Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 3 July 2008.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

Before we start, I place on record my thanks to my co-Chairman, Mr. Williams, for stepping into the Chair at short notice on Tuesday.

New Clause 2

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

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

Welcome back to the Chair for the last leg of this Committee, Mr. Pope. So far it has been conducted in an exceedingly amenable, friendly and constructive manner. I am sure that today will be no exception. However, as we are likely to be interrupted this afternoon by a number of votes and a number of new clauses have been tabled by hon. Members across the Committee, I will try to get through those in my name as quickly as possible this morning.

New clause 2 proposes the creation of the post of chief social worker. It resulted from the Conservative party commission on social workers that I chaired and which reported last October. That commission has been mentioned in the Committee several times. As everybody knows, we have a chief medical officer, who is currently Sir Liam Donaldson. He appears frequently on the media as the face of the health service who advises the Secretary of State. We also have a chief veterinary officer. Many people will remember Debby Reynolds, the former holder of that post, who is a little more familiar than Nigel Gibbons who took over from her. We do not have a post of chief social worker.

In this Committee, on Second Reading and in other debates, we have touched on the problem that we all acknowledge faces social workers of their perception in the press, the constant torrent of negative stories about them and the lack of reports on their many positive achievements. I have described social workers as potentially the fourth emergency service. They should be viewed as no less important than teachers, police, nurses and doctors. Their work is integral to sustaining vulnerable families, keeping them together and providing crucial support. However, for some reason they do not get the same recognition and respect among the general public.

Too many people view social workers as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The first contact many people have with social workers is when there is a knock on the door, which may be the beginning of proceedings that lead to a child being taken into care. Many social workers would like to intervene much earlier and work on a preventive basis to keep vulnerable families together. It would be good if they had the opportunity to do that, but this problem exists because of the pressures on the system and the high vacancy rates which are at 20 per cent. in some parts of the country.

Our commission recommended that the Government create the post of chief social worker. To quote from our report, a family barrister, Jessica Lee, who was one of our witnesses, wrote of social workers:

“Due to resource pressures, they are now seen as ‘bad guys’ who only appear to intervene and remove children rather than be able to offer the supportive role that they feel they used to be able to provide to families.”

A representative of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering said:

“Their work demands the deepest understanding into the nature of the human condition and the personal cost to them of doing so can be high. In the public eye, social workers have become too easily identified with the problems of their clients.”

The General Social Care Council stated that

“social work is often seen as the poor relation in a professional world; ‘only 40 per cent. of the population see the contribution of social workers to society as very important’.”

There was plenty of evidence to suggest that there is a problem with the way that social workers are perceived. That will be all too familiar to Committee members who have followed that profession. That inevitably has an impact on their ability to do their job.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am listening with interest and it is not that I am unsympathetic. Will the hon. Gentleman give me an idea of the scale of the office that might be set up around the chief social worker?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I shall come to that in a minute. The hon. Lady makes a good point. Obviously, some of the roles are set out in the new clause.

My other point is that the commission found that of some 76,000 social workers registered with the GSCC, only 11,000 belonged to the British Association of Social Workers. There is a problem, therefore, regarding a strong voice for the profession, and the head of the BASW in giving evidence admitted some of the shortcomings of the current situation. In contrast, the British Medical Association represents the interests of 70 per cent. of doctors and the Royal College of Nursing represents 60 per cent. of nurses. There is not a big body that speaks up for social workers.

The post of chief social worker may be occupied by somebody who is already in the Department of Health. There will be a slight anomaly and a split between adult social workers and children social workers. Whether the chief social worker would be equally responsible to the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department of Health is to be determined. For example, in the Department of Health we have David Behan, who is well known to many of us as director general for social care—he was previously chief inspector of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. He is exceedingly well respected and highly qualified. The proposal may mean re-badging somebody like David Behan, if not David Behan himself.

I am not talking about an enormous upheaval in structures, creating a whole new department within the Department of Health or the Department for Children, Schools and Families, but about having a higher profile for a lead person who is recognised as the chief social worker. I shall summarise their roles, as set out in the new clause. They would be the face of social workers in the media, in particular when there was a big case. They would also carry the can in the public eye when there seemed to be something wrong with the system, and they would oversee the promotion of the social worker profession and better recruitment campaigns, and would advise the Secretary of State or the Secretaries of State on technical matters to do with social workers. If we give that sort of status to a chief social worker, hopefully there will be a trickle-down effect on the status, standing and recognition of all social workers.

I do not pretend that this is a universal panacea, that overnight people will say, “Oh, now that we have a chief social worker, I am going to let my social worker over the threshold more often.” It is a question of building up those images and perceptions. I shall give the example of New Zealand, where as part of our study I had a long conversation with Marie Connolly, who is the chief social worker in that country. The post was created some years ago because they had the same problem there with the perception of social workers. They thought that it would be helpful to create the post of chief social worker. Marie appears frequently in the media. She told me that she had been offered her own regular newspaper column, to report on the life of social workers and on things going on in the profession. The innovation was generally judged to be successful, and we can learn many lessons from it.

Another thing that came up in our study—it seems a flippant suggestion but it is not—was that there should be a soap opera or a popular television programme centred on social workers. We have such programmes on doctors, nurses and teachers, and even forensic pathologists have become part of the culture of popular TV. Yet when social workers appear in soaps, in “EastEnders” for example, they are terribly stereotyped and portrayed in a pretty derogatory way as interfering, which only reinforces some of the misperceptions that many members of the public have. If we saw social workers in a different light, as human beings trying to do a difficult job—in many cases a very difficult job—in difficult circumstances with restraints on resources, people might come to appreciate their role more.

It is an important point of principle. If the Government were to adopt the idea, we could work on how to create the position. I do not intend it to be another bureaucratic structure within Government. It is largely a question of how we focus on one of the most important sets of people working with vulnerable families. Creating the post of chief social worker would send out some very positive messages to the profession, but perhaps more importantly to the public, who might come to appreciate social workers better. Social workers may then be able to do their difficult jobs more easily than they can at the moment. I commend new clause 2 to the Committee.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Let me start by saying that I understand completely the sentiment behind the new clause. I shall declare an interest as having trained as a probation officer on a post-graduate social work course. For some years I taught others to become post-graduate social workers at Manchester University, so I share the sentiments that social workers have a vital role promoting the best outcomes, particularly for vulnerable children. Social workers are often misunderstood and get an unfair press. They deserve our support and gratitude. While their mistakes make headline news, and rightly so, their many successes go largely unreported and unappreciated. I am with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. It is good to see the Conservative Party sharing those sentiments about social workers now. I recall that it was not always the case.

Some time ago we started to recognise social workers’ valuable contribution, and the need to support the work and improve its quality, with a £73 million programme for social work improvement over the next three years, which the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West is leading. That will increase the capacity, skills and numbers of social workers. Specifically to support newly qualified social workers, we are piloting a newly qualified social worker status and strengthening initial social work training. We are developing a professional development framework for social workers, so that there are better career pathways, and supporting experienced staff to remain in practice and act as mentors. That will build on the existing post-qualifying framework for social workers.

As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham says, is it equally important to promote a positive public image, which we are trying to do through a major national targeted marketing and communications campaign.

The difficulties with the new clause at this time, and I stress “at this time”, are threefold. The hon. Gentleman alluded to some of it. We already have an arguably overcrowded infrastructure for the support and development of social workers. As he mentioned, we have the General Social Care Council, which publishes codes of practice to set the standards of conduct and promotes social work. We have also established the Children’s Workforce Development Council, which embraces social work as part of its work across the whole children’s workforce, including social care. The current chair of the board is Michael Leadbetter, a former director of social services in Essex, and he has wide experience in the social work sector. The Association for Directors of Children’s Services and the Association for Directors of Adult Services are also playing a role in driving improvements in quality and practice. The National Children’s Bureau is hosting a new centre, working with key partners including the Social Care Institute for Excellence.

Within the Department, the Chief Inspector for Education, Children’s Services and Skills has a duty to inform the Secretary of State of the quality of children’s services generally. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has said, David Behan, the director-general for social care, is in the Department of Health, but has a cross-government role none the less. The director for social care leadership and performance reports to him. That post-holder must be a qualified social worker and in that capacity provides professional leadership and advice to Ministers about the profession. My hon. Friend, and I before him, worked closely with the relevant Minister in the Department of Health on all these matters relating to social work practice and social care. There is quite a crowded field already.

Secondly, to pick up a couple of points that the hon. Gentleman made, to compare this post with other chief officer posts is not necessarily a valid exercise without considerable discussion. Take the example of the chief medical officer. That post is rather different from that which I would envisage here. That is because the structure of those organisations and the way in which the professionals are employed within them is very different. The NHS is a central body, directly managed by the Department of Health. The chief medical officer post and the chief nursing post, among others, provide input directly to assist that management. Here, of course, social workers are employed by local authorities, without that central management structure.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned a comparison with New Zealand. We are not necessarily talking about the same kind of structure and would a chief social worker post offer the same as it may seem to do in New Zealand? Social care there is like the NHS and the Department of Health here; it is the province of a central Department which discharges all the social work functions. Here social workers are employed by local authorities, which are responsible in law for those social care functions. The post of a chief social worker does not translate that easily.

Finally, the most important reason for me is that we set out in our children’s plan our ambition to have a world-class children’s work force. To help us implement both the changes we have already made and those we want to make, we have established an expert group to support us in developing a long-term strategy for the work force, including social work. We will publish that in the autumn. The expert group, and the strategy team that is supporting it, are looking at six themes: work force capacity, excellence in practice, purpose and roles, improving joint working, what interventions work and developing and managing work force reforms.

One the of the key things the group is looking at is whether the delivery infrastructure for different parts of the work force, which I sketchily outlined and suggested was already very crowded, makes sense now. The expert group is deep into considering that evidence at the moment. I would not want to pre-empt its considerations by adding in another post now. A chief social worker post may be an interesting idea as we reform that infrastructure. I am happy to ask the expert groups specifically to examine that proposal, but I do not feel able to accept the amendment now, because we are in this process with experts from the profession advising us how we might make some long-term and more radical changes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that assurance, recognise that we will ask our expert group to give his proposal consideration and therefore not press his new clause.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful for the Minister for her comments, although she spent almost as much time knocking down the idea of a chief social worker, as I spent trying to set it up. That was slightly churlish, considering the positive way in which it was put forward. I have been attending Association of Directors of Social Services conferences for many years, making many positive and constructive speeches about the role of social worker, often in contrast to Secretaries of State, who have gone to ADSS and similar conference pointing a finger of blame at social workers, which they have found extremely demoralising.

This work on the commission set up by the Conservative party was the culmination of many years of wanting to do something more constructive and help the whole role of social worker. We were able to attract a heavyweight panel of experts, professionals and academics, some of them members of the Labour party, who were prepared to come along and contribute positively to what they saw as a very good cause. They have all engaged in the process and our report has been greatly welcomed. I would be delighted to make that report available, either in the hard copies that remain in my office or by downloading it from the Conservative party website, to the expert group to which the Minister referred.

I understand the three reasons the Minister gave for why it is not suitable to take on the post at this time, although I think that the long list of various different structures that she trooped out indicates that that is part of the problem. It is a crowded system and the line management is confused, and I think that it causes confusion within the industry, let alone the public. I would rather see a reorganisation and overhaul of all the different bodies and posts to streamline them into a more recognisable, appreciated and acknowledged group of posts, and the chief social worker would make a major contribution to that streamlining.

I hope that the Minister will feed the discussion into the expert group she has set up, which is due to report in the autumn, and that the outside world will see that as a constructive suggestion. On the basis that she was not overly churlish, has acknowledged the positive parts of the proposal and said that the Government would not be prepared to take it on “at this time”, which suggests that there might be opportunities for it later, I am perfectly happy not to press the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 5

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

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

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29—Family group conference—

‘(1) The 1989 Act is amended as follows.

(2) In section 22 at end insert—

“(9) Before making any decision with respect to a child whom they are proposing to look after the local authority shall, unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with the child’s welfare, offer the child’s parents or those with parental responsibility a family group conference to discuss the making of a plan for their child.”’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

New clause 5 deals with family conferencing and overlaps to some degree with new clause 29, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford and other hon. Members. Both new clauses contain references to a family conference, and that relates to our previous debate on the importance of early intervention and of being able to keep vulnerable families together rather than having children taken into the care system. The importance relates to both the value to the families and the cost savings to society as a whole. The new clause also refers back to the welfare checklist that I proposed as part of new clause 1, which the Minister responded to positively. She did not adopt it, but she is certainly prepared to consider it within regulations.

I will not go into great detail on family conferencing, as I am sure that many members of the Committee, if not all, are familiar with it. Family conferences are family-led, decision-making meetings at which parents, relatives and friends, following significant preparation by an independent co-ordinator, develop a plan for the child’s care that addresses child welfare or protection concerns identified by the local authority. The Family Rights Group’s briefing sets that out well and gives evidence of how it is a proven mechanism. It claims that family conferencing is:

“a means of engaging the family to identify and support care arrangements for vulnerable children and their parents”;

“a way of identifying alternative care arrangements within the family when the parent cannot continue to look after the child, including identifying necessary support packages to avoid the child being received into state care”;

“a means of planning for the child to see members of their family and return home to their family network from state care wherever possible”;

It claims that such conferencing should be used prior

“to ‘pathway’ planning for children leaving local authority care.”

I mentioned some of the examples of best practice on the model of family conferencing and family support run by certain children’s organisations, not least of which is NCH, which has a good track record of some impressive projects. I recently visited its Phoenix service in Merton, which works intensively with families that are reaching crisis point. It can take them on board quickly and provide them with intensive, 24-hour support, seven days a week, whatever the crisis might be. At the end of the period the family is linked into existing local services. The intervention involves defusing the immediate, precipitate crisis that led to the service referral, with support workers engaging the family, children and/or young people, liaising with other agencies, assessing the problems, developing specific, measurable goals and helping everyone in the family to acquire the skills to achieve them. That gets all gets all the family members together around a table—literally or metaphorically—to sort out what outside, holistic support will be required to get the family back on its feet. Based on an average placement time of three years for a child who is taken into the care system, NCH estimates that such a family intervention service could offer cost saving of £127,140 per intervention, which is significant. That really is investing to save—there are financial savings and it makes financial sense, but the family could also be saved and kept together.

The Government are positive about such organisations and they are keen to disseminate best practice, but not enough kinship placements are initiated by local authority social workers. One good way of promoting that, other than the through the measures that are already in the Bill, is to ensure that family conferences take place as standard rather than as an exception. There is a bit of postcode lottery regarding the availability of family conferencing. If we were to put a measure in the Bill that stresses the preventive attraction of family conferences so that there would have to be good reasons why a family conference was not attempted or viable, there might be many more kinship placements; better still, many more families could be kept together, and fewer children would have to be taken into care, with all the expense, angst and trauma that that can bring about. New clause 5 is straightforward and I am happy to recommend it to the Committee.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr. Pope. I rise to speak to new clause 29, but it is similar to new clause 5, which is why they are grouped together.

In the unrelenting positive mode that I have been in during our proceedings, we should first acknowledge that the law will be strengthened by clause 9, which we have dealt with, because it requires local authorities to have regard to family placements with relatives and friends and kinship care. We should recognise that part of the battle has been won before we deal with the new clauses on family group conferences.

New clause 29 is slightly more elegantly drafted than new clause 5, but I would say that. I do not personally claim the credit for it; it is entirely thanks to the work of the Family Rights Group. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to its briefing when discussing new clause 5 and he stole the rest of my thunder by referring to the National Children’s Home briefing, so there are no briefings left that I can refer the Committee to.

New clause 29 would amend section 22 of the Children Act 1989, which is the section that clause 9 will amend to make references to kinship care in a more prominent place. I am seeking in new clause 29 to complete a movement that the Government have already begun in clause 9 by requiring family group conferences to take place. To reiterate what the hon. Gentleman said about the benefits of family group conferences, they apply all through the journey that leads—potentially—into and out of care. A family group conference at the right time when a family crisis is building up could help to identify the problems and solutions without care ever becoming necessary, and the child involved could stay with its parents or close family. If that is not possible—we still want to avoid care if possible—we could look at whether the wider family could cope with a package of support. A family group conference would be valuable even if a child temporarily goes into care, because the problems that caused that could be solved to enable a child to return home. When a child comes to the end of period in care, when, for example, they become an adult, there could be situations in which the wider family is absolutely the right place to support a person who returns as a new adult. A family group conference could still bring together family members who could contribute to that successful transition from being in care to becoming an independent adult.

At every stage of the process, family group conferences are useful. The hon. Gentleman did not mention today something from the Family Rights Group briefing that he mentioned on the first day of our proceedings, which is that recent research has found that only 4 per cent. of family and friends placements are initiated by social workers. That is modern research from 2008 so that is up-to-date information. It demonstrates that a lot of social workers are not used to convening family group conferences and are perhaps not convinced of their benefit. A little tilt in the right direction in the Bill would help to make that more of a routine consideration.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the NCH briefing paper that hon. Members have received is not about family group conferences, but about the success of the NCH intensive family support service. As he says, it demonstrates not just an effective outcome, but a cost-effective way of dealing with problem cases. The quotation that he gave about cost savings was related specifically to a study in Glamorgan, where there were 15 cases of intensive support with NCH. Each of those interventions produced a potential saving of £127,000. Multiplied by 15, that is a saving of about £2 million for one local authority in Wales. If that were scaled up to the rest of the UK, we could be talking about a third of a billion pounds. That is how exciting and important it is for us to give serious attention to this proposal.

On the outcomes side of the NCH briefing, it reports success not just in Merton, but in Plymouth, where 94 per cent. of young people referred did not enter the care system and in Tower Hamlets, where 88 per cent. of the young people remained with their families. There is potential that alternative approaches, if used at the right time with the right consideration and the right package of support, can avoid children being taken into care unnecessarily or children being detained in care for longer than is necessary for their welfare.

I am pleased to support both new clauses. They push Ministers to finish the job that was well started in clause 9. However, the end will not be achieved unless we ensure that social workers routinely consider in every case whether a family group conference would be of assistance.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 5. When I was an Essex county councillor, I did some research into family group conferencing. It originated in the Maori community in New Zealand, where it has been greatly beneficial in keeping children out of care. That has also been seen in this country and elsewhere. It combines the good will and effort, not just of the nuclear family and the extended family, but of others who form part of the child’s social network. I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to supporting adding the new clause to the Bill.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I have signed up to elegance. Both new clauses are important. Rather than repeat what has been in the numerous briefings on this matter, I would just like to emphasise that early intervention is all-important. I was reading about the “Public Law Outline” the other day and consideration of family conferencing is a requisite. However, I was concerned whether that was happening at the point of crisis. It is not stated in the new clauses, but to my mind, if possible, family conferencing should kick in at a much earlier stage than I understood it would under the procedures of the “Public Law Outline”. Intervening early to bring the family together helps to deal with all of the points that we have made about kinship care. It also highlights at that early stage whether there is enough support for the family, financially or otherwise. We have discussed that issue and the Minister has committed to a consultation on appropriate guidance.

I quoted various figures on Second Reading. It is clear just from looking at the figures that the amount spent on family support has some relation to the number of children being taken into care. There might not be a direct one-to-one relationship, but the statistics are quite clear. It is staggering that we spend three times as much on looking after children in care as we do on family support as a whole. We are talking about a whole package, but the family conferencing aspect is a really important part of it. There clearly is that aspect of invest to save.

I, too, was struck by the 4 per cent. figure that came in one of our briefings: family and friends placements were initiated by social workers in only 4 per cent. of cases. That is quite staggering and shows what a long way we have to go along this route. These amendments are important to break this pattern. To reiterate, the important point for me is that family conferencing should ideally come much sooner than a crisis point in the family.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for recognising that one of the major thrusts of this legislation and the wider package in the White Paper is to increase substantially the number of children who can be cared for somewhere within their birth families or with friends who are known to them. That is an objective that we share. I certainly understand the reasons behind this amendment, with its hope that an automatic consideration of family group conferencing might be another catalyst for increasing the number of children who can go into some form of kinship care.

I hope that hon. Members will also recognise that in addition to this Bill, we are trying to move forward with a whole range of options that are specifically focused on supporting parents at an early stage when they are getting into difficulties. That is not necessarily at the stage at which family group conferencing would be considered now when there is a question whether a child can be accommodated within their own family or might need some alternative accommodation. There is a wide range of parenting interventions, including the piloting of new, intensive parenting programmes, increased support for relative carers and some very specific models, such as multi-systemic therapy for adolescents at high risk of entering care or custody and intensive fostering. We are promoting a whole range of options, which includes family group conferences.

The problem with family group conferencing from the point of view of these amendments is twofold. First, it is a complex service to administer. It requires a high level of skill and confidence from the practitioners who are organising it. That is why we have already started to promote the development of expertise, knowledge and skills in family group conferencing, commissioning a programme of regional training events, for example, to equip managers and practitioners with the necessary skills to develop the use of this model. That is very different from putting a requirement in primary legislation for a family group conference for every family. It goes completely against the spirit, the letter and the culture that we have tried to inculcate and develop since the Children Act 1989, which imposes a general duty on local authorities to provide a range and level of support services that are appropriate for children in need, including to promote their upbringing in their family.

Generally family group conferences are seen as a very valuable element in the range of local services. We want to see them used more widely. We are putting in the resources to promote the expertise that will enable that to happen. To put a single method in the Bill above all others, including some that are being developed, would be contrary to the spirit of section 17 of the 1989 Act. It would limit the flexibility of local authorities and would be quite prohibitive for them in their attempts to meet children’s needs on an individual basis. That is not to say that I do not think family group conferences are important or that they should be used more often. I do. We have highlighted that in “Care Matters” and have included references to family group conferences in “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, which we published in 2006. We have also included references in the revised volume I of the Children Act guidance that was published this year.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

The right hon. Lady’s comments have led me to take a closer look at the new clause. The wording says “where appropriate” and “any other reasonable intervention”, so it is not suggesting that family group conferencing should be an exclusive strategy.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Putting that method in the Bill gives it pre-eminence and means that the local authority should consider it above any other methods that they would use. That is the point I am trying to make in relation to the 1989 Act. I understand that stakeholders have concerns and I would like to join in the references made to NCH because it has done a great deal to take forward improved methods of working with children and families. We have adopted many of those methods—not only family group conferencing, but family intervention projects, which I will mention in a moment.

I recognise that stakeholders feel there is a way to go in developing the skills and knowledge in the field to deliver effective family group conferencing services. In November 2006, with help from stakeholders, we funded the publication of a tool kit, which aimed to support the use of family group conference projects and assist new agencies in setting up those kinds of services where none exist. In December last year, we published a family group conference reader, which contains a wide-range of essays from experienced practitioners on research, policy and practice perspectives. We have also launched guidance to local authorities, which emphasises that support should be available to families at the earliest point it is needed.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I would like to probe the matter further because I want the Minister to give examples of what other methods, as she described it, would be de-prioritised by the insertion of the new clause.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I was just coming to that point. For three specific reasons, the right way to promote the use of family group conferencing is to do what we do already: suffuse our documents with references to family group conferences; continue to develop the knowledge, training and expertise required; and put the method in the context of a focus on early intervention and prevention. However, we should also recognise that it is not the only method. In relation to the point at which family group conferencing is used at the moment—in the context of a child possibly being accommodated—we are developing other options that bring families together at a much earlier stage, for example, when children show difficulties that are identified in primary school. We also have the family pathfinders project, the family intervention projects that NCH has helped us to develop, and the family nurse partnerships, which for the first time identify the need to support disadvantaged mothers at the point of birth. That support continues to be provided by a specially trained health visitor over two years to try to prevent the need further down the line for a family group conference to discuss whether the child needs to be accommodated.

For those reasons, I do not want to fetter local authorities with one particular method. I support the method when it is necessary and think that it can achieve some excellent results, but in relation to the panoply of intervening much earlier in families and the wide range of alternatives that are now being developed, we should stick with the spirit of the 1989 Act.

I say to the hon. Member for Upminster that the amendment to new clause 5, which requires family group conferencing to be considered where appropriate, adds nothing to the existing requirement in section 17 of the 1989 Act for local authorities to consider whatever is necessary, as appropriate.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I am looking for a way forward that does not involve primary legislation. My right hon. Friend mentioned the publication “Working Together to Safeguard Children” and the tool kit, which is welcome. Clearly, when the Act is passed, it will include new guidance incorporating what we have said about clause 9 and the new consideration of kinship care. Am I right in saying that when social workers consider taking care proceedings, they have a kind of handbook so they can check everything they need to before and so they have evidence they have done so? Would my right hon. Friend undertake to consider those different documents in the round, to see whether together we could apply that focus that she mentioned suffusing all the documents, with consideration of how the family group conference might be a helpful tool in kinship care cases, for example?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am certainly happy to reiterate that, as my hon. Friend said, I will undertake to continue to suffuse all the relevant documents with a reference to family group conferencing and a range of other methods, to ensure the early intervention that members of the Committee rightly want to see. I share that objective, but I hope that the Committee will accept that it would not be right to specify one particular method in the Bill. We can, however, use the other available mechanisms to inform and shape social work practice—the guidance that my hon. Friends referred to—and I undertake to do that. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am slightly disappointed, to start with, about the reference to the more elegant of the proposed new clauses—I did not come into politics to be elegant. I came into politics to get something done, to create meaningful legislation and I am perfectly prepared to cast aside elegance in the pursuit of brevity and succinctness, of which our new clause is the epitome. It goes to the heart of the matter slightly less elegantly, but more practically, than the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford, but I did not seek to undermine it in any way and I shall not do so now. Both new clauses would add something to the Bill.

I was disappointed by the Minister because I do not think that the new clause would fetter, as she put it, the ability or flexibility of social workers and local authorities and I was not convinced by her response to my request regarding what other matters would be deprioritised by inserting the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster made some pertinent points about the origins of family conferencing and how important and effective it has been, in the second reference of the day to New Zealand, from which we can clearly learn quite a lot.

I shall not press the new clause, but if we were to come back to this issue on Report—the hon. Member for Stafford has mentioned possible uses within the tool kit or with guidance elsewhere. Given that the Bill may not Report for some months, it might be useful for the Minister to report back on the use of family group conferencing and how it is growing. It is currently happening according to a postcode lottery and too few placements are kinship placements, which would have a far greater likelihood of success if they resulted from family group conferencing—if it was still necessary for the child to go into the care system. On that basis, the Minister’s comments on that would help. The Minister may have sympathised with what we are trying to achieve, but many of us think that the proposal needs to have more force and a bit more bite.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am concerned. Does the Minister read the new clause as recommending something that one does sometime during the process, or is it to happen at the end, almost as the last chance that a child has to remain in their home?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Our new clause would not fetter the chronology of that process at all, it just states:

“Before a child is committed into care, the local authority must, where appropriate, offer a family group conference and”—

perhaps it should read “or”—

“any other reasonable intervention which may alleviate the need for a child to be put into care.”

The family group conference could be the first thing to take place, it could be the very last thing to take place and if it was not successful then care proceedings might be triggered, or it could happen partway through the journey of dealing with a vulnerable child. I do not agree that the new clause would fetter the process. I will rephrase the new clause for Report. I will be grateful if in a few months’ time, perhaps at Report, the Minister could detail how the use of family group conferencing is growing. If it is not growing or if the figures are stalling, still low or unrepresentative of cases up and down the country, we will want to pursue it more aggressively.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I am always keen to be positive and helpful. A long time ago when the hon. Gentleman moved new clause 1, which, with its looked-after children welfare checklist, also referred to the desirability of keeping children with their families with the correct package of support, the then Minister offered to brigade the different laws and guidance to show us that those points were covered. This dovetails into that, because when we want to know about family group conferences, we want to know about how they relate to the points in the hon. Gentleman’s welfare checklist, do we not? It is reasonable to ask the Minister be ready by Report to be able to tell us about family group conferencing practice on the ground.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Gentleman makes a helpful point and I am always keen to be reasonable, as he knows. In the interests of reasonableness and of speeding along the Committee’s activity, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 6

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

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

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 10—Long-term placements—

‘In section 324 (c.56) (statement of special educational needs), of the Education Act 1996, at end insert—

“(7A) Where a statement specifies a school or type of school that would result in a child not ordinarily being resident with their parent, the authority shall consider whether the child’s welfare is best safeguarded and promoted by being a looked after child.

(7B) The duty imposed by subsection (8) shall be performed in accordance with regulations.”’.

New clause 33—Looked after status for children in health settings etc.—

‘(1) The 1989 Act is amended as follows.

(2) After section 85(4)(b) insert “; and

(c) in the exercise of their functions under sub-paragraph (b) the authority shall conduct a children in need assessment under section 17 for the purpose of determining whether the child’s welfare is best safeguarded and promoted by being a looked-after child.”’.

New clause 34—Looked after status for disabled children in education settings—

‘In the Education Act 1996, section 324, at end insert—

“(8) Where a statement specifies a school or type of school that would result in a child not ordinarily being resident with their parent, the authority shall carry out a children in need assessment under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, for the purposes of determining whether the child’s welfare is best safeguarded and promoted by being a looked after child.

(9) The assessment specified in subsection (8) above shall be carried out as soon as reasonably practicable and no more than 14 days after the date the statement is issued.”’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

New clauses 6 and 10 deal with children with disabilities in long-term placements. The issue has been raised in the Lords and it is a campaign by the Every Disabled Child Matters group. All of us in Committee sympathise with what that group has achieved; it has been very effective. I do not understand why the Government were not more sympathetic to adopting the proposal in another place, so I will be grateful for more clarification from the Minister in this place.

The Every Disabled Child Matters campaign welcomes the progress that the House of Lords made to improve the Bill for disabled children and young people, as do we. Part of that was the short breaks from caring provision, which we debated earlier and is greatly welcomed.

The new clauses would require local authorities to consider whether disabled children in long-term residential placements should have the protection and support of looked-after children status. They retain the flexibility to ensure that the right solution is found for each child and family, but make sure that every child placed away from home will have their safeguarding needs properly considered.

Looked-after status should include disabled children in long-term residential placements in education or health settings, some of whom are away from home for 52 weeks of the year with little or no parental contact. Looked-after status would provide a package of support for those children, including a contact plan to support parents to maintain contact with their children while they are away from home. We are talking about severely disabled children who require specialist placements. Those placements are few and far between and for many children will inevitably mean being a long distance from home, with implications and practical problems for keeping contact with their parents and other people looking out for them.

The few homes that offer those specialist services do a fantastic job. I have visited many of them and have seen the services and the dedication of the staff. Those long-term placements are for children who are not in the care system on account of having been taken away from their birth parents because of abuse or other problems, but who are living away from their parents because they are severely disabled and require the intensive and specialist support that many of the homes and education or health settings offer.

The Every Disabled Child Matters campaign thinks that there is a gap in the system. The 2005 review of disabled children in residential placements recommended a more consistent application of looked-after status for disabled children spending long periods in residential placements, particularly those are far from home. That recommendation recognises that disabled children are three times more likely to be subject to abuse than their non-disabled peers, and therefore require much more robust child protection measures and support from the placing authority. There is widespread confusion on the part of residential settings, local authorities and parents about that, and Government research shows that guidance is too often disregarded. We are not talking about an enormous body of children. Recent statistics show that 338 children are placed in residential accommodation for 52 weeks of the year without the protection of looked-after status. The new clauses would send a clear message to local authorities that they should consider looked-after status for disabled children in long-term placements, to determine whether or not that is the best way to keep them safe.

The current system for allocating looked-after status is inconsistent and confusing for families, and it is not optimal for safeguarding vulnerable children. We are not trying to undermine the voice of the parents; the proposed approach would support the creation of partnerships between parents and local authorities, and those partnerships would maintain parental rights and responsibilities as set out in section 20 of the Children Act 1989. That section was designed as an opportunity to create such partnerships, and placements made under it are based on a voluntary arrangement between the local authority and the child’s parents. That does not affect parental responsibility, which remains with the natural parents. We are not stepping in to override the parents’ wishes and be unduly nannying.

To conclude, I shall outline the benefits of looked-after status for this small body of children. Disabled children living away from home without looked-after status miss out on a range of measures to support and protect their welfare. If looked-after status were given to those children, they could receive an allocated social worker, and a care plan that identified their needs and how those should be met, and which included the views and wishes of the child and their family. There would also be a health assessment and health plan, and a contact plan to promote contact between the child and their family, along with access to support for the costs associated with visits from the family. There would be an allocated independent reviewing officer to monitor implementation of the care plan and to ensure that the child’s views were being taken into account, and finally there would be regular reviews of the placement, and access to after care advice and assistance to support the young person’s successful move on from the placement.

The solution proposed by the new clauses put forward by the Every Disabled Child Matters group is a straightforward assessment process at the point of placement, to decide whether looked-after status would best promote a child’s welfare. The status would not be compulsory. Parents and local authorities would decide together, with input from the child, whether measures that come with looked-after status, such as an allocated social worker and access to the support and protection they provide, would benefit the child. That, after all, is our primary consideration. The new clauses would be a positive addition to the Bill, and I genuinely do not understand why the Government did not respond more positively in another place. Perhaps they have had a change of heart, which I will be delighted to hear now from the Minister.

Lynda Waltho (Labour, Stourbridge)

I rise to speak to new clauses 33 and 34 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East.

I am particularly keen to ensure that the Bill supports and protects disabled children who live away from home, many—as the hon. Gentleman said—of whom have profound communication difficulties. Those children are the least able to tell anybody how they feel—whether they are happy, settled or frustrated, or possibly scared or frightened. Those children are truly the most vulnerable of the vulnerable and that means that the state has to play a far larger role. The Bill provides us with a key opportunity to ensure that local authorities actively consider the welfare needs of disabled children when arranging long-term placements, some of which are for 52 weeks of the year. To include such a duty would represent part of the joining up of the “Every Child Matters” agenda, so that it would really work and every disabled child would truly matter, alongside their peers. There is no clear legislation that ensures that local authorities consider whether looked-after status would best protect the welfare of a child being placed away from home, in either a long-term educational setting or a health setting. Interestingly, however, when a child is placed away from home during a crisis, even if it is only for one night, that child automatically has looked-after status.

Children who will be living away from home for a large part of the year should have access to the benefits of looked-after status. It is really the gold standard, and offers almost the shopping list of benefits that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham read out; that is so important. All of those benefits are so vital to these vulnerable children: the allocated social worker; the care plan; the health plan, and the contact plan. Of course, if they do not get that looked-after status, they will only get a once-a-year review of their statement, and there is such a wide disparity there.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

As my hon. Friend mentioned, I have seconded the new clauses. Is it not the case that some placements are not available to children unless they have looked-after status, because of the extra support that goes with it?

Lynda Waltho (Labour, Stourbridge)

Indeed, there are schools and residential homes that will not accept children unless they have looked-after status. The work done at Sunfield school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove—it actually has a Stourbridge address, so I feel that it is partly in my constituency too—is absolutely fantastic. It is run by Barry Carpenter and his staff, and it will not accept children without looked-after status. It is so vital that that status is conferred on these children.

Furthermore, conferring looked-after status will improve the transition of these children to adult services; that is something that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham did not mention. It makes that transition much smoother because, of course, the child is known to the authorities and these children are most likely to have continuing needs.

Recent ministerial statements made in the other place are to be welcomed and they show a movement towards this position of conferring looked-after status, indicating, I hope, that the Government agree broadly that most disabled children in long-term placements, where the local authority has been involved, should really be looked after. However, there is a great deal of confusion around this issue. Local authorities, residential placements and the Government’s own research in 2005 indicate that current guidance is sometimes disregarded.

The Every Disabled Child Matters campaign group and its partners are keen to see the Bill amended to reflect the Government’s move to this position. Such an amendment would send the clearest signal possible to local authorities that they should actively be considering conferring looked-after status in these cases.

I know that the Minister is likely to tell me that guidance already exists and that it is possible to strengthen the regulations. However, as we have already heard, there is evidence that the guidance is confusing, so why not take the opportunity now of amending the Bill effectively while we have the chance to do so, which would send out a strong signal?

I know that the ministerial team has also been looking at providing additional protection for these children by strengthening the visiting regime, but why should we set up a parallel system when we could offer what is really the gold standard of protection for our most vulnerable children and do so now? To suggest an alternative way forward borders on possibly relegating such children to second-class status, and that would not give them the support that looked-after status would. If there is a visiting regime, what status would it have? Would the people in that regime be students, or people unused to, for example, the profound problems and behaviours of a young person with severe autism?

I will briefly mention two case studies. Both children attended Summerfield school, which I have previously referred to. James did not have looked-after status but he should have had it. He had a severe learning disability, but his family was told by the local authority that it was not necessary for him to be looked after. He had no care plan and no formal arrangements to review his placement, except an annual education review. That meeting reviews his statement and his educational needs but not his overall well-being, and that is the important point. His mother has full parental responsibility but does not benefit from any support or assistance from the local authority. James did not have a named social worker. His mother has three other children and is a single parent. She has no car and can only afford to visit him, using public transport, maybe three or four times a year. She is not legally entitled to any assistance.

Adam, on the other hand, has a severe learning disability but is being looked after by his local authority. The local authority and his mother share parental responsibility. Adam has a care plan through which his needs are reviewed within school and on a wider basis. He has regular visits from a named social worker and a review twice a year that is chaired by an independent reviewing officer. Adam’s care plan provides for regular contact to see his mother and transport is paid for by the local authority.

To sum up, looked-after status is about safeguarding planning, target setting and monitoring for our most vulnerable children. For too long, there has been too much confusion from local authorities in this area. This is the time to end the confusion and send the clearest message possible. This is a crucial chance to put the situation right for the first time and create a clear duty that gives disabled children living away from home the same rights to support and protection as their non-disabled peers. I urge the Minister to grasp this chance and actively consider this proposal.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Perhaps I should start by endorsing the comments that have been made to avoid being repetitive. I, too, would like to welcome the duty being put on local authorities for short breaks. That is important and is something that the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign fought for. It is important to identify areas where there is no clear legal duty. The new clauses ask local authorities to consider only whether disabled children should have looked-after status. We have been through all the advantages of this measure.

I, too, have looked at the case studies, but have chosen two different ones, which I would like to refer to briefly because they add further points to those that have already been made about vulnerability. This is the example of Thomas:

“Now that social services have given Thomas looked after child status, social services deal with all the difficulties and I can be a parent rather than a social worker.”

I thought that that was the most striking way of describing the advantages of looked-after status. It goes on:

“I also have the energy to be more assertive and to make positive decisions which are in Thomas’ interests, so when we have meetings with the social worker and other people involved with Thomas’ care, I am able to assert my parental authority.”

That is so important. In its way, it is as important as the short breaks in helping the parent to hold together and do the best for their child.

Secondly, I thought that the case study of Mark was rather telling. It states that

“when the government set targets for local authorities to reduce the number of children in the looked after system, we were put under some pressure to de-classify him as a looked after child.”

These parents had to fight to keep looked-after status. That shows how a local authority can respond to something that the Government said for particular reasons in a way that is not acceptable in this day and age and in light of the current debate. It is important to have this legal duty in the Bill to show that every disabled child matters.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Pope.

I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the remarks that have been made. There is accord across the Committee about this group of children and the problems that they face. I acknowledge the campaigning of hon. Members across the House and of the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign. We are all committed to ensuring that children placed away from home are not forgotten and that they are provided with the support and services they need to thrive. We are committed to the sort of change that all Committee members are looking for.

We should be clear that there is no gap in the legislative framework. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said that there was no clear legal duty. In fact, clear legal duties are outlined. She quoted somebody from the case study talking about Government targets to reduce the number of people in the looked-after system. The Government have never had any such targets. Sometimes I think that we should have targets to reduce the number of myths about targets that the Government have never had. Of course we have never had such a target and we have explicitly ruled one out for obvious reasons.

As I have said, there is no gap in the legislative framework. Unfortunately, the changes that the new clauses propose would not address the problem that we are all seeking to address, not least because they all have a serious defect. They purport to require the local authority to consider whether a child’s welfare would be best safeguarded and promoted by he or she becoming a looked-after child, but that drafting does not fit with the existing legislative scheme of the Children Act 1989. Although the expression “looked-after child” is a useful shorthand term to refer to the bundle of responsibilities that local authorities owe to a particular group of children under the 1989 Act, in strict legal terms the defining issue is the provision of accommodation. The other responsibilities flow from that, such as the duties to maintain the child and make a plan for their short and long-term care and keep it under regular review, and the new duty to arrange regular visits.

I appreciate the objective that all the new clauses share. They seek to ensure that social services are actively involved in a timely and appropriate manner when a decision is taken to place a child in an institutional setting so that consideration is given in every case to the child’s social care needs. However, not only is the drafting flawed and therefore unacceptable, but the amendments that they would make would have no practical effect. The effect of the amendments to section 85, introduced by new clauses 6 and 33, would add nothing to the existing requirements in the provision whereby local authorities must consider the extent to which, if at all, they should exercise their functions under the 1989 Act with regard to the child. It is not possible for the local authority to perform that duty without considering whether the child is a child in need for the purposes of part 3 of the 1989 Act and therefore what services it should provide.

Similarly, the amendment to the education legislation proposed in new clauses 10 and 34 would have no practical effect. The legislation and the code of practice on special educational needs provide a comprehensive framework that clearly and explicitly requires education officers to seek input from social services professionals before making placement decisions. The legislation also requires education officers to ensure that social services are notified when assessments are carried out, before placement decisions are made and again when the statement of special educations needs is reviewed. Section 85 of the 1989 Act imposes explicit statutory duties on local authorities exercising their education functions and on health bodies to notify the responsible local authorities at the time the placement in made. It also requires those local authorities to consider the extent to which they need to exercise their functions under the 1989 Act in relation to the child.

I agree wholeheartedly that more needs to be done to ensure that those children’s needs are met and that parents are properly supported in maintaining their role. Local authorities must perform all of those duties and obligations and develop with other public bodies a properly integrated approach that is capable of assessing children’s needs in the round and providing a multi-agency service. In particular, authorities must be discouraged from viewing children only through an education or health lens.

We do not agree, however, that these new clauses represent a legislative magic bullet. In our view, the key lies in improving social work practice and local authorities’ strategic planning and delivery. As a Government, we have obviously been striving consistently for more and better multi-agency working. That is why we brought in the Children Act 2004 and developed the children’s trust model of delivery. It is the rationale behind “Every Child Matters”, and that is why we will continue to work hard with local authorities to ensure that current practice, when poor, is brought up to the standard of the best.

The Bill includes provisions that build on and strengthen the existing framework under which local authorities are notified of, monitor and supervise all children who are placed away from home, regardless of the reasons for that placement. The improvements to the notification arrangements set out in clause 18 and the new visiting requirement set out clause 19 will make a practical contribution to improving practice and developing multi-agency working. We will supplement those new duties in the Bill with regulations and statutory guidance that will set out the clear requirements of the local authority visitor’s and our expectations of the services that local authorities should provide to support the active involvement of parents in their children’s lives.

As part of our revision of the statutory—[Interruption.] I will say that again because that was a rather loud ejaculation. As part of our revision of the statutory Children Act guidance, we will also set out our expectations of the actions that social services teams should take when they are alerted by their education colleagues to the likelihood of a child being educated at a residential school and they are involved in the decision making. There should be a presumption in every case that the child is likely to be a child in need, and an initial assessment should be undertaken in line with the framework for assessment of children in need and their families to assess the parents’ capacity to meet the child’s needs in the context of wider family and environmental factors. That assessment will identify whether a more in-depth, core assessment is appropriate.

However, we should be clear on one point, on which I think hon. Members will agree. Although that group of children is vulnerable in general and should therefore be considered for services, we must not forget that the children are all individuals and that their needs and family circumstances will vary depending on how much time they spend with their family, how far the placements are from their homes and whether they are intended to provide for the child in the long term. That is why, in the other place, we cautioned against the previous version of this approach—automatic looked-after status, which would constitute making an inappropriate assumption about family life.

We take these issues very seriously. We have been listening and I again point hon. Members to clauses 18 and 19 as evidence of our commitment to that group of children. Those provisions will be a lever by which to change practice and will support the other changes that we are introducing through work force reform. For example, with children who are placed by health in the national framework for children and young people’s continuing care, which the Department of Health has been working on closely with my Department and is publishing for consultation shortly, there is an emphasis on multi-agency working. We want to ensure that, wherever possible, there are multi-agency decisions involving education and social services on the provision of services to meet children’s long-term health needs, including accommodation provision. Ensuring that the social care needs of such a diverse group of children are met, whilst respecting their wishes, where possible, and their parents wishes, is particularly challenging, especially as their needs and their family’s needs will change as they grow and develop. That is why our clauses provide a solution as part of the wider “Care Matters” agenda, and will drive forward real change.

As I said at the outset, there is accord across the Committee on what we are trying to achieve. However, I understand and have listened closely to what hon. Members have said, and I undertake to look at the issues again. I will consider with my right hon. Friend how we might create the sort of changes that we all envisage, and whether there is anything that we can do, in addition to what I have outlined, to achieve that shared goal. We will continue our dialogue with hon. Members and with the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign, and we will come forward on Report with any conclusions that might be drawn from those further consultations once we have unpacked hon. Members’ practical concerns.

As I have said, we are committed to taking this opportunity to explore and establish best practice in this area, including how local authorities can best support continued parental involvement with a child in a long-term placement, and to capture it in our statutory guidance. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We have had a helpful debate, but for the sake of clarity and Hansard, I shall refer to the inelegance of terminology that the Minister just used. Let me make it clear that his oratory was overcome not by an ejaculation but by a sneeze. We do not want the readers of Hansard to get any odd ideas about what goes on in Committee, do we? I know that his Welsh, fluent oratory can be terribly exciting, but it is not quite that exciting.

The Minister has said that the drafting of the new clauses is flawed—I would hate to dupe the Committee into passing a measure that was flawed—but he perfectly appreciates the aim of the proposals. Perhaps we need to revisit the measures so that they would have practical effects. However, I am still slightly confused. The Minister referred to the 2004 Act and the 1989 Act. Section 85 of the latter states that the accommodating local authority that has been notified should

“take such steps as are reasonably practicable to enable them to determine whether the child’s welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is accommodated by the accommodating authority”.

That measure is not quite as definitive and rigorous as the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and that proposed by me and my hon. Friends. It is not clear from what the Minister said whether the terminology that is already in place, which is aided and abetted by this legislation and the regulations that will come with it, would give some of the additional safeguards that looked-after status would convey, such as the appointment of an IRO, the allocation of a social worker and contact plan, and so on.

I am pleased and grateful that the Minister has, in a spirit of positivity, said that he will look again at the issues to try to create change to achieve what he has acknowledged is our shared goal, but, clearly, the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign thinks that there is still a serious gap. It needs further assurances that those extra safeguards will be available to those children without formally offering them looked-after status. If the Minister could come back on Report and give rather more substantial guarantees to that effect, all sides might be satisfied, on the basis that there is a defect in the new clauses.

To go back to the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, if some establishments decline to accept and accommodate some of those 300 or so children unless they have looked-after status, there is a problem in the system. Perhaps that is because the authorities do not understand the system or that they come up against practical shortfalls in providing the level of support that they rightly deem the children will need if they are accommodated. In any case, they need to know and we need to send out a clearer message. We might have the opportunity on Report for further debate on the proposals, and the Minister will get the opportunity to send out that clearer message. There is clearly some confusion among various parties at the moment. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 11

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

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

Very briefly, the issue dealt with in new clause 11 was debated and taken up in another place by my noble Friend Baroness Morris of Bolton, who was supported by the noble Lord Ramsbotham. It would ensure that the chief inspector considers the suitability of the accommodation not only in terms of door sizes and facilities and so on, but whether it is conducive to supporting the welfare and safety of a child. The new clause would broaden the scope of what is taken into account in an inspection of children’s homes. As my noble Friend said in the House of Lords, essentially the measure would place a duty on an inspector to make inspections about more than just the number of beds that a children’s home provides and the average costs of meals for children per day. There is a fear that the inspections are a bit of a tick-box exercise in some cases. In an earlier debate, I mentioned some of my experiences of children’s homes in my constituency at which, clearly, the level of care and supervision of the children was woefully inadequate. In one case, an Ofsted inspection had said that everything was okay with the physicality of the accommodation, but everything was clearly not okay with the children’s welfare.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I cannot remember where I had got to before lunch, but perhaps I can finish off by saying that the aim of this probing amendment is to tease out a bit more information than was teased out by the amendment that my noble Friend Baroness Morris of Bolton tabled in the House of Lords. We want to ensure that inspections of residential children’s homes are meaningful and not just inspections of the accommodation’s physical suitability. We want to broaden the scope of what is taken into account, so that consideration can be given to the promotion of the child’s welfare and safety.

Much earlier in our proceedings, I gave the example of a children’s home in my constituency. It was a nice converted farmhouse in the middle of the rolling downs of Sussex, but the children were running amok, and their welfare was clearly not being catered for. However, that did not necessarily come out in the Ofsted inspection report, and the new clause is intended to probe such issues. There is no statutory duty to consider the real aim of children’s homes—to promote children’s well-being—and such a duty should be included in the Bill.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I hope that all hon. Members agree that the Government have been very clear about the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare. Indeed, that is an important part of the remit of the new Ofsted, which took over the regulation of children’s social care in April 2007.

Section 119(3) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, when read with section 117(2), sets out the factors to which the chief inspector must have regard in performing her functions. The first item on the list is

“the need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children”.

That is a core responsibility of Ofsted and the chief inspector; it applies to all their functions, rather than being selectively attached to individual functions.

This morning, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham set out the intention behind the new clause, which is to secure a broad scope for inspections of children’s homes. Her Majesty’s chief inspector draws her power to inspect children’s homes not from section 147 of the 2006 Act, to which the new clause relates, but from section 148. Section 148 transfers functions under part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 from the former Commission for Social Care Inspection to the chief inspector.

There is no disagreement about what we understand the intentions behind the new clause to be. When inspecting children’s homes, however, Ofsted should and does consider a range of matters. Comprehensive law is already in place setting out the appropriate factors that inspectors must consider when inspecting children’s homes and, indeed, any other institutions and services. Sections 22 and 23 of the Care Standards Act, for example, give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations and publish statements of national minimum standards against which children’s homes are inspected. Those regulations and national minimum standards cover a broad range of issues relating to the welfare of children in homes, as well as matters such as the fitness of managers and staff; they are not solely about the premises and material conditions.

When the chief inspector inspects children’s homes, fostering agencies, voluntary support agencies, adoption support agencies and all the other services within her remit, she must, as I explained, have regard to the matters set out in section 117(2) of the 2006 Act. As I said, the first aspect of that remit is

“the need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children”.

For those reasons, new clause 11 is unnecessary. It adds nothing in legislative terms to the existing safeguards for children.

The primary objective is to ensure that as those legislative requirements are implemented, the types of situation outlined by the hon. Gentleman, which may be familiar to other Members, are dealt with to the extent that Ofsted is much more rigorous in ensuring compliance with existing standards, which it is Ofsted’s purpose to oversee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurances and feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful for that answer. In the interest of brevity and elegance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 12

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

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

The new clause deals with a rather more weighty subject that has been of concern to many who keep an eye on adoption issues. I flagged up this concern during Committee stage of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, when the law on adoption was changed, and the same concern has been raised in the press and by other hon. Members. It is that a perverse incentive arises from the way in which the Government financially incentivise adoption targets, such that some adoptions may be taking place that do not meet the thresholds for an adoption that would normally need to be met. I shall not give reams of categorical evidence that that is happening—

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Is there any?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I will if the Under-Secretary wants. There is a suspicion—an impression—that needs to be either allayed or dispelled.

Through the use of certain targeted grants, as announced by various Ministers and confirmed in parliamentary questions answered by Ministers, including the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for Local Government, performance reward grants have operated in past years. According to an answer on 3 September last year, the figures for how much grant money each local authority received between 2004-05 and 2006-07 in relation to their performance on adoption targets were released in a table. The figures show that authorities have been incentivised for meeting national adoption targets. The Under-Secretary defined those targets in an answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on 23 July. He said

“A national adoption target was announced in 2000 to increase the number of adoptions of looked after children by 40 per cent. by the year ending March 2005, and to exceed this by achieving, if possible, a 50 per cent. increase by the end of March 2006.”—[Official Report, 23 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 838W.]

Most of us would agree that we need to increase quality adoptions to give damaged children the very best second chance to enjoy the benefits of a stable family life, which might put them back on the straight and narrow, for want of a better phrase. It was particularly envisaged that we would concentrate most on getting children out of the care system who had been there for a long time and ensuring that, if there was no prospect of them going back to their birth parents or kinship family, they would be placed in stable adoptive situations. I think that we all agree with that objective, although there are other countries that take a different approach. The other day I cited Denmark, where in the year before last—the last year for which I have figures—only 20 adoptions took place, but that has much more to do with the flexibility of the system in and out of care, the greater use of residential children’s homes and so on.

I disagreed at the time the 2002 legislation was passed with the use of numerical adoption targets—a very blunt instrument—backed up by financial incentives, which could create a perverse incentive for a local authority that had not met its adoption targets to clamour around desperately at the end of the year to find a few soft targets to boost its adoption figures. Theoretically, that could happen. Although we know that an authority would have to go through all sorts of procedures for the care proceedings and pass the various thresholds, there could be a perverse incentive to try to find some adoption candidates to meet those targets before a year ends.

The fear that something along those lines may be happening is borne out when one looks at the demographics of adoptions that have taken place. I pluck out the example of Hammersmith and Fulham, which has received about £500,000 as a reward for placing more than 100 children for adoption in three years. It exceeded its goal of 101 adoptions and secured 106 by the target deadline. It is interesting to look at what happened after those adoption targets ended—they no longer exist in their old form. The number of babies placed for adoption by that authority fell substantially. In 2005, there were 21, in 2006 there were 23 and in 2007 the figure dropped to 10. The figures are also likely to be low this year. These are not children who have been in the care system for some time, but new babies who are taken from their mothers at an early stage.

I am not trying to undermine the system of fast-track baby adoption that we approved in the 2002 Act. If a mother with or without another parent is incapable of taking on the responsibilities of caring for her baby, there is a case for that child being placed for adoption as soon as possible, subject to the checks, procedures and appeals. I am not just picking on Hammersmith and Fulham; there are many similar cases. If one looks at the overall figure, the number of babies placed for adoption rather than returned to their parents is very high. It increased during the years when the performance targets were operating.

There is a perfectly justified suspicion that the targets are leading to perverse incentives to adopt more children than would normally be adopted, particularly focusing on babies. That does not do anyone any good. I am not trying to suggest that there is systemic abuse of the process, with social workers going around assuming the role of child snatchers, as many in the more sensationalist media would have us believe. Such views have not been beneficial and have not helped the perception and the image of social workers, which we talked about earlier. One way of dispelling that is to say that these targets should not be allowed.

I know that the targets have changed in the last couple of years, but the principle is wrong. The principle can lead to the wrong outcomes and to all sorts of allegations that are harmful to the adoption process and to the work of social workers. The commission on social workers that I chaired concluded that the Government should not use such targets. That is why new clause 12 states the case quite simply. It is a probing new clause, and the Minister will no doubt tell me that it would not fit into this part of the Bill, but it is useful to have this debate none the less. The Government need to state clearly that they will not use these sorts of targets. They must send out a clear message that they will come down heavily on any authority that appears to be over-enthusiastic in its adoptions. We must ensure that we increase adoptions, but we must do so for the right reasons.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister explained why there has been little change in the number of adoptions from the older age group while there has been a large increase in adoptions of very young babies? I would sincerely like an explanation for that.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Lady makes a key point. That was why I singled out the increase in the baby figures and the fact that we need to make the most progress in getting the hard-core cases, many of which are difficult and challenging teenagers who are not easy to adopt, out of the care system and into some form of permanent adoption if there is no way they can go back to their birth parents or other members of their family. That is where we are trying to get them. The hon. Lady makes a perfectly pertinent point, so I hope that the Minister will address those concerns in his reply. It is a genuine concern that we need to dispel, because it does no one in the business of adoption any good.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Perhaps I can express a little disappointment with the hon. Gentleman’s contribution on this occasion, just for the sake of symmetry. To be fair, he is usually pretty assiduous in his research and uses real evidence to support his points, but most of what he has just said did not seem to be based on evidence. He used words such as suspicion, impression, hypotheticals and fear, but then proceeded to claim that it does no good to spread suspicion or have those sorts of stories circulating in the wilder corners of the media.

I would like to make a few points absolutely clear. It is wrong to claim that local authorities were incentivised in any way to meet a national adoption target. That is not true and I will explain why later. It has always been and remains the Government’s policy that children should live with their parents whenever possible and that when necessary, families should be given extra support to help keep them together. Naturally, the expectations placed on local authorities through legislation reflect that policy.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was a member of the Committee that scrutinised the Children and Adoption Bill a few years ago, so he knows that the national adoption target, which ended in March 2006, applied only to the number of adoptions of children who were already in care and waiting to be placed for adoption and to the speeding up of that process, which we all agreed had to be improved. Those targets reflected the Government’s desire to reverse the long-term decline in the number of children already in care achieving permanent adoption.

The purpose of those targets was to give hundreds more of our most vulnerable children the chance to benefit from a safe, stable and loving family life and fulfil their potential. That is exactly the right thing to do, so I make no apology for it whatever. Local authorities were neither compelled to meet national adoption targets, nor financially rewarded against them. Having run its course and achieved its purpose, the national adoption target was not extended beyond March 2006 and the Government currently have no plans to reintroduce it.

Local authorities are relevant in this respect because some of them chose to develop local adoption targets as part of the local area agreements, formerly known as local public service agreements. As with the national target, those targets were focused on children already in the care system. In other words, some councils judged themselves weak at helping children find new families in a timely way and chose their own local targets that were linked, in general with other issues, to the rewarding of funding. The Government never imposed adoption targets on individual local authorities in any way whatever. Indeed, as I think the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham acknowledged, the local government White Paper commitments mean that the Government will now only agree targets with local authorities against indicators drawn from the national indicator set, which contains no indicator for measuring the number of adoptions from care.

The first point is that any targets that existed, whether the national target set by the Government or those that a local authority decided to set for itself, are no longer in place. As I have said, I make no apology at all for the national target set by the Government, because it successfully improved the speed at which children were able to go through the care system when they were already judged suitable for adoption. In the new system there will be no financial incentives for performance against specific targets; instead, local areas will be able to earn limited reward funding based on average performance across a range of targets agreed with the Government and their local authorities, but adoption will not be included.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Did that target specify how long the children needed to have been in care? Could they have been in care for just a day or two?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The national target was to increase by 40 per cent.—more if possible—the number of looked-after children who were adopted within a specified time. That target was not quite reached—38 per cent. was the outcome figure. All councils were meant to bring their performance up to that level. If I have not answered the hon. Lady’s question, she might want to come back on that.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

My question was whether the target specified how long the children that one wished to move out of care had been in care. Could an authority count children who had only been in care for seven days?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I apologise to the hon. Lady. The target was nothing to do with how long the children had been in care, it was about whether they had been in care and judged suitable for adoption. It would be impossible for them to be part of a target if they had been in care for just one day. The target kicked in only after a judgment had been made that adoption was the right route. If they had been in care for only one day, they would not yet have been assessed as suitable for adoption.

Edward Timpson (Conservative, Crewe and Nantwich)

Will the Minister clarify whether when he says that the child had been judged suitable for adoption he means that the child had then been placed through the adoption panel?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Yes, that is absolutely correct. That is the point at which the target would kick in. When we debated the Adoption and Children Bill in 2001, concern was expressed that too many children were languishing in care when it had already been decided—the paramountcy principle having been considered—that the appropriate way forward for them was to be placed for adoption. They were not being placed for adoption quickly because local authorities were not being very effective or efficient in finding the right family for them. That was the purpose of the national adoption target, and it was successful.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Just to be clear on the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, on the back of the accelerated adoption processes for babies in particular—which we enabled through the Adoption and Children Act 2002—more babies could come into the care system and be quickly adopted, and they therefore formed part of the adoption figures that met the adoption targets. That would appear to be borne out by the fact that the biggest increase in adoptions has been in the adoption of young babies. That is the case, is it not?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The key safeguard in all cases is that no child can be adopted unless it has been through the proper procedures, including the court procedures. We all agreed, and it was absolutely the case, that where it was appropriate that a baby be placed for adoption it should happen quickly. What are being conflated in the argument, perhaps deliberately in some cases—not here but in some of the media accounts—are the local area agreement targets and the national target on adoption. There is no evidence at local target level that the policy has resulted in any inappropriate adoptions—none whatever. In fact, the available evidence suggests that local authorities that included time-limited adoption increases as part of their local public service agreement were already well below average in using adoption as a permanent option for looked-after children in comparison to other local authorities. They set fairly modest targets, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham indicated, and even when they achieved those targets in full, the individual local authorities involved rarely became above average performers in terms of adoption as a permanent option, even in the short term while the targets were in place.

I have seen no evidence of inappropriate adoptions resulting from the target. It is very sad that some accounts—not from anybody on the Committee, but elsewhere—have given the impression that Ministers, judges, social workers, lawyers, solicitors, CAFCASS officers and a range of other people are involved in some sort of conspiracy to kidnap babies from otherwise loving families to meet adoption targets. That sort of swivel-eyed nonsense is exactly what contributes to our problems in improving the image of social workers and in ensuring that children in care, whom the Bill is largely designed to assist, have the best possible outcomes. The extent to which we pander to those views is very dangerous to what we are trying to do.

Let us base our deliberations on evidence. There is no evidence of inappropriate adoptions. There are no national targets in place now, the national target having achieved its outcome. Councils set local targets for themselves because they felt that they needed to challenge their poor performance; the Government did not set them. They are no longer in place and there is no evidence whatever that they resulted in inappropriate adoptions. I see no need to adopt an amendment that would tie the hands of future Governments seeking to improve adoption performance, although targets are not currently needed because of the improvements made directly as a result of the 2002 Act and the national target set at that time.

I call for consensus on adoption across the Committee and across the parties in the House, and hope that we can reach it. Given that no targets are in place at this point, and that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham fundamentally disagrees with targets, consensus should be possible without the necessity for his amendment. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw it.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We needed to have this discussion. I think the Minister and I are entirely at one on what needs to be achieved, which is an increase in adoption, particularly for those who are in the care system for far too long and in many cases spend their entire youth in the care system without the chance of adoption. I have been very careful not to make wild allegations about inappropriate adoptions. One cannot deny, however, that the system is such that they could happen, nor could one say that they would not happen. There would be no question of anybody pandering to the allegations if the Government had not introduced the performance reward grants in the first place, or subsequently allowed local authorities to include any adoption target within local area agreements. That is where the problems come in and that is what we warned about in 2001. A question remains. I am interested in further analysis from the Minister’s Department as to why there has been such a big increase in the adoption of babies, which is part of the targets, but little movement in the adoption of older children, on whom we should be concentrating.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I will be happy to send the hon. Gentleman some further information on that point. It is true that more children aged between zero and one are coming into care, but the compensating figure for children aged between one and four balances that. In other words, early intervention is working exactly as we want it to. We have learned the lessons about the need to ensure that we intervene early where children are genuinely at risk and the statistics absolutely bear that out.

However, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that for those aspersions to be true in some way—aspersions that the system conspired to put people up for adoption inappropriately—the court system itself and the judges involved in it would have to have been part of that conspiracy?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I entirely take the Minister’s point and I am not suggesting that there was a conspiracy. However, the evidence supplied by social workers closest to the case will weigh heavily in court and, without there having to be any sort of conspiracy, if a claim is being made by an employee of the local authority and that authority stands to benefit from a performance reward grant, clearly there is the potential for that employee to over-egg the claim when otherwise they might not have done so. That situation does not require a conspiracy.

Part of the problem is the pressure on the courts at the moment. I have sat in family courts where the judge will tell me that there have been changes in social workers and the paperwork is enormous—we will go on to talk about transparency in family courts when we discuss another amendment very shortly—so I know that the scrutiny of some of these cases is not as tight as it might be. On that basis, some of these numbers, hypothetically, could be raised higher than we would like.

The point is that, ultimately, the overall adoption figures have not risen recently and we need them to rise; in particular, we need them to rise more for older children than for babies. That is a real problem that we need to face. However, I hope that when the Minister endeavours to tackle it again—I realise that all sorts of things are happening that are ongoing—he will not revert to coming up with some sort of financial incentive that is based on numerical targets, because that will only give rise to further suspicions that children are being inappropriately adopted at an early age who would otherwise not necessarily justify being adopted.

I do not wish to put this matter to a vote. On that basis, I am grateful for the debate that we have had and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

If the Minister is going to write to Mr. Loughton, it might be helpful if that correspondence was copied to other members of the Committee.

New Clause 13

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

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

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 17—Issue of written judgment relating to a court order in family proceedings—

‘(1) The 1989 Act is amended as follows.

(2) After section 8 insert—

“8A Issue of written judgment relating to a court order in family proceedings

(1) When issuing an order in any family proceedings a court shall issue a written judgment in respect of that order.

(2) No children under the age of 16 shall be identified by name in that judgment.

(3) A judgment issued under subsection (1) will be issued to all parties to proceedings.

(4) Parents of children in family proceedings who were party to those proceedings, may publish the judgment issued under subsection (1).

(5) Parents of children in family proceedings, who were party to those proceedings, may publish any other documents that are part of such proceedings on the condition that documents are redacted to remove the names of any children under 16.”’.

New clause 18—Family proceedings: evidence—

‘(1) The 1989 Act is amended as follows.

(2) After section 9 insert—

“9A Proceedings on orders with respect to children

(1) No order may be made in any family proceedings that shall prevent the provision of evidence to—

(a) the police,

(b) any regulatory body that the Secretary of State shall by regulation define.

(2) In the course of such proceedings it shall be lawful for any person—

(a) to provide evidence to the bodies specified in subsection (1),

(b) to assist any person in the provision of such evidence.

(3) In relation to any family proceedings held in private it shall be lawful for any person to provide any information relating to such proceedings to—

(a) a Member of Parliament,

(b) a Member of the Welsh Assembly,

(c) a Member of the European Parliament,

(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State shall by regulation define.

(4) In relation to any family proceedings held in private it shall be lawful for any person to provide any information relating to such proceedings to any other person for the purposes of obtaining advice, performing research or ensuring the enforcement of the law or regulatory procedures.”’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It is slightly unfortunate that new clause 13 has been grouped with new clauses 17 and 18, which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will be speaking to in more detail; I will just touch on them.

New clause 13 is another new clause that was tabled and debated in the House of Lords; it was originally tabled by Lord Northbourne. He sought to clarify and embed in law the responsibilities that a person assumes when they accept the responsibility of caring for a child who will live with them as a result of a residence order. It is critical for the child and for the parents of that child, who the child is not living with, that the child receives the parenting that they need. So this is purely a probing amendment to engage in a discussion of what parenthood is all about and what the responsibilities of parenthood are.

The Minister and I can have—indeed, we have had—endless debates about over-nannying states and ill-equipped parents and so forth. Actually, however, it is fundamental to the Bill to establish what qualifies somebody to take on the role of a parent if the birth parents are deemed to be no longer capable of doing that.

The reason that I raise this issue now is that, at the end of the debate in the Lords, Lord Adonis indicated that the Government were prepared to look at it further and I just wondered whether there has been any progress since then. Therefore, the Minister will have the opportunity to update the Committee if there is anything to report back on.

New clauses 17 and 18, grouped with new clause 13, are in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley and other hon. Members, and I have added my name to those of my hon. Friends who are supporting them. These new clauses address an issue that has been the subject of much debate in the press and on which we had hoped that there would also have been some movement in Government as a result of the consultation that took place on the transparency of the family courts. However, that consultation largely came to nothing, so they deal with the problems of transparency within the family courts.

I have strong reservations about the watertightness—that is not a good word to use—of the family court system. I have sat in on family courts and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich may wish to make comments about his much greater personal experience. There is great pressure on the officers and agencies that are privy to family court proceedings, not least on social workers. There is a large turnover in social workers attached to cases. I have given the example of when I sat in court for a day and the judge told me that all the social workers he had seen were different from the ones who had started the cases he was judging. For those reasons, there is a propensity for mistakes to happen and for wrong records to be taken. That can easily happen, but often those wrong records are not corrected and erroneous information is resurrected later in proceedings. Because different social workers are often involved, that information is taken as gospel.

It is essential that we provide for far greater transparency in family court proceedings so that when mistakes are made they can be challenged. It is important that it is seen to be challenged and that the correct information is seen to be put on the record to the satisfaction of all parties involved. I recognise that that must be done sensitively. I am not coming up with a blueprint for how transparency in the family courts could be achieved. Such procedures would have to take account of the child’s right to anonymity and of whether members of the public should be allowed in to see the court proceedings. That raises all sorts of potential issues. For example, a vexatious neighbour might want to make mischief by sitting in on family court proceedings. That could cause problems.

Despite those problems, it should be possible to publish court proceedings for the appropriate people so that there is a greater chance for scrutiny. Connected persons might wish to say, “Hold on, that’s not true,” or “This was thrown out at an earlier stage,” or “It was pointed out that that was not true.” That would improve the system.

I understand why reform of the family court system was largely terminated when the Leader of the House was responsible for it. I had a private meeting with her when she was very keen to progress this issue. The confidentiality of children’s concerns was an important factor. That was an interesting angle that not many people had considered at the outset. However, the problem still remains. We see it as constituency MPs, when it is usually aggrieved fathers who come to us. Some of the more militant of them unhelpfully get involved with the organisations that we can all think of, but which we need not name. That escalates the matter, which is in nobody’s interests, least of all the children about whom we should care most.

The new clauses would lay down a framework for publishing court proceedings and for determining who had access to them. I thought that we had addressed part of this issue in the Children Act 2004. At that time, the sister of the Leader of the House was involved in a case where she unwittingly disclosed information about a family court case to her, which was deemed to be against the law. I thought that we amended the 2004 Act. I tabled an amendment whereby constituents could discuss their cases with their MP without falling foul of the confidentiality of the family courts. I understand that there are still problems.

The new clauses would start the ball rolling to improve the transparency of, and therefore the confidence in, the family court system. These are probing new clauses so the Minister can say why they may or may not be practical. Perhaps he might explain what it would take for changes to be made in the system to give greater assurances to the many aggrieved people who come to us because of the court proceedings.

Edward Timpson (Conservative, Crewe and Nantwich)

I know from my own experience that there has been an increase in the number of written judgments issued and approved by judges in controversial family law cases, particularly those that have then crept into the criminal arena such as cases of non-accidental injury. There has also been an increase in cases being judged worthy of publication through bad practice, not only from local authorities, but from other agencies. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that a presumption that there would be a written judgment in a family case, unless there was good reason not to do so, such as for public interest immunity or the particular sensitivity of the case, would at least be a starting point in opening up the family courts to a more transparent way forward?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which is obviously born out of his experience in this area. Clearly something has to be done. Many hon. Members from their own experiences both with their constituents and in their professional and legal backgrounds have a contribution to make here. It is not a subject that will go away. An increase in the publication of written judgments will go some way to allay the suspicions that things are being swept under the carpet. Again, as with our last debate, I am being careful not to scaremonger, but this is an increasingly widely touted concern that needs to be addressed. I will not detain the Committee for any longer. Hon. Members want to make some comments and then we want to hear what the Minister proposes as a way forward.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I would like to place on record that I am not in the business of pandering to the media or any other people. Nevertheless, cases come to light. There are questions and it is difficult to answer the accusations at times in the current situation. It would be for the greatest good if we could manage to progress openness and transparency in some way. I was keen that we should have a discussion in Committee because that is the most appropriate way to tease out some ideas on the way forward. I was quite taken with the suggestion from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, which I have also heard made by judges.

I am a little bit concerned about new clause 17 because it does not seem to cover the welfare of the child. However, I appreciate the sentiments behind it and I want more openness. A lot of progress was made and the former Constitutional Affairs Committee published a report on family courts. There was a lot of evidence on how we could progress to more openness. Of course we must respect the views of young people because we are repeatedly saying that we should seek their views, but I feel that we should try to find a way around this to dispel the myths and suspicion.

New clause 18, to which I put my name to ensure that it was discussed, has some rather important elements. We have to assume that there will occasionally be a miscarriage of justice. There will occasionally be mistakes by medical experts. There will occasionally be mistakes by social services staff. It concerns me that although wild allegations are around us all the time, if we could just put some more checks and balances into the system, we might be able to tighten it up more.

The specifics here, which seem fairly reasonable to me—I am ready to be contradicted—are that someone should be able to go to the police if they have evidence contrary to that which has been provided. An example was given of two parents, one blaming the other for maltreating the child. Although the silence aspect has been addressed, false allegations could be made, and somebody—perhaps a family member—might want to go to the police.

There is also an issue about the right of the party whose child might be taken away to see a further expert witness. I see the problem with that—they could go on and on with expert witnesses—but there are a few well-documented cases in which the judge, when publishing his views, has acknowledged that a wrong medical procedure took place that led to a whole sequence of events. It is easy to see that once one gets on the treadmill and it is suggested that an injury is non-accidental, it can colour everything that happens. I would always want to put child protection first—the welfare of the child is paramount—but there should be scope, for example, to bring in one’s own expert witness so some assessment could be made in court.

The new clause also includes Members of Parliament and their equivalents in other parliamentary bodies. Many of us thought that that was dealt with by an amendment to the Children Act 2004, but I am told that that is not the case. It puts Members of Parliament in a difficult position when people come to our surgeries and we are not sure what we can do or whether we should be hearing the evidence. Some clarity on that is needed. Surely somebody can be acknowledged who is totally trustworthy, so people can bring information to them and seek their advice.

Those are just a few comments. I genuinely want to tease out as much as we can in Committee, because I suspect that we will return to the issues on Report, and I would like to get as much on record here as possible.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I understand the hon. Lady’s comments. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham pointed out, my hon. Friend Lord Adonis undertook to consider clause 13 further, and we have done so. At the specific suggestion of Lady Butler-Sloss, the Government sought the views of the president of the family division of the High Court and, through him, other senior judges with experience of family cases and members of the Family Justice Council. The common view of those experienced practitioners was that they have had no difficulties managing cases using the current wording of section 3 of the Act, which defines parental responsibility as

“all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property.”

A number of senior judges who were consulted further foresaw problems with a fuller definition such as the one proposed. For example, such a definition would risk becoming a focus of conflict or a cause for further argument between parents, both of whom say that the statutory definition entitles them to do something unless prohibited from doing so. The view is summed up in a letter of advice sent to Lord Adonis by the president of the family division saying that the proposed amendment

“is neither necessary nor helpful.”

He believes that

“to introduce and define a new concept of the responsibilities of parenthood in the form of amended section 8(4A) will create scope for argument and confusion in an area in which none of the many judges I have canvassed at all levels has ever found the existing definition to present any practical difficulties”.

The Government have also considered referring the matter to the Law Commission, recognising that the commission itself recommended the current definition in its 1988 report “Family Law: Review of Child Law: Guardianship and Custody”. However, setting to one side the time that it might take to hear further from the commission, the view of those consulted was that, in the absence of any substantive concerns about the current position, such a referral is unnecessary.

It is worth noting that during the course of the consultations, our attention was drawn to a leading judgment by the then Mr. Justice Wall, in the case of Re F (Shared Residence Order) [2003] 2 FLR 397, which set out an extended list, the contents of which might be relevant in residence order cases. That case law approach is echoed in one of the parenting plans, “Putting Children First - a planner for separating parents”, which was published by my Department and is now distributed primarily by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, with more than 70,000 copies distributed last year.

I believe that the intention behind the new clause, as was made clear when it was first considered in the other place, is to assist the courts, parents, relatives and, above all, the children who might become the subject of residence order proceedings. It would do so by ensuring that those acquiring parental responsibility by that route are clear about what they are taking on and that they are suitable to fulfil that vital role. That is an extremely laudable aim, but given the strength of the advice we received and the expertise of those whose views have been provided to us by the president of the family division, the Government have concluded that those whom we want to assist, namely the children involved, would be better served by the continuation of the status quo in this case and that there are positive advantages to that position. I am sure that the Committee will understand that. The president has advised that

“the full range of powers and duties of the parent...change and develop as both the child and the law and practice of parenting change and develop”.

The Government accept that view and consider that there should not be a refinement or further iteration of the meaning of parental responsibility within the Act.

On new clause 17, I understand the sentiments expressed in the debate and that the new clause is intended to make the family courts more open by requiring them to provide written judgments to all parties in family cases and allowing those people receiving judgments and other documents to publish them further, potentially even in the media. The arrangements for providing judgments in family courts depend on the level of the court involved, as I am sure hon. Members know, and courts are always required to explain their decisions to the parties, but there is no requirement in the county court or the High Court for the explanation to be given in writing; often, they are only given orally and a tape recording is made. It is only in the family proceedings court that there is a requirement to produce and issue written reasons to the parties. Like the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and other hon. Members, I have sat in on those courts and observed the proceedings.

The Ministry of Justice has consulted twice, as hon. Members will know in recent years, on increasing the openness of family courts, and central to that has been the recognition of the need for better provision of information about the work of the family courts. It needs to be accessible to those who are involved in the proceedings, but it is also important that more information is available to the general public, for the reasons hon. Members have outlined during the debate. We need to help people to understand how the courts make those difficult and important decisions so that the public can have confidence in the family justice system.

The decision on whether to publish judgments or permit information from a case to be published more widely rests with the courts. In broad terms, it makes that decision by balancing the best interests of the child with the interests of justice and the public interest in the issues raised by the case. It will include consideration of the rights of the parties and the media to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European convention on human rights and the European convention on the rights of the child, as well as consideration of the parties’ rights to privacy under article 8 of the convention on human rights. When the Court of Appeal or the High Court considers the case to have significant public interest, it is common practice for the judgment, which is anonymised to protect the interests of the parties, particularly the children involved, to be published in the law reports and on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website.

We want to encourage more judgments to be published, but need to balance that with the demands that publication places on the efficient operation of the system. We must not risk further delays in the family courts when we have been working hard to reduce delays. Those delays directly impact on the children and parents involved in proceedings. Last summer, the Ministry of Justice announced that it would be piloting written judgments when a final order is made in certain family cases, and I can confirm that an announcement about those pilots will be made to the House after the summer.

New clause 18 would amend the Children Act 1989 so that the courts could not prevent the disclosure of evidence to the police or any regulatory body. It would make such disclosure lawful while the proceeds are ongoing and make it lawful to provide information to an MP, a Member of the Welsh Assembly or a Member of the European Parliament. It would also make disclosure lawful for obtaining advice, performing research and ensuring law enforcement or compliance with regulatory proceedings. I understand that the new clause is intended to enable people who find themselves and their children in family proceedings to make wider disclosure of information from those proceedings than is currently possible without potentially being in contempt of court.

The disclosure of information for those involved in family proceedings is an issue that interests hon. Members across the House. I understand that the intention is to overcome some of the problems faced by people involved in family proceedings who wish to disclose information or documents that form part of the proceedings to their MP, for example, for any number of reasons. I understand the concern that prompted the new clause. The changes that have already been made are not entirely complete, because there is a problem with what can be disclosed to an MP while proceedings are ongoing.

For are a number of reasons, I cannot agree to the new clause. First, in October 2005 we changed the rules of court that govern the disclosure of family court information, making it easier for people involved in family proceedings to get advice and support and to disclose certain information in given circumstances without the prior permission of the court. Those changes sensibly allow people to share information legitimately with close family members, McKenzie friends and health professionals. We also made changes so that people can share information with the police to help with a criminal investigation—as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned—or to protect children. People may also share some information with their MP to investigate a complaint or raise a question of policy or procedure. Those changes have helped people to get help and support. They have also made it easier for people to make a complaint to the General Medical Council. After seeing three years of the changes in action, we think that further changes may be needed. That is why in June last year, the Justice Secretary consulted further on the rules and whether further changes were needed.

The second reason for not accepting the new clause is that this is a difficult and sensitive area, so we must be careful in our approach. We must balance one individual’s right to privacy against another individual’s wish to share documents or details of court proceedings that might breach that privacy. As hon. Members are aware, many of the documents we are talking about contain highly sensitive and personal information, including medical records, details of people’s mental health status and so on. We need to be alert to how damaging it could be for an individual if such information was disclosed inappropriately. However, we must also keep it in mind that people involved in family proceedings will often seek advice and support, and we must ensure that they can do so in a simple and timely manner. That is why we consulted on disclosure last year.

As I have mentioned, the Government will make an announcement to the House after the summer, following the consultation, and make further detailed proposals. In developing our policies, we want to work with the Family Procedure Rule Committee on any amendment to court rules. Given that work is ongoing and that there is an impending announcement from the Ministry of Justice, it would be premature at this stage to consider accepting new clauses 17 and 18. I think that we are all travelling in the same direction and want to achieve the correct balance. In the light of what I have said, I hope that hon. Members will not press the new clauses.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister has given a full answer. I am encouraged by his assurance that further consideration will come forward in the autumn. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 14

Edward Timpson (Conservative, Crewe and Nantwich)

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

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 40—Complaints against foster carers—

‘(1) The 1989 Act is amended as follows.

(2) After section 26(8) insert—

“(9) In carrying out any consideration of any representations (including complaints) every local authority shall—

(a) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to protect the identity of foster carers who are the subject of a complaint; and

(b) continue to pay allowances to such foster carers until it has reached a decision on the complaint.”’.

Edward Timpson (Conservative, Crewe and Nantwich)

It falls to me to speak to new clauses 14 and 40, which stand in the names of hon. Members from all parties on the Committee. It would be remiss of me not to say to you, Mr. Pope, that it has been a delight to serve under your chairmanship on my first Committee.

The new clauses deal with two principal issues. The first is the requirement that local authorities continue payments to a foster carer or foster carers until a determination is reached regarding an allegation made against them. The second is the protection of the identity of foster carers who are subject to complaints. There is a general consensus in the Committee that social workers have not been valued and that that needs to be recognised in the legislation. It seems to me and my colleagues that the same can be said of foster carers. I should say at the outset that the welfare and protection of children in public care is the primary consideration at the core of the new clauses.

It is important to say that foster carers provide a valuable and vital service that is complex and highly specialised. They perform a hugely demanding role, and many do so full time. Given those demands, foster carers often receive no earnings through employment or lose earnings through reduced hours. They therefore make an enormous commitment.

The dearth of foster carers has been a theme during our consideration of the Bill. In 2000, the book “Delivering Foster Care” made it clear how deep that dearth was, saying:

“In order to meet the demand for placement and to ensure a choice of placements that can best meet children’s needs, at least 10,000 more foster carers are needed in the UK”.

That was said in 2000, but it remains true today. What makes those figures even more pertinent, however, is that the current population of foster carers is ageing, with one fifth over 56—and that includes my own parents.

If we are to increase the pool of foster carers, we need to send out a signal that we are on their side. One reason for the lack of take-up is the lack of protection afforded to foster carers in carrying out their role and particularly during the investigation of allegations. Unlike members of the teaching profession, foster carers do not benefit from such protection, and the consequences are potentially hugely damaging, not only for the individual foster carer, but for the fostering service as a whole. Any foster carer who has been through the investigative process, as a third of all foster carers have, will say two things: first, that it is a tremendously traumatic experience that leaves them in constant fear of further allegations and undue public vilification; and secondly, that the financial impact can be devastating.

Hon. Members will have seen the helpful briefing from the Fostering Network, which sets out a number of case studies. One of those case studies is as follows:

“A child made an allegation against a male carer, which was later proved unfounded. The couple had been out of work and the fostering income was relied on for all their outgoings. They were struggling and subsequently, as the ‘investigation’ took so long (over 2 months at this point) without an income, the couple were given notice by their building society. They have since been forced to sell their house to a company which then rents them back. They are in a very precarious position which has lost them their equity”.

That cannot be right.

The problem is compounded by the Government time scales for the resolution of allegations, as set out in the “Working Together” guidance of April 2006. Those time scales are being routinely missed. The target is 80 per cent. resolution by one month and 90 per cent. resolution by three months, but the actual figures show that 50 per cent. of cases run for more than three months, one in 10 runs for more than a year, and some run for several years.

During an investigation, almost all foster carers have their fostering income cut, and 46 per cent. have all their fostering income stopped. Despite the unfair and severe financial hardship that is laid at the door of foster carers, the majority of allegations prove unfounded—I would be interested to know whether the Minister has specific figures showing what that majority is. Certainly, in more than two thirds of cases, children are not removed from the foster carers’ care on completion of the investigation.

The repercussions of any investigation are widespread. We must bear it in mind that foster carers are often involved in other child care occupations, in parallel with their fostering commitments. An investigation might therefore threaten their other sources of family income.

The British Association for Adoption and Fostering makes a strong argument when it says:

“Due to the nature of children and young people placed with them and the often fraught relationships between foster carers and birth parents unfounded allegations are a regular occurrence.”

I know of a teenage girl who was moved from placement to placement after making unfounded allegation upon unfounded allegation, purely because her birth mother encouraged her to disrupt the placements. She was told that if she did so enough times she would eventually be returned home, as the least worst option.

Any allegation has the potential to trigger one of three types of investigation: a child protection inquiry under section 47 of the Children Act 1989; the fostering service’s own investigation; and, of course, a police investigation. A third of foster carers are subject to an investigation at some time during their fostering career, and the majority of allegations prove to be unfounded, which only heightens the case for greater protection of their identity, to mirror the protection given to teachers whose role in children’s lives has, in many ways, a professional symmetry with that of foster carers.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend makes a very good case for the new clause. Does the Fostering Network not also say that 10 per cent. of such allegations take longer than a year to investigate? That means an extended period of uncertainty in which the foster carers may not be looking after their charges, although we desperately need their services because of the shortage of appropriate foster care, as has already been mentioned.

Edward Timpson (Conservative, Crewe and Nantwich)

My hon. Friend is right. I think that I alluded to the figure of one in 10 earlier. The point about investigations lasting a year or more is that the foster carers in question are out of the fostering pool during that period of suspension. That is a resource that we can ill afford to lose. My plea to the Government is that they think again and commit to bringing to an end once and for all the unjust position in which foster carers are singled out for financial penalty and potential public exposure and humiliation following unfounded allegations.

There are local authorities, such as Portsmouth, that have already recognised the absolute necessity of financial entitlement for foster carers during the period of investigation and have implemented such a system. On that point, and on the issue of identity protection, my colleagues who support the new clause urge the Government to do the same and support the proposed changes in their entirety.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Like other hon. Members, I have tabled a new clause on this subject because I support the proposal that foster carers should be paid while they are under investigation following an allegation. I do not intend to give a view on the rightness of allegations in any individual case, nor do I come at the matter with any particular assumption about whether an allegation might be valid or false. The memory is fresh in my mind of two sisters, who are now adults, and who, as children, made a complaint about abuse. They came to see me to tell me how inadequately their felt their allegations were investigated. However, it is a fact, as the Fostering Network briefing says, that

“around a third of all foster carers will face an allegation during their fostering career and the vast majority of these turn out to be unfounded.”

The Fostering Network deserves much credit for its campaign on the issue. It has marshalled its facts well; its arguments are cogent; and it has been quite attuned to the parliamentary process in trying to influence decision makers. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recall that I brought a delegation from the Fostering Network to see him, and the present subject was among the matters that we discussed. My hon. Friend gave a very sympathetic reception to the points that they made. On Second Reading, the Fostering Network arranged a lobby of Parliament by foster carers. The focus on that day was on children staying put with foster carers after 18, but this issue was discussed as well.

I have found in preparing for the debate that Unison is a major trade union in social care and has strong views in support of the Fostering Network. Its briefing to hon. Members reminds us of the

“emotional strain and the considerable length of time”

that foster carers might be worrying about an allegation made against them, as well as the loss of income. It makes the point that people might be able to manage the emotional strain and the worry, but they certainly cannot manage without the money. Unison says that it is crucial to ensure that good foster carers do not move out of fostering because they are compelled to do so by the lack of money, even though at the end of the investigation it might be found that indeed they are good foster carers with no stain on their character from the allegation that was made. Unison states:

“We believe that foster carers should continue, where paid, to receive their fee payment (the money given as remuneration for their work, skills and experience) and a portion of their allowance (the money paid to cover the cost of looking after children) that relates to ongoing fostering costs during an investigation.”

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made the point that often the timetable for completing an investigation given in Government guidance is missed. That is a scandal in itself. Acceptance of the proposal that people continue to be paid during an investigation might be an extra incentive for local authorities to ensure that their investigations comply with the time limit. In that way, it might have a second benefit in addition to the benefit of maintaining foster carers’ incomes while they are under investigation. That is why I support new clause 14.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I, too, will start by thanking the Fostering Network for bringing these important issues to our attention in a very powerful way—through the meetings with foster carers and looked-after children.

Unfounded allegations will undoubtedly be made, because we are talking about often very troubled children who will feel the need to hit back. Making such allegations is one manifestation of that impulse. However, given what we hear after the events in various children’s homes—I have a constituent who was placed with a foster carer many years ago and it was proven that he was abused while in that care—it is vital that allegations are investigated properly. It is also important that there should be pressure to complete investigations in a timely fashion.

Most of all, payment of the fee to the foster parent while the investigation is taking place is vital. We pride ourselves in this country on working on the premise that people are innocent until proved guilty. The current provision seems to go completely against that by stopping payment immediately an allegation is made. I also concur with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich about the need for anonymity as far as is possible.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I shall cut to the chase. I am very sympathetic to the principle of new clause 14. We have to do what we can to reduce the financial impact of an allegation on foster carers, but a better way of achieving that aim, rather than by amending primary legislation, is through the national minimum standards, which we are in the process of reviewing and which will be subject to full public consultation later this year. We intend, therefore, to use the revised national minimum standards to make it clear that fostering service providers who usually pay their foster carers a fee should continue to do so while an allegation is investigated, at the same level as it would have been paid at had the child or children not been removed from the placement. Payments would continue until the allegation had been resolved. I hope that that announcement is helpful to all hon. Members who spoke on the new clause and put their names to it, and to the Fostering Network.

New clause 40 also deals with payments to foster carers who are subject to an allegation, but it concerns the allowance that is paid to foster carers, rather than the fee. This new clause would require local authorities to continue paying the allowance to foster carers who were the subject of a complaint until a decision on the complaint had been reached. Unlike the fee, which is intended to reward the foster carer for their skills, experience and commitment, the allowance is intended to meet the cost of caring for the child. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to insist that the allowance be paid if the foster child or children had been removed while the allegation was investigated. In certain cases, the local authority or other provider might want to consider continuing to pay at least an element or perhaps all of the allowance if there are special circumstances, but that is best determined locally where all the facts are known. There is certainly no legislative barrier to providers continuing to pay an allowance if that is appropriate in the circumstances.

New clause 40 would also require local authorities to take steps to protect the identity of foster carers who are the subject of a complaint. Rather than lay out all of the provisions that we have in place, it may be useful if I write to Committee members to outline the details of the foster carers right to confidentially. We accept the principle that foster carers’ identities should not be released in most cases and, where appropriate, should be protected while an allegation is being investigated.

The “Working Together to Safeguard Children” guidance, states that that all complaints should be treated seriously and in accordance with consistent procedures. It also states that it is reasonable to expect 80 per cent. of cases to be resolved within one month, 90 per cent. within three months and all but the most exceptional cases within 12 months—so, 10 per cent. is not an acceptable outcome, as hon. Members have said. Evidence says that those time scales are not always met. During an investigation, the national minimum standards for fostering services, makes it clear that providers should be making independent support available to their foster carers. Again, it appears that that is not happening in all cases.

I am committed to taking further action to address those issues. I recognise that lengthy investigations without adequate independent support can add to the stress experienced by foster carers. So, in addition to our commitment regarding fees, we will be revising the national minimum standards for fostering services to reinforce our expectations about the time scales for resolving investigations and to highlight the need for foster carers who are subject to an allegation to receive appropriate independent support. We will clarify what we mean by that during the revision of those national minimum standards.

I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford that there are times when allegations have substance, and we should not forget that when trying to deal with the problems that the Fostering Network and hon. Members have rightly highlighted. I hope that hon. Members are reassured by what I have said and that the action that we are taking will improve the situation of foster carers subject to an allegation. I hope that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich will withdraw the motion on that basis.

Edward Timpson (Conservative, Crewe and Nantwich)

I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance, and it is reassurance. He is clearly sympathetic and accepts the thrust behind our amendments in principle. It is heartening to see that there is movement with the commitments made under the review of the national minimum standards, particularly on fees. I will read with interest what the Minister provides on anonymity, but, again, I am heartened that he agrees with our position in principle. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 16

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

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

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 21—Duty to keep records—

‘(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority and voluntary organisation that looks after or provides accommodation for a child to maintain records prescribed by regulations.

(2) Regulations may provide for the transfer of records held by a voluntary organisation to another voluntary organisation or local authority.’.

New clause 22—Duty to provide access to records—

‘(1) A post-care adult has the right, at his request, to receive from the local authority or voluntary organisation holding his care records:—

(a) all the information relating to his personal history;

(b) all relevant information relating to his family history.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a request for information in circumstances where the local authority or voluntary organisation is authorised by regulations to withhold the information or any part of it.

(3) Regulations may provide for local authorities and voluntary organisations to provide appropriate support, including information and advice, to post-care adults if requested.

(4) The regulations may provide for circumstances in which the local authority or voluntary organisation holding the records may arrange for another local authority or voluntary organisation near the post care adult’s home to provide access to the records and support.

(5) In this section “post care adult” means a person aged 18 and over who has at any time been in the care of, or looked after or accommodated by, a local authority or voluntary organisation.’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I do not wish to delay the Committee for too long. New clause 16 is a probing amendment. I am in sympathy with new clauses 21 and 22 in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and others. I want to focus on health records. We had a discussion on that and the problems that occur on the Adoption and Children Bill. I am involved with a charity called Cardiac Risk in the Young, which will be holding an annual reception on the Terrace before long. It deals with the tragedy of young people who drop down dead all of a sudden due to a congenital heart defect about which they knew nothing, often relating to problems inherited from parents or defects that could have been detected or been scanned for and dealt with before the fatality happened. As we discussed during the Adoption and Children Bill, there are cases of children who develop a genetic disease later in life, without any knowledge that they may have inherited it from a birth parent with whom they no longer have contact and/or knowledge of.

The purpose of new clauses 21 and 22, which were proposed by BAAF, is to ensure that the lifelong needs of post-care adults are not overlooked during debates on the reform of the care system. It is paramount, when appropriate, that a child who has been through the care system should be able to access the medical records of their birth parents, or that those medical records should be available to the person responsible for caring for that child, so that when the child becomes an adult he or she can refer to them to see whether they mention anything that might prejudice their health later in life.

The idea of a genetic key has been mentioned. For those children who end up in the care system and then go for adoption, there should be a formalised system for keeping their health records and the records of their birth parents safely, so that they can be made available to the children and the children’s health advisers when appropriate. Although it is common sense for that to happen, it does not happen often enough.

When children are pushed from one placement to another, and have unsettled lives, the capacity for medical records to go missing is exacerbated. We know that a large number of children in the care system have not had the basic vaccinations, so their health outcomes are already prejudiced. They do not have access to some of the basic medical preventions that are available to the rest of the population.

The new clauses are probing, to see whether such provisions are necessary and, if it is not already good practice, whether the Government would consider them as a basis for spreading good guidance, so that a directive along those lines could be issued to local authorities.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I shall speak to new clauses 21 and 22. I do not disagree with anything said by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. The purpose of the clauses are linked. The first is on the duty to keep records. Whatever should be in those records and how it should be transferred would, I assume, be dealt with in regulation. The details and possibly the medical records, too, could be the subject of regulation. The second is on the duty to provide access to records, on which I particularly want to speak.

It is estimated that 350,000 adults in the United Kingdom have spent all or part of their childhood in foster or residential care. The sharing of memories and photographs—all the things that we do with our own families—are not possible for most post-care adults. They may in due course want to make contact with parents and siblings, but that might not be possible. Each year, an estimated 4,000 requests are made by post-care adults for access to files. They do so for many reasons—to rebuild part of their lives, to build self-esteem or because they need to know about their past identity and relationships.

Requests by post-care adults for access to childhood information held in records retained by the local authority come under the Data Protection Act 1998. That Act, however, is not an effective way of meeting the information needs of post-care adults. It imposes restrictions on birth party information, and it does not take account of the plight of post-care adults who want to obtain their family history and details of their parents and siblings.

For many years, rightly so, legislation has been in place to assist adopted people to access support. Today, I am looking for equality of treatment. The same opportunities do not extend to post-care adults, and it could be argued that until they do so those adults will continue to receive a second-rate service, compared with adopted people.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I wanted to intervene to say that I support the new clause, which is why my name appears against it. I do not wish to make a speech. Is not the crux of the matter that there is a legislative framework for adopted children as adults to access their records and learn more about their history, but there is no such framework for adults who were children in care? Those adults have to fall back on the Data Protection Act, which was not meant for that purpose and actually gets in the way.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He knows that I am using the BAAF briefing, so he probably anticipated where I was heading. There is an action on access group which is calling for a legislative framework that would enable post-care adults to access information so that they could have a coherent and personal account of their origins and time in care. It also calls for the availability of advice and support that post-care adults can request if they wish, including intermediary services to help to locate and contact family members, and for an audit of statutory and voluntary sector records to be undertaken and published, to enable post-care adults to know where records can be found. Clearly, a lot more needs to be done for that group of people.

I would like to pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Barker who has raised the issue on a number of occasions in the other place, most recently during the passage of this Bill. Lord Adonis said that the House of Lords was

“indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for raising the critical issue of how best to ensure proper access to information and related services, not only by those who have been adopted but by those who have been in care.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1189.]

Therefore the consideration today is: “It is a critical issue, but can it be addressed please?”

I constantly come across explanations of how there is already an appropriate strategy framework in place to enable post-care adults to access their case records, and that there are already arrangements for the placement of children, and general regulations and data protection legislation. However, I am told by those with practical experience that the provisions are not working. They do not address the particular circumstances of post-care adults, and are simply inadequate. I will not go on at length about that inadequacy—I want the Minister to go further than what already exists to address the point that the provisions are inadequate, and to tell us what can be done to improve the situation. The important point is that we need the legislative framework for adults who were looked-after children. It is really important to progress that.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I will do my very best to satisfy as many people as I can before the bell tolls.

On new clause 16, we agree that where a child is adopted it is important for their GP to have full and accurate medical information in order to meet that child’s health needs. It is equally important that local authorities have full and accurate medical information about a child where adoption is the plan, and that the child’s adoptive parents are also given that information. That provision already exists in regulations, and I will not go through the regulations now because I seek to keep the Committee happy. However, I shall write to everybody and set out—perhaps in full—what those regulations are and why I think that they are satisfactory. There is nothing to prevent birth parents from approaching the local authority and asking it to pass on new medical information to the child’s adoptive parents and GP. There should be a balance between the interests of the child, and the privacy of birth parents and the confidentiality of medical records. That is a difficult balance to strike. However, local authorities are required to record detailed information about a child’s health and medical history, and must arrange for regular assessments of the child’s health and take health matters into account in regular reviews of the child’s case.

New clauses 21 and 22 relate to looked-after children. Looked-after children are not covered by the support and assistance under the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The hon. Lady mentioned intermediary services which was my own addition to that Act. I accept that formerly looked-after children do not have access to the same services, but there are important distinctions between the two groups. Looked-after children did not change their name or identity. The overwhelming majority returned to their families during the course of their childhoods. That is a vital distinction.

Most children do not typically spend a significant period of time being looked after before a permanent arrangement for their care is made either with a parent, another family member or an adoptive parent. These two new clauses are not necessary because the appropriate statutory framework exists. I shall not set out again what that is. The hon. Lady is familiar with it and I will again write to members of the Committee with the full details of the regulations that I am talking about.

There will be individual adults who are trying to piece together information about their time in the care system from a long time ago. Although the Data Protection Act provides for access to personal information, if records are incomplete then, sadly, no new legislative provision would be able to conjure up non-existent records. Record-keeping is now much more consistent. The guidance is clearer than it has been in previous decades. The Children Act 1989 sets a better framework than previously existed. The integrated children’s system and the detailed resources being produced to support it aim to improve record keeping still further.

While I do not agree with the hon. Lady that we need primary legislation, we recognise that practice varies. Existing guidance already highlights the need for local authorities to handle these issues sensitively and provide appropriate support. In the planned revision of the statutory guidance to the Children Act there is an opportunity to update the existing guidance to local authorities and to ensure that the current best practice is promoted more widely. I will seek to do that.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

The briefing from BAAF, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole referred, anticipates that the Minister will say that the guidance is adequate, so there is no need for primary legislation. Does he not understand that BAAF, Barnardo’s, the Care Leavers Association, the Catholic Children’s Society, the Children’s Society, the National Children’s Bureau, the National Leaving Care Advisory Service, the NCH, the Post Care Forum, Voice and the Who Cares? Trust all say that the present legislative framework is out of date and inadequate? It has been overtaken by the Data Protection Act 1998 and that gets in the way of people having access to records that are relevant to their own identity.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I realise that I am outnumbered. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point very seriously and I will look carefully at what they have to say. But I also give an undertaking that during the planned revision of the Children Act statutory guidance we will look at updating the existing guidance for local authorities and we will try to ensure that current best practice is promoted. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not press these new clauses.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful for that response. We have had an interesting debate. I am particularly pleased that the Minister has undertaken to write to us with further details. I moved my last new clause and I am equally delighted to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 20

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I, too, met the virtual head teachers when they came into the Department and virtually all of them turned up on that occasion. It was interesting to hear about the progress on the pilots, which are an important initiative. I can assure the hon. Lady that I agree with everything she said, except for the need for the new clause. We are deeply committed to ensuring that looked-after children and care leavers who are entitled to leaving care services are properly consulted on the services they receive and involved in helping to shape and improve them. That is why we made the commitment, as she knows, in the “Care Matters” White Paper to introduce children in care councils in every local authority.

We are embedding that commitment by spelling out in statutory guidance our expectation that every local authority should have a children in care council or an equivalent structure to ensure that looked-after children and young people are able to put their experiences of the care system directly to those responsible for service delivery, and I recently met some young people in south Gloucestershire who are doing exactly that. We will ask Ofsted to report on those participation arrangements as part of the planned inspection programme focusing on children in care, and that will begin in 2009. The new clause is unnecessary because the reforms that it seeks to legislate for are already underway.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I hope that I shall still be in Parliament to check up on that progress. We have been told that so much is in hand, in guidance or that it will happen, so I am rather heartened to hear that there will be a specific inspection on that matter, because it is important that there is a clear way forward to ensure investigations on whether local authorities are following through. During the course of the Committee’s proceedings, we appear to be imposing rather a lot of guidance and regulations on them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 24

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

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

This new clause is very much intended to be probing, although the principle was discussed in the other place. I wish to ascertain the Government’s position on a statutory system of guardianship for all separated children who are subject to immigration control in England and Wales. I want to ensure that the welfare needs of those children are properly safeguarded within the context of the asylum determination process and that their support and care needs are met by all agencies charged with those functions.

Each year, 3,000 children who are separated from both parents and are not being cared for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility to do so come to the UK and claim asylum. I have a feeling that I might have put the same arguments forward during the passage of the Children Act 2004, as they seem remarkably familiar and there is a sense of dÃ(c)jà vu. We also proposed at that time that the Border and Immigration Agency should come under section 11, so I think that it is worth carrying on putting the points forward.

The Bill presents an opportunity to strengthen the protection for children in the care of the state and cover asylum-seeking children and trafficked children, which is a matter of great concern. The new clause does not seek to establish any detailed mechanics on how a system of guardianship would operate, but it is important to recognise that there is no systematic provision of independent oversight on matters involving separated children who are subject to immigration control. Children can go unrepresented in their asylum application and might be placed in inappropriate accommodation with inadequate support. Indeed, they might not understand the implications of their asylum application. In the current system, separated children seeking asylum, some as young as eight years old, have to instruct their own solicitors, yet these children might not be competent to instruct a legal representative. Although there is provision through CAFCASS, which I appreciate, we still need guardianship.

Indeed, my noble friend Baroness Walmsley raised the issue, but I think that the Minister misunderstood what she was saying. Obviously we accept that CAFCASS can be helpful for a small number of non-citizen children going through the family court system, however, there is a gap in provision. A very low number of children is granted asylum. The majority are granted discretionary leave, which means that they need greater protection during the time that they are here, certainly to comply with the European convention on human rights.

We still have the reservation to article 22 of the UN convention on the rights of the child. I was heartened earlier this year when the Minister addressing that issue said that it was being looked at. I am not sure whether we have any information on that matter. I want particularly emphasise trafficked children. Lord Adonis commented in the other place that the Government are considering the changes needed to comply with article 10 of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, which states that every unaccompanied child identified as a victim will be provided with representation

“by a legal guardian, organisation or authority which shall act in the best interests of that child”.

I would like some more details about that because it is so important. There is cross-party concern for trafficked children.

It is also important to note that the 10th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published March 2007, expressed concern that asylum-seeking children were not getting as much protection as other children. The report recommends

“that a formal system of guardianship should be established for separated children subject to immigration control, including separated asylum seeking children. The guardian would have a statutory role and would be appointed by a statutory body to safeguard the best interests of the child and provide a link between all those providing services and support. The guardian should be expected to intervene if public bodies act in contravention of their legal duties towards a child”

There is a great opportunity to protect further the rights of separated children subject to immigration control. I hope that the Minister will consider favourably something that has been asked for on many occasions. I know the concerns about control of asylum and immigration, but we are talking about children. I believe that child in this country have the same rights to protection as citizens do.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I agree with the hon. Lady that the issue concerns everybody, particularly when we are talking about children who are not only separated from their families but may have been trafficked. I shall say at the outset that the matter was considered in detail in 2004 when we implemented the European Union reception conditions directive, which called for minimum standards on the reception of asylum seekers, including children. Article 19 requires states

“to ensure the necessary representation of unaccompanied”

asylum-seeking child by legal guardians or

“representation by an organisation which is responsible for their care and well-being”

We took the view then, and it is still our view, that the care and support that children receive from local authorities, under the same statutory arrangements as other children in need, mean that the UK is fully compliant with that directive. Therefore, we do not believe that a system of statutory guardianship is necessary, or indeed desirable, to achieve that goal. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that services for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, particularly those who have been trafficked, need to be improved. The provisions of the Bill, alongside some other measures that I will touch on briefly, will deliver some of the necessary improvements that she seeks.

First, it is important to make the point, in relation to the hon. Lady’s concluding remarks, that we are discussing children. All children should have the same rights under the law. I agree with her. Children’s legislation makes no distinction between children who are separated, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children or other children. The duties under the Children Act 2004 depend simply on the levels of assessed need. They are not affected at all by immigration status or other factors of that nature. As she will know, last year the courts made it absolutely clear in a robust judgment that it is not acceptable for local authorities to make any distinction in service provision on any basis other than assessed need. That was in relation to a case involving unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

Secondly, the reforms in the Bill and the wider “Care Matters” programme will challenge local authorities to improve their practice. That will benefit unaccompanied asylum-seeking and trafficked children who have grown up in this country. I recognise that the experiences of these children will be distinct in some important respects and that they will require more specialised services and care than the generality of looked-after children.

For that reason, the UK Border Agency has proposed that children should be placed not right across the country, but with a limited number of specialist local authorities so that we can be sure that they receive that specialist level of care and expertise. The training of IROs and social workers in those authorities can be given in relation to the dimensions that the separated and immigration statuses give such children. We will therefore develop some specialist areas of expertise. That fits in with the reforms of the UK Border Agency set out in “Better outcomes: the way forward”, which was about improving the care of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and was published in January this year. It also fits in with the code of practice, “Keeping children safe from harm”. I think that that is the way to ensure that the special needs of such children are dealt with in practice.

We will also update the statutory guidance to recognise and deal with the particular needs of this group. In revising the Children Act guidance for local authorities, we will reflect the significant increase in the number of these children in the care system since the guidance was originally written in the early 1990s. There will be a real focus on this group in that guidance.

On the other hand, I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that it is not clear what benefits there would be from an extra system of guardianship. This matter reflects the debate on advocates for every child. The reality for most of these children is that they already encounter a long list of individuals, many of them charged in one way or another with representing them, such as their solicitor. They are all referred to the Refugee Council children’s panel, which provides advice and assistance. They have their local authority social worker and the enhanced role of the IRO will apply to them, which we have discussed in this Committee. As I have said, if they are located in specialist authorities where the IRO is given special training in the circumstances and needs of such young people, they will get a better service.

We have had this argument before. I do not think that the legislation needs to be adjusted. I accept that we need to adjust practice and we must spotlight the needs of these children and train people to be better in meeting their needs and recognising the issues that come with their immigration status. However, that is a matter for practice and not for legislation in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that the measures I have outlined will meet her aspirations sufficiently and will therefore withdraw the motion.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. I am still unconvinced, but sometimes one has to beg to differ. I will not press the matter to a vote, but this is an issue that I will continue to raise because I think that we need to go a lot further. I seem to recollect that when the Green Paper was first published, as the Minister will acknowledge, it made little mention of asylum seekers, which always gives the impression that we do not give enough attention to them. We have come quite a way since then but we have not yet reached the best position. I will continue to push for this outside Committee, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 25

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

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

This amendment has also been supported by a number of organisations. I should like to make that clear from the outset. I suspect that I will be given assurances that it is all dealt with already, but the NSPCC, BAAF, Who Cares?, ChildLine and the NCB support this, so I am not alone in thinking that rather more could be done. Ever since the Sexual Offences Bill, I have had a particular interest in seeing that when a child has been sexually abused an assessment is made and therapeutic treatment is available. I have raised this on many occasions. A child who has been abused sometimes goes on to become a perpetrator. We have more and more unhappiness and misery by not addressing the situation at the time when it needs addressing. The availability of therapeutic treatment across this country is very patchy. We could prevent many tragedies if we could ensure that that treatment was available.

The amendment concerns assessment, treatment and support. My particular interest in therapeutic counselling and treatment for sexually abused children will, sadly, form part of that. About 60 per cent. of children are brought into care is because they have been abused in some way, be that physical violence, sexual abuse or other forms. That tells us quite a lot. Children who come into care have at least a 60 per cent. chance of needing some form of treatment. They often need mental health treatment.

Despite the fact that the Government have invested greatly, and I will not underestimate the extra investment, there is still a long way to go until we provide enough services. There can be a long time lag between assessment and treatment. That is critical for this group of vulnerable young people. They have already had a bad start in life. We need to be able to act to do the best that we can to remedy and make good as soon as possible

I therefore call in the new clause for an explicit duty to be placed on PCTs to co-operate with local authorities in the provision of health assessments and care to looked-after children, for assessment to be undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced practitioners and for regulations to set out in detail how joint arrangements for the individual child will be made, recorded and reviewed. I should add that 45 per cent. of looked-after children and young people aged five to 17 are assessed as having an emotional or mental health disorder, compared with 10 per cent. of the general child and young person population. Those are Government figures. Looked-after children and young people exhibit high rates of self-harm and high risk behaviour. Two thirds of looked-after children are reported to have had at least one physical health complaint. Some of those complaints are speech and language problems, and in other arenas we talk a great deal about how much such problems inhibit a child’s development.

The problem is that provision is patchy, as is working together, despite provisions that state that there should be a multidisciplinary approach and that primary care trusts should work closely with local authorities. I shall give an example from my own constituency, where local authority boundaries are not coterminous with primary care trust boundaries. That problem has been overcome with help from the Government for the council concerned. Nevertheless, I have a letter from a health service worker saying:

“It is not my responsibility in West Dorset to provide services for East Dorset children.”

Those east Dorset children have been sent to a specialist school in west Dorset. That problem has now been dealt with, but it has taken a long time and an MP’s intervention. I do not buy the assurances that “it is all happening”. We have a long way to go, and that is why the duty is important.

I have the feeling that everybody is trying to hurry me up. I am doing my best, but these are meaty new clauses. I am sure that Hansard will show that I have not had more than my fair share of time. The new clauses that I am leading on are really important to me and to all our looked-after children, and I do not want to rush through them at the cost of not making a point. I am looking for a number of assurances on how the arrangements will work. Given the intensity of the problems regarding the health of looked-after children, a duty in the Bill is called for.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I will not list for the hon. Lady the various current regulations, because I want to focus on the steps we are taking, which I think will achieve what she wants to achieve in a different but equally effective way. She will be aware of the duty to co-operate in sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004, which applies to a range of health bodies and other agencies. The guidance that flowed from that and the power to issue statutory guidance were not implemented in relation to primary care trusts and health bodies. Guidance was issued to health bodies but it was not statutory—that power was not switched on.

I give the hon. Lady an assurance that we intend to issue new statutory guidance in relation to the powers in sections 10 and 11. The revised guidance will be statutory for primary care trusts, strategic health authorities, NHS foundation trusts and local authorities. It will cover assessments of the physical, emotional and mental health of looked-after children, health plans, the involvement of qualified medical practitioners in assessments and reviews, the time scales for completion of assessments and reviews, health promotion, the provision of child and adolescent mental health services for looked-after children—which the hon. Lady rightly says is important—and the roles and responsibilities of health bodies and local authorities in improving the health of looked-after children. For the first time, the guidance will have the statutory bite that has applied to other agencies under sections 10 and 11 of the 2004 Act.

In addition, we are using some of the architecture of the national health service to build in a focus on looked-after children. The statutory guidance will be complemented by the new joint strategic needs assessment, the new NHS operating framework for 2008-09, and the national indicator set for local government. For the first time, the NHS operating framework includes keeping children well, improving overall health and reducing health inequalities as one of the top five priorities for the NHS. That marks the beginning of a new chapter in the journey of the NHS to a focus on more preventive services for children and young people.

Let me explain how we will monitor that. In addition to our existing data collection, there is a new indicator on the emotional health of looked-after children. That will be particularly important in driving up the supply of CAMH services. Under the children’s plan, we asked Jo Davidson, the director of children’s services for Gloucester, to undertake a review of CAMH services. The call for evidence closes tomorrow, I think, and Jo Davidson will report in the autumn on what more needs to be done in that regard.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Can the Minister give a time scale for publication and implementation of the revised guidance? I am talking about the statutory position. When will that happen?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

It is part of our process of either revising existing guidance or, in this case, introducing revised guidance with a new status. I do not have information on the specific time with me, but I might be able to get that if I keep talking long enough-albeit without wishing to delay the Committee. Otherwise, I can write to the hon. Lady. I am not clear on where it is in our list of work to be done on guidance, but I can tell her that it will be published before the end of this year—in 2008. With that, I hope that the hon. Lady feels that the points she made have been covered and she will withdraw the motion.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Again, the test will be in the monitoring to see what difference statutory guidance makes and whether we will need to return to the matter at a later date. I would just like to leave the Minister with a thought about the availability of therapeutic treatment across the country. There has been a long-term campaign on that by the NSPCC—I am an ambassador for the NSPCC, so I ought to declare that interest. I know that not having therapeutic treatment escalates problems and leads to further incidents in society. I thank the Minister for the fact that we have the statutory guidance. I hope that that will result in change, but I feel that we have a long way to go and we may well have to revisit this issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 28

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

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

Limitation periods provide cut-offs on people’s ability to bring cases to court. There are limitation periods in criminal courts and civil courts. There are different limitation periods for different behaviours and there are different rules about disapplying limitation periods and extending them. The Law Commission was asked to examine the state of the law in 2001 and concluded that the law was needlessly complex, outdated and, in some respects, unfair. It gave as an example of complexity and unfairness sexual abuse cases. Unfortunately, many sexual abuse cases that have come to the public’s attention over the years have related to children who were abused in public care. They are particularly powerful cases, because the public feel that very vulnerable children, whose protection the public were charged with, have been let down a second time. We are seeing that all over again at the moment in the cases being investigated in Jersey.

The Law Commission said that the law should be reformed, and in 2002 the Government said that that was a good idea and they would do that, but still there has been no reform. Several hon. Members, myself included, have been asking parliamentary questions about the Government’s intentions. Last year—2007—the Government told me in written answers that they would start to reform the law at the beginning of 2008. When I asked a written question at the beginning of 2008, they said that they had not got round to it yet and they might do so later in the year. Now we are in the second half of the year and still there is nothing.

It might be fun for me to criticise the Government for being slower than they said they would be, but it is now several years since they said that they would amend a law that has been shown by the Law Commission to be complex and unfair. Still there are cases of people who have been deprived, by a limitation period, of the ability to bring a claim for compensation for sexual abuse sustained when they were in public care. Potentially, other people will suffer in future years until we amend the law. I am therefore trying to provoke a debate through new clause 28, at least in respect of children in care—I recognise that limitation periods apply much more widely than simply to this group of people and this type of case—to see whether the Minister can tell me whether the Government will finally make some progress.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

There are three reasons why I am resisting my hon. Friend’s new clause. I hope that I can also say something at the end on his final point.

First, the current law contained in the Limitation Act 1980, as interpreted by the recent House of Lords ruling in A v. Hoare, already achieves much of what the new clause is designed to achieve. Indeed, the current law is in many ways more generous to claimants. I will write to all members of the Committee to outline my reasons for saying that—

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I was on the first of the 47 points—I correct myself, three points—that I was going to make in response to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.

My first point was that the current law is more generous to claimants than the new clause would be in practice. I said that I would write to my hon. Friend and Committee members to outline why that would be the case.

Secondly, there is no need to create a special limitation category for looked-after children. My hon. Friend acknowledged that in his remarks, and I shall be happy to elucidate in my letter.

Thirdly, any reform of the law of limitation in this area should be undertaken as part of a wider exercise addressing the whole topic. I sensed from my hon. Friend’s comments that in tabling the new clause, he was trying to stimulate action by the Government on the reform of the law of limitation. I can confirm that it has taken longer than expected for the Government to issue the consultation in this area. However, it will be issued as soon as possible—hopefully, in the near future. If it is deemed to be appropriate, based on the consultation, the Government will consider legislating in this area. On that basis, I ask him to consider withdrawing the motion.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

There are some inadequacies in the drafting of the new clause so I will not press it to a vote. As the Minister says, the issue is not simply limitation periods as they apply to former children in care; a wide range of cases are affected. Some hon. Members will recall that there is a lot of interest in this matter in relation to health and safety at work cases for people who develop conditions such as mesothelioma many years after they have finished work. There are questions about when the limitation period stops them from making claims against employers arising from events that happened many years back.

There is a need to review the law in this entire area, as the Government said it would in 2002. If we have helped to speed things along a little by making this proposal and by the Minister making inquiries of the Ministry of Justice about where it is with its proposals, we will have done some good. I would like to stress to the Committee that in my capacity as chairman of the associate parliamentary group on looked-after children and care leavers, I still come across dreadful cases of people who have suffered atrociously, first by going into care, secondly by being sexually abused when in care, and thirdly by their experience of the legal system, because they could not make a claim for compensation when they finally realised that a claim was possible.

This is an urgent and pressing matter and I hope that the Minister will write not only to me and members of the Committee, but to the Ministry of Justice to hurry it along. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 31

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

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

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 32—Access to advocacy services—

‘In section 26A of the 1989 Act (Advocacy services), after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) Every local authority shall make a report on access to advocacy services in their local area annually to the Secretary of State.”’.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I shall be brief, because we debated advocacy fully in a previous sitting and we all agreed that advocacy in the right place is a good thing and part of a good-quality service for all children in care. Perhaps some of us on the Committee were more enthusiastic about the range and rate at which advocacy should be available to children in care, and perhaps the Ministers were not quite so keen; nevertheless, we all agreed.

There is a need to improve access to advocacy, so the new clause would require local authorities to make assessments to show that they have an adequate supply of advocates in their area and to keep that assessment under review and up to date. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South has linked that with new clause 32, which is about local authorities providing a report on access to those services.

Helen Southworth (Labour, Warrington South)

I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that new clause 32 is far more modest than new clause 31, and in fact encapsulates the drivers that would require new clause 31. Although it is brief and modest, it represents the least the Government can do to ensure that advocacy services are available.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I will not allow my hon. Friend to undersell new clause 32, as it makes an excellent companion to new clause 31. Together, they would ensure that local authorities had at the forefront of their mind the need for adequate provision of advocacy services for all the children for whom they are responsible.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford acknowledged the important debate that we had on Tuesday, during which I set out our view on advocacy in the context of clause 11 and made it clear that listening to children is crucial to improving outcomes for them, both individually and in relation to the system as a whole, and to improving system-wide standards. New clauses 31 and 32 pick up on the related issue of how local authorities contract and make arrangements for advocacy provision, and how they should be making effective provision for those services.

I can tell both my hon. Friends that we already require local authorities to monitor their services by keeping a record of each representation received, its outcome and whether there was compliance with the time limits set out in regulations. They are also required to compile a report at the end of each financial year on the operation of their complaints and representations procedure. However, I intend to go further and through statutory guidance require local authorities as part of that report to review their advocacy services annually, to ensure compliance with national standards. We will set out that that will necessarily involve local authority staff seeking regular feedback from children about their experiences of the service.

In revising that guidance and including that provision, we will of course consult widely. We have no doubt that the expertise of third sector advocacy services and the charities represented on the National Children’s Advocacy Consortium will make an invaluable contribution to ensuring that we get that guidance right and that it takes into account good practice on how all children should be listened to, including those who are hard to reach, such as those who require additional communication assistance or help from translation services so that local authorities can ensure that their views are heard. I do not want to require local authorities to publish a separate assessment of advocacy, but I think that extending the statutory guidance in the way that I have outlined will cover the issues that my hon. Friends are concerned about.

I will include another provision: the general quality of advocacy services that we get from those reports and from elsewhere will be included as an item in the annual ministerial stock-take of services to looked-after children that we committed in the White Paper to having every year. Moreover, when Ofsted inspects local authority services for looked-after children, as it will do regularly in a thematic review, it will take into account how local authorities, as corporate parents, are listening to children’s voices and providing for the advocacy service to enable complaints or representations to be made.

I hope that that with those three additional levers in the system, my hon. Friend will accept that we are strengthening the way in which local authorities will have to monitor the quality of their advocacy services, show compliance and take steps to improve them if that is necessary. I hope that those assurances are sufficient to persuade my hon. Friend not to press the new clause.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

My right hon. Friend has made three excellent announcements. I am grateful to her for all of them. They are very welcome. I am sure that with an annual review of these services, consultation with young people and their families and carers and the stock-take that she has described, we will see an overall improvement in the performance of local authorities in commissioning good-quality advocacy services from, among others, the kind of organisations that we have been talking about for the past two weeks, such as NCH and A National Voice, which are great organisations for providing these services. With the initiatives that my right hon. Friend has just announced, I am sure that new clause 31 is not necessary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 36

Helen Southworth (Labour, Warrington South)

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

I am conscious that I bring with me the admirable support of not only my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford and for Stourbridge, but the 198 Members who signed early-day motion 1413, “Support for young people in care in transition to adult life”, which I tabled. It notes that many young people in care are moved into independent living at 16 or 17, when the average age at which young people in the United Kingdom leave home is 24. In practice that means that many vulnerable young people do not receive sufficient support to enable them to make the transition into adult life successfully. It calls on the Government to take steps to ensure that all these vulnerable young people have access to effective support including, where appropriate, the opportunity to remain with their foster carers until they are 21.

The reason why so many hon. Members believe it is essential that the opportunity of this Bill is seized to ensure that there is effective support for young people who are making steps into independent living from care is that the Bill is intended to enable those who enter the care system to achieve the aspirations parents have for their own children, and to reduce the gap in outcomes between children in care and their peers.

The Bill sets out many excellent measures to revolutionise care for children who are looked after by local authorities, but there remains a huge gap between the aspirations within the Bill and the practice for young people who, from the age of 16, are moving into independent living. There is a particular issue for young people who at the age of 16 or 17 move from foster care or from a local authority or private children’s home into other accommodation. The current practice in operation in many, if not most, parts of the country is that when young people leave the care of the local authority and leave the protection of the “parent”, they are left alone to resolve their problems themselves because they have moved accommodation.

Although the Ministers have made it clear in the Bill that they have admirable aspirations to ensure that local authorities provide accommodation for young people in their care, the practical fact remains that many young people of 16 or 17 are at best encouraged, and in some cases left with no alternative other than, to leave care and move into the supported services available through local authority housing services, rather than through children’s services.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the children’s rights director’s report of February 2006, “Young People’s Views on Leaving Care”, in which Dr. Roger Morgan made it clear that the consultation that he undertook demonstrated that this is an issue of serious concern to young people. In his top 10 list of things that most worry young people about leaving care, drawn up by consulting young people, among the problems such as loneliness and not being able to cope that hon. Members have already mentioned is the serious problem of:

“Leaving before being ready to do so—‘Should have a say in when to leave care’”.

Other concerns are:

“Having nowhere/no-one to come back to”; “Being put in some ‘dodgy’ places... Becoming homeless”,

and

“‘Not being able to settle anywhere’—having to keep moving around”.

The report demonstrated that young people are leaving care at significantly younger ages, typically around 16 or 17 years old. For them, the reality of leaving care is “harsh and uncertain”. The report said:

“A common theme amongst those young people consulted was in their having remarkably short periods of notice to leave, together with their sheer lack of preparation to do so”.

It went on:

“One young woman told us she had received no notice of having to leave care, had no plans drawn up prior to leaving and did not have any form of written plan.”

It is a sad fact that that young woman is not the only one. Hon. Members in the Committee and outside have received considerable evidence from young people leaving care that they have not had proper support and that they have been put into dodgy places. In some cases, they have been put in hostels where the majority of other residents are people who are leaving prison or have convictions for drug offences or prostitution. These vulnerable young people are being left to cope alone in that sort of accommodation.

I accept that provisions are made in clause 9 for other placements, but there is no way of measuring by inspection the suitability of those other places. It should not be beyond the wit of this House to produce a reasonable checklist that says what is suitable accommodation and what is dodgy. If 16-year-olds can work it out for themselves, we ought to be able to work it out on their behalf. We have a duty to do so.

The aspirations stated in the new clause refer not only to relevant children, but to young people who have previously been relevant up to the age of 21. That is an important thing to write into the Bill. Much legislation over the past few years has demonstrated the right of a looked-after child to be protected up to the age of 18 if it is needed. We have seen that 41 or 42 per cent. of young people have left looked-after status to go into independent living before the age of 18. In many cases, they have gone into wholly unacceptable accommodation. It is unsurprising that they do not have the opportunities that any parent would want for their child in such circumstances.

Many hon. Members want to see the aspiration of the opportunity for a young person to make a proper transition into independent living written into the Bill. We would then not have to look at opportunities that might emerge from future pilots. We already know that, for many young people, the opportunities to carry on in further education, higher education, training or work all depend on having a safe place to live and somebody they can turn to and talk things through with.

Finally and briefly, I would ask that we please focus on this problem, because it is something that many Members of this House expect us to address, either in this Committee or elsewhere.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I thank my hon. Friend for her work and my other hon. Friends who have campaigned very assiduously on this issue. Unfortunately, her new clause is technically defective, because unless an appropriate consequential amendment is made to make an exclusion from the definition of a child who is looked after in section 22 of the 1989 Act, it would have the effect of making all relevant children looked after. Notwithstanding that, I think that she wants me to talk a little about these issues.

Helen Southworth (Labour, Warrington South)

On that point about technical drafting, I am sure that the Minister will be very well aware that he has far greater resources at his command than his hon. Friends have available to them. Will he meet with us to discuss the detail of drafting, so that we can have a better new clause?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I am always pleased to meet my hon. Friend, although I was going on to give the other reasons why we do not need the new clause and, of course, there was no implied criticism of her at all in relation to the point that I was making about the technical drafting of the new clause.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister did not say that to me.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

In the case of the hon. Gentleman, although I extend my sympathy to him for having been in the same job for the past seven years, I had thought that, by now, he would have learned how to draft an amendment or new clause in the correct manner.

Our three priorities are: making sure that children do not have to leave care before they are ready to do so; making sure that all care leavers have access to an appropriate range of accommodation options when they leave care, and providing the right support for care leavers so that they can make a successful transition to independent living.

The Committee will be glad to hear that I will not go through all the measures that we have discussed and are introducing, both in the “Care Matters” implementation plan and in the Bill, in relation to young people leaving care and accommodation. There are a number of measures that should have a significant impact in reducing the numbers of relevant children who need accommodation. Clause 9 will ensure that there is thorough scrutiny whenever a local authority plans to move a child to move from a placement with foster parents or in a children’s home to any other arrangement, which is likely to be accommodation that is less supported, whether that is a hostel or supported lodgings.

As we have already discussed in our consideration of the Bill, we would expect the IRO to provide a robust challenge to such a proposed change to the placement arrangement if there is any doubt about the young person’s informed consent to the move, or any doubt that such a move is not in their interest. We are committed to using existing regulatory powers to introduce a new requirement for personal advisers to visit young people where they are living, mirroring the new visiting duty for looked-after children in clause 16, to reduce still further the practical differences between the services that local authorities must provide for looked-after children and relevant children, including the financial incentives that local authorities may have had previously to force children out of care before they are ready. We want to stop there being any incentive at all for local authorities to do that, and to ensure that they absolutely understand what their duties are. Obviously that has been a large part of the discussions that we have had in relation to the Bill and to the wider “Care Matters” implementation plan.

As part of our revision of the Children Act guidance, we will be issuing statutory guidance to IROs in 2009. The focus of case reviews should be the provision made by the local authority to meet the full range of the child’s needs. For relevant children placed in unregulated placements, such as supported lodgings, hostels, or, as is sometimes the case, their own independent accommodation, it is essential that the review examines whether or not their accommodation is suitable and whether or not they are being provided with all the support that they need.

If that review process identifies problems, then the review meeting provides the opportunity to find the appropriate solutions. That will require that leaving care services establish real partnerships with housing and youth homelessness services. Housing services and children’s services must adopt a shared strategic approach to the provision of housing and support pathways for young people. That was the strong message in the guidance, “Joint working between Housing and Children’s Services: Preventing homelessness” published by my Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government in May this year.

When I visited South Gloucestershire a few months ago, I met a young person in care and what one young lady said about what her brother had said years before was interesting. She said that her brother had said that being in care meant “homelessness”. Ultimately, that was what it meant to him and his friends; we are determined to bring that to an end. I and hon. Members have seen how that situation can be transformed, and we need to ensure that that is happening more widely around the country. We are committed to supporting young people in their transition into adulthood. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South will be holding us to account as we try to strength the guidelines. Her new cause is unnecessary and has technical deficiencies, and I hope that she will agree to withdraw it.

Helen Southworth (Labour, Warrington South)

We have already commented on the technical difficulties within the amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to meet Members to look at the issues further. In light of the indications that we have received from the Minister and of the time that we have available to us over then next few months before Report, I will review what he as said. However, first I shall remind him that in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s 2005 report, “Life after care”, 36 per cent. of young people reported being homeless at some time in the year after leaving care and that Rainer’s “Home alone” report found that almost one in six of care leavers were in unsuitable accommodation, with a number in unsafe accommodation. We urgently need to demonstrate that the Bill as drafted is capable of delivering what it needs to for young people up to the age of 21 to ensure that they can make an effective transition into independent living. On that basis I will withdraw the amendment, but 198 Members want to see the Bill working effectively. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

On a point of order, Mr. Pope.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

Order. The motion that the Chairman do report the Bill to the House is itself debatable.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I obviously learnt nothing in my two years in the Government Whips Office. I am a rather defective Minister. I thank you, Mr. Pope, and your colleague, Mr. Williams, for chairing the Committee. I apologise that perhaps his presence meant that some of us, including the hon. Member for Upminster, occasionally lapsed into the language of heaven and I particularly apologise to the Hansard writers for that. I hope that the Committee will agree that we, including the hon. Member for Ceredigion, made a valiant effort to pronounce the very difficult English constituency names of colleagues correctly during the proceedings. I also thank the officials, the Clerks, the Hansard writers, the Doorkeepers and the police for their assistance during our deliberations.

We have had an extremely useful Committee stage. The Bill has been altered, if not through direct amendment, by indications that my right hon. Friend and I have given either about strengthening regulation or about amendments to other legislation about which hon. Members have raised important points. The Committee has had a right and proper scrutiny process, which has improved the Bill. I would like to thank all Committee members, particularly my right hon. Friend the. Member for Stretford and Urmston and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, who, being in the Whips Office and not being allowed to speak, does not get enough recognition. He has helped us to get through all the clauses in time, as we have this afternoon.

I would also like to thank Members of the Opposition parties and particularly their spokespersons, both of whom I have debated with before. I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole for her elegant choice of clauses and amendments to support. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that he did not come into politics to be elegant. I wrote that down when he said it. You may have noticed at that point, Mr. Pope, one or two titters on this side of the Committee, because as the hon. Gentleman was saying that some of my hon. Friends behind me were passing around a copy of a new magazine called “Total Politics”. In that magazine there is an article on political elegance, with a quote, which is highlighted:

“And wear braces only if you want to look like a twit.”

Heaven forefend that the hon. Gentleman should think that I am getting at him. That is a quote from his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan). He made that contribution to an article entitled “Dress to the Right, Sir?” I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for pointing that out to the Committee, but it was he who said that he did not want to be elegant. That is just as well, considering his hon. Friend’s comments. With that, I would like to conclude, and to thank you once again, Mr. Pope, for your chairmanship.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Further to that non-point of order, Mr. Pope, I also add my thanks to you and Mr. Williams for your unassuming, understanding and accommodating chairmanship, which has allowed us perhaps to range slightly more freely through some of the clauses. May I also thank—I was going to thank the Minister but I am not entirely sure that I should now. One would look even more of a twit if one was not wearing braces and one’s trousers ended up around one’s ankles. That is another matter, which I shall take up with my sort of hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton later in the Lobby.

We have had a constructive debate on a universally welcomed Bill, which has been improved by the debate in another place and by the undertakings and discussions in this Committee. We have had some disappointments and some anticlimaxes, although not quite of the ejaculatory nature that the Minister suggested earlier. I also thank my hon. Friends. It is always worthwhile being on a Committee where just about every member contributes. In the past, there were times when like muppets they sat there and, under strict instructions, said nothing. There are some regular suspects—if I can put it that way—on the Committee who have been very involved in children’s legislation for many years, for almost as long as I have, and they made valid contributions born out of their great experience.

I give my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. It was good to see him back in Committee, making his first contribution since his recent health problems. I also give my thanks to our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster. It is always good to have a talking Whip—try stopping her, with her knowledge of this subject. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove who has been with us on children’s legislation before, and particularly my new hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who is no longer a Committee virgin which is always a good hurdle to get over.

It was almost frustrating that it was hard to find something to vote on—but we did. However, on Report we might find more reasons to vote. There is some time now for the Government to reflect on many of the suggestions that were made in the Committee. They have undertaken to look again at certain things. They have undertaken to reflect on some of the debates that we have had on the guidance that will be issued with this and accompanying legislation. I therefore look forward to returning on Report, when we might have further progress to report towards ensuring that the Bill is as good as we could possibly hope for, to at last address the problems of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, namely children in care. They have had a lousy deal for some time, and I think that we all agree that the time has finally come to give them the deal—the support and services—that they so much deserve.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I would also like to add my thanks, particularly to you, Mr. Pope, in the Chair. It has been obvious that you are very interested in the material, and that has given an added dimension. I thank Mr. Williams as well. I thank the Clerks and everyone else who has contributed to our proceedings. I give particular thanks to the Ministers, who have been very courteous, receptive and perhaps responsive—we shall see on Report. I have to say of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that I just hope he does not have too many sneezing fits, particularly in inappropriate places.

We have had good debates, and I hope that we would all agree that it has been a privilege to serve on the Committee considering this very important Bill. The fact that so much work was done in the other place has enabled us to deal with some of the outstanding issues in quite a lot of detail. That has been a good thing. I just hope that we really will change things for the better and make a difference with this Bill.

Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn)

Thank you for those kind remarks and thank you also for being a well behaved Committee, with the exception of the debate on clause 1 stand part, when Mr. Brennan and Mr. Loughton were very naughty boys—that is particularly to be deprecated in front of an impressionable new Member.