle the problem that we both acknowledge remains long-standing. We are determined to do more than ever to put it right.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The other part of my previous question was what happens in the areas we are discussing when the innovation money runs out? I am assuming that each programme is time-limited.

[Edward Timpson]

Every innovation programme, of which we have more than 50 throughout the country and in every region, is provided with funding for the duration of the programme only if it can show how it will be sustainable in the long term. That is done through an independent panel that makes decisions about which programmes should be supported and which should not. The panel will feed directly into the What Works centre so that other parts of the country can learn from projects that have already demonstrated a discernible impact in the area that they hoped to help through their initial proposal.

Take the example of North Yorkshire, where the No Wrong Door project to support care leavers has been hugely successful in improving support for care leavers. That model is now being shared and replicated—albeit crafted to meet individual need—based on the fact that it is showing benefits not only in North Yorkshire but in other parts of the country. The model is one of creating the evidence base, having the ability to spread best practice, and then ensuring that the sustainability proposed in the original programme is there. On that basis, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

If I withdrew the amendments, would the Minister consider updating some of the guidance on mental health assessments? In the pathway plans I have seen in the past they are not given the prominence they should have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

Government amendments 1 to 8 would extend the remit of clauses 4 to 6 to include children adopted from the equivalent of state care in countries outside England and Wales. Clause 4 requires local authorities, through the virtual school head, to make advice and information available to parents and designated teachers in maintained schools and academies, for the purpose of promoting the educational achievement of children who ceased to be looked after by the local authority as a result of a permanence order. Clauses 5 and 6 place a duty on maintained schools and academies to appoint a designated teacher to promote the educational achievement of pupils. These amendments will extend these entitlements to children from other countries who are now in education in England and who were adopted from a form of care equivalent to being looked after by a local authority in England and Wales.

While it remains the Government’s top priority to continue to focus on support for children who are looked after by our care system, we understand that children adopted from similar circumstances in other countries are likely to face many of the same issues. In addition, they are living in a new country with a different culture and so they, too, are vulnerable. The Government acknowledged this earlier this year, when we opened up the Adoption Support Fund to these children and their families, giving them access to much-needed therapeutic services. So far there have been 40 applications to the fund from this group. The amendments acknowledge that, like children adopted in this country, children adopted overseas will often be coping with the emotional impact of trauma suffered in their early lives and that that can act as a barrier to their progress at school.

We know that there is an attainment gap for previously looked-after children in this country. It is, therefore, reasonable to deduce that that might also be the case for children adopted from elsewhere. There is, of course, much variation between the care systems in other countries so it is important that we ensure as much parity as possible with the eligibility criteria for children in this country who are eligible for the entitlements in clauses 4 to 6. I believe the amendments achieve just that.

A child who is cared for by a public authority, a religious organisation or charitable type of organisation before being adopted will now be able to access this support in school. The Government will set out in statutory guidance more detail on eligibility and the process for confirming such eligibility, so I hope hon. Members will support the amendments.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for amendments 32 to 34, which would extend the duty of the virtual school head and designated teacher to promote the educational achievement of children who cease to be looked after because they returned home to the care of their birth parent or parents. I agree that children taken into care who later return to their birth parent or parents may also be vulnerable and need extra support in education. Many come from disadvantaged backgrounds and it is important that they and their families are given the support that they need.

Where a child ceases to be looked after because they return home, a child will be a child in need and a plan must be drawn up to identify the support and services that will be needed by the child and family to ensure that the return home is successful. That should take into account the child’s needs, the parenting capacity of those with parental responsibility and the wider context of family and environmental factors reflecting the child’s changed status. That would include how the parents can support the child to attend and do well at school and the virtual school head would be involved in those transitional arrangements.

Like other children who are disadvantaged, these children’s needs should be met by mainstream education services. Many will be eligible for additional educational entitlement such as free early education from the age of two and the pupil premium, which provides extra help and support through additional funding for early years settings and schools. Most importantly, these children will continue to have their birth parent or parents who, with the encouragement of schools, should play a full part in their child’s education.

Children who are looked after who cannot return to their birth parents face very different challenges. They are among the most vulnerable in our society because of the neglect and abuse suffered in their early years but also because they have to build new relationships and attachments with new carers. Leaving care through, for example, adoption means children have to start again to begin a new life with new parents or carers. We owe it to the child and the child’s new parents or carers to continue to provide support, whether in education by retaining access to the virtual school head or in other areas to give them the best chance of building a new life that is happy and fulfilling.

We must take care not to dilute the virtual school head’s role as the corporate parent for looked-after children in education to the extent that they are spread so thinly that they have little impact. Virtual school heads want to build their capacity to ensure that they can do justice to their role and ensure that every child under their wing gets the support they need through the pupil premium plus and the work of the virtual school head. I hope, on that basis, that the hon. Lady will not press her amendments.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I welcome the Government amendments—something I hope to do again during the passage of the Bill. We welcome the fact that, when the Government see that the Bill is incomplete or that there are obvious or indefensible omissions, they take necessary steps to rectify them, and we will always support them in that. I hope that we will be able to support the Government at other points during the passage of the Bill.

Extending the provisions of clauses 4 and 5 to apply to children who were previously in state care outside England and Wales is a welcome move. I am sure that the Minister agrees with me that all children, whatever their background, who either need or are leaving care deserve the best opportunities available. Ensuring that those who were previously in care in other countries will receive some of the support outlined in the Bill is a good first step towards ensuring that all looked-after and previously looked-after children get the care that they need. I am sure that the Minister has seen that colleagues and I tabled a number of amendments to the Bill based on those principles, including amendments that would ensure that services provided were in keeping with the UN convention on the rights of the child, and that unaccompanied refugee children were given the support that they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Despite investment, the National Audit Office has judged child protection services to be “unsatisfactory and inconsistent”, which suggests systemic rather than local failure. Six years of Tory tinkering, rebranding and outsourcing has resulted in too many children’s services being deemed simply not good enough. Can the Minister tell us how much longer children will have to suffer because of his Department’s failures?

[The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)]

I realise that the hon. Lady wants to press the Government to do right by vulnerable children, but I am sorry that she has tried to create a division on something about which we agree. In fact, over the past six years the Government have intervened in 60 failing local authorities, 34 of which we have turned around, and we are now investing more than £300 million in an innovation programme to ensure that we can do right by children in our care and provide them with the best possible outcomes. I hope the hon. Lady will agree that we should never, ever settle for second best for children who are vulnerable. The work that we are doing is intended to ensure that we give them everything they deserve.

Looked-after Children/Social Work Reform

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Thursday 20th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I welcome this debate and the interest that the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), has shown in prioritising these issues for inquiry by that Committee.

There is a lot of ground to cover. It is always encouraging to get a ringing endorsement of everything that the Government are doing, but there are clearly still some elements of concern that I need to address. In so doing, I recognise, as others have, that hon. Members who are present share my commitment to improving the lives of vulnerable children. That is our joint mission and the underlying motivation for everything that we do in our privileged roles.

The Government have participated in and responded to the Select Committee’s inquiries, but I want to take the opportunity to provide some further detail and, I hope, reassurance that we have a comprehensive, considered and compassionate plan to help to bring about the improvements that we all want to see to vulnerable children’s lives. I remind hon. Members that in July this year we published our “Putting children first” strategy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for reminding everyone of that important document, which I believe represents the most thorough and ambitious reform agenda in this area for some considerable time. I am not complacent, and neither is that report, but it is a serious attempt to try to get children’s social care to where it needs to be.

The strategy sets out fundamental reforms across each of the three pillars on which the social care system stands or falls. The first and foremost of those is people and leadership. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that our system stands or falls on the quality and commitment of the people driving it. The second pillar is practice and the environment that we create for that practice to be able to improve, which we must do in a way that does not stifle practice through over-regulation and process-driven activity. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields that we do not want social workers sitting behind computers; we want them to work face-to-face with families to try to improve their lives, and we want to avoid risk-averse behaviours, of which process-driven activity is often a part.

The third and final pillar is governance and accountability. We need to be sure that what we are doing is effective and actually works. We must develop innovative new models for the pursuit of practice excellence, which has to be at the heart of this work, and remain firmly focused on improving outcomes for children. Only by taking action across those three fundamental pillars will we bring about the kind of transformational change that is needed in children’s social care.

As other Members have acknowledged, children’s social workers can have a genuinely life-changing impact on our most vulnerable children. Our vision is of a social work profession made up of fully confident and highly capable social workers who have been trained in the right way and have the right knowledge and skills, and access to the right supervision and support.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Minister may be coming to this, but I am curious: how will the Government measure the success of “Putting children first”?

[Edward Timpson]

I will come to how we will ensure that we are making progress. Several milestones are set out in “Putting children first”, which is a programme of work through to 2020. We will be able to measure progress by whether inspections of children’s services and our outcome measures for children in care improve, and we will have a whole suite of indicators that will give us a strong understanding of whether the work we have done and the measures we have put in place are having a positive influence.

Over the last six years, we have begun to lay solid foundations for achieving that vision. We have appointed a chief social worker, who has introduced the first definitive statements of child and family social work knowledge and skills. Working across Government with the Department of Health, we have developed the first four teaching partnerships, whereby employers and universities work together to ensure that university courses provide students with the right on-the-job skills. One of the problems in the past—I have seen this for myself—has been that too many social workers have come into practice without any first-hand experience of what it is like to be in a child protection situation. We need to change that.

We have invested almost £50 million since 2010 in Frontline and Step Up, which I make no apologies for mentioning. Those programmes have brought more than 770 high-calibre recruits into social work. We have expanded our assessed and supported year in employment programme to support newly qualified social workers entering the profession. To help the Chairman of the Select Committee on whether ASYE should be mandatory, I can tell him that 151 of the 152 local authorities take part in that course. We want to review that and see whether that level is maintained, because we think ASYE is an important part of social workers’ early experience of gaining professional knowledge.

We are under no illusions about the remaining challenges; there is still much more to do. The recent National Audit Office report on child protection performance was a timely reminder that the performance of children’s social care services is still far too variable across the country. We must acknowledge that although many local authorities provide a consistently effective core social work practice, the majority still struggle to do so.

The reviews by Professor Eileen Munro, Sir Martin Narey and David Croisdale-Appleby, among others, have given us a much deeper understanding of the issues faced by children’s social care. They describe a system in which initial social worker training is not universally preparing students for the challenges of the job, as I alluded to, and those already doing it often lack the time, specialist skills and supervision needed to achieve real change for children and families. The reviews also describe a system that focuses too much on management and is governed by prescribed approaches rather than excellent practice, and conclude that services have not always been designed around vulnerable children and that innovation has not been given enough space to thrive.

We are determined to address those challenges, as outlined in our “Putting children first” strategy. Going further and faster on our plan to drive up the skills and status of the children’s social work profession is central to that endeavour. To that end, I am working in partnership with my colleagues in the Department of Health to establish a new, bespoke independent regulator for social work that will set higher standards for social work both in what is expected of professionals in order to practise and in what is expected from universities and others providing initial social work education. It will also create a more rigorous approach to continuing professional development in social work—an area the Chairman of the Select Committee rightly raised—ensuring that social workers continue to develop throughout their careers, as called for in the report. In the past there has been too little recognition of the role this area has to play.

I am also bringing forward a new system of post-qualifying assessment and accreditation for child and family social workers. That is a key plank of our reforms, because it will provide, for the first time, a consistent way of ensuring that child and family social workers have the right knowledge and skills to do their jobs well. The new assessment will incentivise employers to invest properly in the development and support of their staff, as well as ensuring a mechanism for recognising the specialist skills that child and family social workers possess. Again, that work aligns with the recommendations of the Select Committee’s report. The consultation, which hon. Members are keen to see, is planned for publication before the end of the year, and I am sure they will want to contribute.

The assessment and accreditation system will also, for the first time, establish a consistent, clearly structured and well supported career pathway for child and family social workers, which will allow them to deepen their skills as they take on additional responsibility and, crucially, keep them in touch with practice. One of the problems we can all recognise is that in the past too many good social workers, as they gained experience, rather than remaining close to families and working their own cases, moved into management and behind desks. We therefore lose that expertise and the new crop of social workers coming through do not get the support they could have gained from those experienced social workers if they are no longer working with them.

Practice skill and expertise will be the most highly prized and rewarded asset across the whole career, from newly qualified social workers all the way through to practice leaders. Together, the reforms provide an opportunity and a solid platform from which to raise the status of child and family social work in the way the profession needs and deserves. They create the conditions for a strong, confident social work profession where practitioners are properly supported to thrive in very challenging front-line posts. The profession, and the children and families it serves, should expect no less.

I want to address the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee about a professional body. It is right to say that over three years the Department for Education, with support from the Department of Health, spent more than £8 million of public money trying to set up the college of social work, but despite that significant investment the college was unable to secure the sufficient membership required to make it sustainable. However, I re-emphasise, as I did in evidence to the Select Committee, that it is important that there is a strong professional body for social work. It has to be sustainable, but also have a sense of ownership by the profession. It cannot be top-down; it has to be a bottom-up organisation. We want to continue to work with the British Association of Social Workers, other representatives of the workforce and the Department of Health to see how we can start to nurture and craft a professional body in that mould so that we have something that truly represents social workers and can go into bat for them when they need that.

It is also important to recognise that giving social workers the right knowledge and skills and setting high standards for practice will not on its own bring about the step change we need. Excellent social workers need to work within supportive and permissive organisations where they are given the flexibility to use their expertise in ways that have the greatest impact on children and families. As Eileen Munro identified, good social work is not about following processes and procedures, but too often that is what we have turned it into. We need a dynamic practice system where testing and evaluating new ways of working and learning from the best is the norm. We see that in other parts of public service, so why not in children’s social care?

It is our children’s social care innovation programme that is starting to foster that way of working. We have already funded over 50 projects and announced £200 million more for the future. We are also developing the first ever What Works centre for children’s social care. That is an important development, because for the first time there will be a repository of good practice for social workers to use and have confidence in for the work they do. We are also overhauling the serious case review process to better extract national learning when things go wrong.

We want to go further. The Children and Social Work Bill, which is currently before Parliament, includes a new power to innovate. Through that power, we are looking to say that, ultimately, excellent front-line social work practice should be defined not by the Government or Parliament but by local practice leaders, with more freedom to operate within a clear, safe statutory framework. Our “partners in practice” local authorities—eight of the highest-performing authorities—see the power as an important and potentially transformative opportunity.

The power has been criticised by some in the Lords. It is right that we debate that and that the quality of debate in Parliament is strong, but let us have a debate based on facts, not on unfounded propositions. Let me be clear: we do not want to privatise child protection services and we will not privatise child protection services. Indeed, there are already clear legislative restrictions on the outsourcing of children’s social care functions. It was never the intention to use the power to innovate to revisit those. However, to put it beyond doubt, we are amending the Children and Social Work Bill to rule out any use of the power in that way.

We will not remove fundamental rights or protections from children either. Our aim is to strengthen, not weaken protections. We want to let the best local authorities, led by leading-edge practice leaders, work in ways with more potential to make an actual difference for children instead of watching and waiting, hamstrung by excessive prescription.

I will quote from Eileen Munro, because we still value her views on how we are performing and the work we are doing:

“I welcome the introduction of the power to innovate set out in the Children and Social Work Bill. This is a critical part of the journey set out in my Independent Review of Child Protection towards a child welfare system that reflects the complexity and diversity of children’s needs. Trusting professionals to use their judgment rather than be forced to follow unnecessary legal rules will help ensure children get the help they need, when they need it.”

She is not a lone voice: the Children’s Commissioner, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Catch22, Achieving for Children and the children’s social worker all hold similar views.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The concern about the Children and Social Work Bill seems to be that the Government have been completely unable to say exactly which functions local authorities will be able to opt out of. Bearing in mind that a lot of the functions they have around children protect them from harm and keep them safe, is it not understandable that there is huge concern out there about where the Government are going with that?

[Edward Timpson]

Perhaps I can give the hon. Lady some examples of primary legislation where local authorities have asked that they be able to use the power to innovate where that is currently restricted in law. Under section 25 of the Children Act 1989, independent reviewing officers must be appointed for every looked-after child and they have to have regular reviews. We know that children often say that they do not like that. There are children who are in very stable placements for whom that can be disruptive and they ask for that not to happen, whereas other children need more intense oversight from an independent reviewing officer. That is one example of where local authorities want to have that flexibility.

There are also some anomalies that I am not sure many people appreciate. For instance, under section 66 of the 1989 Act, any child who is not cared for by a family or a guardian for 28 days counts as privately fostered and as such receives the same duties as other looked-after children, with visits and so on. That ends up capturing children coming over to language schools, which the local authority have to go and visit, to check on their welfare, despite those children being on a foreign exchange trip. Those are just some examples of measures where the local authorities that have shown an interest—we have to remember that this is a permissive power—would want some flexibility, in a safe and controlled environment, to test to see whether there is a different way of providing services that is absolutely focused on improving children’s outcomes more than anything else.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Timpson]

Briefly, because I want to make sure I finish my speech. I have not got on to mental health yet.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Just one quick point for clarity: am I right to assume that the Minister is saying that anything is open as long as the local authority applies to the Secretary of State, or will it be just the two examples he has given? I am struggling to see what exactly is in the mix. This seems to be open to anything.

[Edward Timpson]

There are restrictions to the legislation that local authorities can apply to be disapplied. A local authority has to make the application itself and it has to consult with the local area. It then has to submit that application to an expert group, which will consider it and publish its findings. Even then, there has to be an affirmative resolution in both Houses before that local authority can test out that new way of working. I met the hon. Lady yesterday to talk a little bit about this and other areas of shared interest. I am happy to provide her with more details and I also suggest that we agree to meet again, so we can make sure that all of the information is provided.

The chairman of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, raised the issue of trusts, which I will touch on briefly. I in no way think that creating children’s social care trusts is a panacea for all ills. In most cases, when a local authority fails it will be able to improve its services with the right support, as is happening in Cumbria, Surrey and Buckinghamshire at the moment. However, where failure is persistent or systemic, it is right that we look carefully at whether the capacity for improvement exists in the local authority. We now have commissioners who go in and undertake a three-month review before reaching their conclusions and recommendations on the way forward.

Leaving services within council control is sometimes found to be the best approach to securing improvement, as in Bromley and Dudley, for example. In other cases, local authorities themselves agree that an independent trust model will create extra improvement capacity and help to turn things around, as is the case in Birmingham and Sunderland. Sometimes, where failure is deep-rooted and an authority does not have the capacity to improve itself, service control must be removed by my Department. I will not apologise for doing that. We cannot simply sit back and watch authorities fail over and over again, year after year, without trying new ways to bring about improvement. There is a growing bank of evidence following recent Ofsted inspections in Doncaster and Slough of services improving following the move to a trust after years of failure. Ofsted has particularly highlighted the strengthening of leadership and management in those trusts, which are critical components of any successful organisation.

To give the Chairman of the Committee an opportunity to respond and conclude the debate, let me now turn to my hon. Friend’s interest in the mental health and wellbeing of looked-after children and care leavers. I thank members of the Education Committee for their insightful report and commend them for their ongoing interest in this important area. I know all too well, from my personal experience, the nature of the challenges that children in care often face and the impact that can have on their mental health and the health of those who care for them. That is why my Department is taking strong action to improve support for children in care and care leavers, including the introduction of the staying put duty, so that all young people leaving foster care can continue living with their foster families after the age of 18. More than 50% of 18 year-olds in foster care have taken up that opportunity.

We are also undertaking a national stocktake of foster care to better understand current provision and how needs are matched with skills. I look forward to working with the Education Committee in looking at the evidence it gathers for its own report in this area. We are piloting the staying close programme, which enables young people leaving children’s homes to maintain links with those homes, as recommended by Sir Martin Narey’s review of children’s residential care. We published a new, cross-Government care leavers strategy, “Keep On Caring”, which sets out what we will do right across Government to ensure that care leavers get the support they need and also outlines our ambitions for trialling new and innovative ways of working. We are also taking legislation through Parliament that will, for the first time, define what it means to be a good corporate parent for children in care and care leavers.

When the state decides a child’s needs are such that we must take on parental responsibility, it has an overwhelming duty and responsibility to be the very best corporate parent it can be. It is right that, like all good parents, that responsibility continues when young people reach early adulthood. The new corporate parenting principles ensure that responsibility is given the weight and significance it deserves across the whole country. I hope hon. Members will support it.

Central to delivering our responsibilities as corporate parents is the promotion and support of the mental health and wellbeing of children in care and care leavers. That is an issue we take very seriously and on which we want to make timely and sustainable progress that tackles the shift in mindset needed around mental health and brings improvements to practice. Only this week, my noble Friend Lord Nash introduced an amendment to the Children and Social Work Bill that will explicitly capture the role of local authorities in promoting the mental health of looked-after children as a core part of the definition of a good corporate parent, which is significant.

I share the concerns of the hon. Member for South Shields about child and adolescent mental health services. They have been undervalued and underfunded for far too long, and we need to do far more to tackle that. The Government are investing £1.4 billion over the life of this Parliament to drive improvements in mental health services for children and young people. In addition, we are making a specific investment of more than £10 million to support the mental health of young people in secure children’s homes, who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

In order to get mental health support for children in care right, the Department of Health and the Department for Education have, as hon. Members have said, established an expert group to ensure that the emotional and mental health needs of children and young people in care and adopted from care and of care leavers are better met. It is a collaboration between social care, education and health colleagues, parents and carers and care leavers themselves. It is a comprehensive piece of work to map out the care pathway for a looked-after child in need of mental health support; it is not just looking at the point of entry into the care system.

The principle of having a mental health assessment for all children being brought into care is instinctively attractive, but I know—and I know others who share this view—that we have to look at each child individually. There will be some children who, at the point they come into care, are still suffering great trauma from an event that has led to them going into care. That is not the right moment for them to have such an assessment. There are other children, such as newborn babies and others, for whom it would also not be appropriate.

The expert group is gathering pace and gathering that evidence. As my noble Friend Lord Nash said on Report, we will take seriously its recommendations. Those may come during the duration of the group’s work and may also include potential changes to legislation. That is a commitment we have made, and we want to make progress and make sure we do not lose this opportunity.

The reports discussed today pose a range of challenges to the Government. I welcome the healthy debate they have generated, because they help to keep the issue at the top of the agenda and maintain the momentum, not just for me and my Department but right across Government. I share the ambition of other hon. Members, and we are united in our commitment to improving the lives of our most vulnerable children. Hon. Members should be in no doubt that I recognise and accept that there remain deep-seated issues we need to resolve, but I and the Government are more determined than ever to show the resolve and commitment needed to rise to those challenges with our clear and ambitious plan for fundamentally reforming the system. Our vulnerable children deserve no less.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Edward Timpson]

My hon. Friend is right that we have managed to secure more than £200 million of capital funding for special schools to increase the number of placements in his area and many others. We will be giving more details shortly, but I am sure that many people not just in Newark but right across England will be looking forward to seeing how they can improve the facilities and support that are available for children with special educational needs.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I heard the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), but I was dismayed that in the “Schools that work for everyone” Green Paper there was not one single mention of children with special educational needs or disabilities. Is it not true that this Government have simply forgotten about them?

[Edward Timpson]

I welcome the hon. Lady back to the Front Bench. I know that she has had a number of epiphanies in the past few months, going from a remainer to a leaver to a returner, but I am pleased that she has taken up her present role, where I know she is a good fit. It is Dyspraxia Awareness Week, and I know that she is a very strong supporter of the work that the Dyspraxia Foundation and others do. She knows a lot about that issue and I wish her well in her role.

The Green Paper looks at raising standards across all schools for all children, and it includes, as I said previously, children with special educational needs. I hope that the hon. Lady will work with us to make sure that they get the best possible deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Edward Timpson]

Step Up and Frontline are beginning to have a significant impact: more than 670 Step Up participants have qualified as social workers and more than 450 students and 103 local authorities started training this year. An evaluation of cohort 1 showed high retention, and 99 Frontline participants have now qualified as social workers. An independent evaluation in March 2016 was hugely encouraging.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Children can remain in foster care until they are 21, while those in residential care have to leave at 18, which creates a truly unfair system. I have organised for MPs to pledge their support tomorrow to show that we care equally about all looked-after children. Will the Minister sign the pledge?

[Edward Timpson]

I commend the hon. Lady for her continued and passionate commitment to this matter, based on her professional experience and desire to make a difference. If she reads the paper, “Putting Children First”, which I mentioned a few moments ago, she will find a response to a recommendation from Martin Narey’s review into residential care explaining that we will start to pilot “staying close” for children leaving care in residential care settings. This is in line with his recommendation and I am sure will be hugely welcomed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy and quality of provision in the children’s social work sector.

[The Minister for Children and Families (Edward Timpson)]

May I begin by apologising if I am moving unusually slowly and gingerly to and from the Dispatch Box this afternoon? I have the excuse of having run the London marathon yesterday, along with seven other Members of the House and close to 40,000 other hardy individuals. I ask the House to put on record our collective gratitude to and admiration for them, in particular for the more than £25 million that they raised for hundreds of charities up and down the country.

It is the role of Ofsted to assess the adequacy and quality of provision in the children’s social work sector. All local authorities are currently being inspected under the single inspection framework, which assesses arrangements for child protection services for looked-after children and the leadership, management and governance of children’s social care. My Department intervenes to support improvement in services where they are judged to be inadequate.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a hero, but too modest to point out that he has run marathons on a number of previous occasions; because he is too modest I will do it for him.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for his response. As he well knows, social work is a holistic profession. For example, when I qualified I had knowledge across all social work disciplines, such as mental health, child protection and adult social care, ensuring that I was able to fully grasp all the issues facing my clients. Will he therefore explain why his Government are investing in Frontline and Think Ahead to the detriment of traditional, more holistic university courses, and are creating specialisms in silos, which is bad for the profession and even worse for the clients?

[Edward Timpson]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady has given a distorted view of the work being done to improve social work practice across the board. Not only are the Government investing in fast-track graduate schemes such as Frontline and Step Up to Social Work, to which 151 local authorities have signed up, but we have the assisted and supported year of employment and the new knowledge and skills that every children’s social worker will now have to be accredited and assessed against. That is important because for the first time there is a relentless focus on high-quality social work practice rather than a simple theoretical understanding of social work. We need to get that balance right, and that will be at the heart of our social work reforms.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

The Government’s own findings show that the 26-week timescale that is applied in care proceedings is leading to rushed and unsuitable placements for children under special guardianship orders. In the light of that, will the Minister accept what the social work profession has known all along: that 26 weeks is not sufficient to plan properly for a vulnerable child’s life?

[Edward Timpson]

From memory, the hon. Lady was on the Children and Families Public Bill Committee, so she will know that when we brought in the 26-week timescale for care cases, the average length was over 55 weeks. In anyone’s view, that is well over what it should be for a decision about a child’s long-term future. We have managed to bring the average down to close to 26 weeks. In relation to special guardianship orders, we need to ensure that the assessment of the potential carers for those children is as robust as it is in respect of any other decision about a child’s long-term permanence. There is a concern that, in too many cases, that is not happening.

Education and Adoption Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Timpson]

I would like to speak to amendments 9 and 12 and proposed new clause 1. As we have heard, the amendments concern the functions that can be included in a direction, in particular about the adoption support function. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the fitness of agencies to deliver the functions. Amendment 9 would add

“support identified in needs assessments of adopted children”

to the list of functions that can be included in a direction under the new clause. Amendment 12 would require consultation with children, adopters and other relevant people before any amendments to the type of local authority functions that could be included in a direction. The new clause would require the Secretary of State, before giving a direction, to commission and publish a report on the fitness of the authorities and agencies that he or she intends to direct. It would also require the assessment to consider specifically agencies’ ability to deliver support for education and adult employment for adopted children, mental health assessments and support services, and matching services.

I am grateful to the hon. Members on both sides who contributed to the well-informed debate on the amendments. I can understand the reasons why the amendments were proposed; it is certainly imperative that we ensure that the list of functions that regional adoption agencies can deliver is the right list and, as the Committee would expect, I wholeheartedly agree with the ambition to ensure that those carrying out adoption functions are fit to do so. That is particularly true when it comes to the needs of adopted children and their families for good, timely adoption support services.

Let me turn first to that last point, which is particularly raised by amendment 9. The amendment would add the wording proposed to the list of functions that can be included in a direction under the new clause. The amendment seeks to ensure that local authorities are under a duty to provide the adoption support identified in the needs assessments of adopted children. I should note that the wording does not describe an existing function and therefore it cannot be added to a list of functions in the way proposed. The clause already enables the general adoption support function to be covered in any direction. However, I fully appreciate the hon. Members’ reasons for proposing the amendment and seeking to ensure that local authorities are under a duty to provide adoption support identified in needs assessments of adopted children. As the hon. Member for South Shields said, we can all see the strong moral argument for providing high-quality support to children and families who are dealing with the impact of early abuse and neglect. There is also a strong financial imperative, for obvious reasons.

It is in no one’s interests for adoptive placements to falter, or even break down, in ways that could have been avoided had good support been available at the right time. I know from my family’s experience of adoption that unless there is support and a good assessment of the needs of not only that individual child but the family coping with the fallout from that child’s early life experiences, it can cause unnecessary harm and damage to the prospects of that family. It is also the support that will best ensure that the underlying causes that have created the behavioural difficulties, outbursts or friction in the family are understood and dealt with.

That is precisely why I was determined to establish the adoption support fund, which rolled out this year. We are providing more than £19 million of funding to support adopted children and their families. That means that when local authorities assess the needs of adopted children they can now draw on the fund to provide a wide range of support services. I am delighted that already more than 250 families have been supported through the fund since it began in May, accessing around £1.5 million of the overall funding pot.

As I argued during the passage of the Children and Families Act 2014, I believe that the adoption support fund is a better solution to the ongoing challenge of meeting the needs of adopted children and their families, compared with imposing a duty to provide on local authorities. By adding significant extra money into the system, the fund will help both to improve access to adoption support services and build provision of those services. It will enable local authorities to assess properly and not be tempted, as they could be under a duty to provide, to under-assess, and do it consistently in the knowledge that there is an additional source of funding to pay for packages of support.

In addition, we expect that the fund will help to stimulate the opportunity for adoption and support providers to grow by acting as a commissioner of services. Those benefits would not have been realised through a duty to provide.

I shall take this opportunity to share with the Committee one of the stories that have already started to emerge from the adoption support fund, about a family that has benefited. The family said that Jacob had settled really well into his family but, as a result of experiencing parental drug use, domestic violence and neglect in his birth family, he had been having some emotional problems at home and school. An application was made to the adoption support fund and, as a result, Jacob, his mum and dad are taking part in a course of Theraplay. The money provided by the adoption support fund has meant that the therapy has been able to happen quickly in their home town and is delivered by a worker whom they trust. That opportunity has had a significant impact on the family and it means that Jacob has the best chance to settle into his school and continue to be loved and secure in his family. That is exactly the sort of outcome that we hoped for when we set up the fund at the beginning of last year.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I really welcome the fund. In discussions around establishing the fund, did the Minister consider that a lot of these children have mental health needs and issues prior to adoption? Was no consideration given to putting money into services that could help the children before they were adopted, as opposed to once they are adopted?

[Edward Timpson]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the role that mental health plays in the lives of many children, not only those who are adopted but in the care system. I was struck when growing up by how many children, sometimes very young, were displaying what I now know to be the impact of mental health problems. The role of mental health in the therapeutic support that the adoptive families will need through the fund is very much part of what is on offer. We have a list of different therapies that are available through the fund, and that is kept under review to ensure that we have the right mix of therapies to meet the demand from applications to the fund. The greatest need and the main source of applications has been post-adoption therapeutic support.

We are struggling to see each other through the hon. Gentleman’s head.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I welcome the programme that the Minister is discussing, but am I right in thinking that the innovation programmes apply only to certain local authorities, not right across the board? Those authorities who are not taking part will be those who are saying that they are overburdened and unable to meet demand. In my experience, social workers are already incredibly innovative, so they do not need money chucked at them to be that. What they need is freedom from bureaucracy and the scope to do their jobs.

[Edward Timpson]

The innovation programme was set up specifically to address freedom and flexibility at ground level so that practitioners—whether social workers, health visitors or others who work in children’s services—can do what they came into the profession to do: to work directly with families, helping them to turn their lives around, and to use their professional judgment, which for too long has been shackled by much of the prescription and box-ticking that is expected of them.

We were purposely not prescriptive in the innovation programme, either. We said to local authorities, voluntary organisations and others, “You come forward with your own ideas as to how you think you can better deliver children’s services. Tell us what barriers are preventing you from doing exactly that. They may be regulatory, financial or cultural, but, whatever they are, we want to try to remove them so that you can provide the highest possible standard of children’s services.” The response was overwhelming, with almost 300 replies from every region, right across the country, including the north-east. I am happy to provide the hon. Lady with a list of the projects in her area.

I had the opportunity to go up to the city of Durham, where an excellent programme is working with families in the community to ensure that they do not reach that point of crisis at which interventions may be needed. That illustrates that there is desire and enthusiasm to improve what is available in the care system before intervention in a child’s life and interaction with children’s services.

Such learning will not be owned solely by the local authority or the groups who collaborate to deliver that project. The information can be disseminated through the innovation programme, which is being carefully evaluated. I will give the hon. Lady and other Members another example. In North Yorkshire, there is £2 million for the “no wrong door” approach, which is testing out how specialist foster carers can work alongside two children’s homes to provide better support, which includes mental health services, education and rebuilding links with their families, for up to 700 young people leaving care. That includes testing what is called a staying close approach, which supports care leavers up to the age of 21 in ways that they say they wanted to be supported. That may be through accommodation, a trusted mentor or keeping links with their education provider. Those are all examples of some of the many projects—53 to date—that we have funded to inject greater innovation and creativity into children’s services so that we can tackle some of the entrenched issues. We are determined to build on that record in this Parliament, and transform the quality of child protection services in England to ensure that the quality of support for looked-after children, whatever placement is right for them, continues to improve. The new child protection taskforce is a strong demonstration of that intent.

Of course, no one would disagree with the hon. Member for Sefton Central that the best interests of a child have to be at the heart of every decision made on their behalf. Clearly, adoption is no panacea when deciding what the future holds for a child in care, but it provides a fantastic opportunity for children for whom adoption is right to have the life that they deserve. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton made an excellent point that the fact that we are trying to fix what Sir Martin Narey called the long-term decline in adoption—commendably, the Labour Government also tried to fix that decline—does not mean that we cannot continue to drive improvement across the system. I welcome any views, experiences or suggestions from hon. Members on how we can do that further.

Special guardianships, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff West, are an interesting and important innovation. In the almost 10 years since their inception, there has been exponential growth in special guardianship orders to the point that they are at about the same level as adoption, but we have never seen a proper review to understand their impact. Which children are being put forward for special guardianship? What is their age profile? Who are the special guardians? How are the placements faring in terms of support? What is the breakdown rate? There has been some research, but the time has come for us to understand the role played by special guardianship orders. They are helping to provide more children with permanence.

Taking that cohort together with adoption and long-term fostering, more children are getting the permanent placements that we all want them to have. We have instituted a review, and we have set up an expert working group, of which Andy Elvin, who gave evidence to this Committee, is a member. I will be meeting the group in the coming weeks to establish exactly how we can pool together the collective knowledge out there on special guardianship orders so that we can understand the role they can play in future.

This has been a helpful debate. I reiterate that the focus on adoption is right, but that does not mean that we are not capable of making improvements elsewhere in the care system, as we did during the previous Parliament. That remains our goal, and I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak feels reassured enough to withdraw his amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Edward Timpson]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election; I am pleased to hear that my visit was not only helpful but did not prevent her from getting over the finishing line.

A key principle of the Children Act 1989 is that children are generally best looked after within their families, save where that is not consistent with their welfare. That was reiterated in the Children and Families Act 2014. Of course, where concerns arise it is right that the local authority takes the appropriate action, but the point of having an independent court system is to ensure that that is proportionate and that in children’s upbringing their welfare and their best interests are the paramount consideration. That should remain at the heart of all the work we do with vulnerable children and I am happy to work with my hon. Friend to achieve that.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Despite what the Minister says, local authority cuts have had disastrous consequences for children’s social care services. Ofsted is now reporting that independent reviewing officers are so stretched that poor planning and delays for the most vulnerable children are going unchallenged. What will the Minister do to defend the service from further cuts?

[Edward Timpson]

It is wonderful to see the hon. Lady back. She was extremely vocal on these issues in the previous Parliament, and very effective in raising them to the profile they deserve. They are often missed at local, as well as national, level. The truth about children’s social care is that, at a time when it has been difficult for local councils, good decisions have been made to protect spending on children’s safeguarding. That is something I hope they will continue, while considering how they can be more effective and efficient in delivering those services. That is one of the reasons why the adoption Bill, which the House will soon be discussing, considers how they can work more closely together to achieve better services for children wherever they are from in the country, so that we have greater consistency everywhere.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that the number of children put forward for adoption has halved in the past year. The Government’s unrealistic time scales have meant that social workers are left with no option but to hold off issuing care proceedings, resulting in a logjam in social services departments and, in some cases, increasing delays for children. Will the Minister accept responsibility for this situation and urgently reconsider this ill-thought-out policy?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

That is simply not true. We have seen a record rise of 60% in the number of adoptions under this Government. On the back of the judgment in RE B-S, there has been a misinterpretation of the law, but the law on adoption has not changed. We are prepared to do everything we can for all those children whose plan is for adoption, who still await care as we sit here and who still endure the delays and unfortunate practices preventing them from getting into loving, permanent, stable family homes. We will do everything we can to get rid of those delays and give them the best possible start in life, which is exactly what they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the recommendations of Sir Martin Narey’s report “Making the Education of Social Workers Consistently Effective”, published in January 2014, on the training of children’s social workers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

We welcome Sir Martin Narey’s report, and agree with both his analysis and approach to securing improvement. We are already putting in place some of his recommendations: the chief social worker, Isabelle Trowler, is leading work to define the knowledge and skills that children and family social workers need to practise effectively; and I announced last week that we are supporting a fourth cohort of the successful Step Up to Social Work programme.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for his response. Sir Martin Narey’s report rightly recognises the importance of quality social work placements. Is the Minister therefore concerned by reports that trainee social workers are instead being used to plug gaps left by the Government’s cuts to children’s services and provide cover for fully qualified colleagues? Does he agree that that is neither good for social workers’ development, nor for at-risk children?

[Mr Timpson]

I am always concerned when newly qualified social workers find themselves in a difficult professional position, whereby they feel stretched by the case they are having to deal with. That is why we have provided a large amount of money to ensure that their first year is supported by the Assessed and Supported Year in Employment programme, and why we are making sure that the £239 million we have already invested in social work training will be supplemented by the work of Sir Martin Narey and the chief social worker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Timpson]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that some adoption cases take far too long. The average time from care to placement is 22 months, which is why we have streamlined the approvals process and introduced regular scorecard data to show local authorities’ timeliness with adoptions. It is also why we have put more than £200 million into the adoption system to try to rip out unnecessary red tape and ensure that everyone keeps their efforts firmly fixed on children who badly need stable homes.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Adults who become special guardians face the same difficulties as parents who adopt, yet receive less support. My experience is that overburdened social workers are more likely to pursue a special guardianship order because the process is less intensive, but sometimes that lack of rigour leads to breakdown. Will the Minister try to bring the processes for SGOs into line with those for adoption so that children are protected by arrangements that are appropriate for them?

[Mr Timpson]

Of course, any special guardianship order must be signed off and approved by the court in the same way as a placement or adoption order. There has been a significant increase in the number of SGOs throughout the country in recent years, which is why we have commissioned for the first time proper research not only into the prevalence of the orders, but into who is taking them forward and what the breakdown rates are, as well as what is available to ensure that children who find themselves in such permanent situations get the support that they need. If the hon. Lady wishes, I will be happy to talk to her about that further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the training and support available for the teaching of children with special educational needs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

Teachers tell us that the quality of their training in SEN has improved significantly, with 69% of primary teachers and 74% of secondary teachers rating their training as “good” or “very good” in helping them to teach pupils with SEN. That compares with as few as 45% in 2008.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Just over 1,900 pupils in my constituency have special educational needs. Those children need teachers who understand their unique requirements as learners and adapt their lessons appropriately. Does the Minister accept that such pupils lose out in schools that have unqualified teachers who have never undertaken any special educational needs training?

[Mr Timpson]

No.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Timpson and Emma Lewell-Buck

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

13. What assessment his Department has made of the role of child guardians and their effects on the length of court proceedings in public law cases.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

The length of care proceedings and the role of the children’s guardian were examined as part of the family justice review by David Norgrove. Factors such as the early appointment of a guardian to a case can be particularly important. Performance on this continues to be closely monitored. I am pleased to report that appointments are consistently taking place within the agreed two-day target, with the average appointment taking place in half a day.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

In my experience it is often the case that, despite the best intentions, children’s guardians add another layer of complexity to an already cumbersome court process, causing delay and introducing children to yet another unfamiliar face. What action is the Minister taking to improve the effectiveness of guardians in putting the interests of children first?

[Mr Timpson]

I spent the best part of a decade working in the family courts on exactly these sorts of cases, and many people, including myself, value the independent voice that the guardian gives to children who are in care. We know from the public law outline, which has recently been updated, that since the publication of our Children and Families Bill the length of care proceedings has already fallen from 56 to 42 weeks and that the quality of the reporting from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service has continued to improve, as has its timeliness. I will listen to what the hon. Lady has to say about the role of the guardians, but at the moment I believe they play an extremely important role.