HC Deb 29 April 1988 vol 132 cc692-7

Order for Second Reading read.

2.4 pm

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley (Surrey, South-West)

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

My purpose in bringing forward the Bill is to attempt to introduce a simple specific measure for the protection of children while recognising the understandable rights of parents. It seeks to provide a tool for social workers and health visitors who carry the onerous responsibility of protecting children, making their work easier and more effective.

It remains a challenge to us all at a time of rising prosperity and improved housing, health care and education, that there remain about 200 children a year who lose their lives at the hands of their parents or guardians, and a further 30,000 children on local authority at-risk registers.

Child abuse is not a simple homogenous phenomenon. It may include physical abuse, sexual abuse, or child neglect. The debates and the outcry in our newspapers range from fury that there are not more intrusive and draconian measures to remove children from their homes, to the debate surrounding the Cleveland case, suggesting that the workers were overzealous and acted too swiftly.

My measure addresses both ends of the spectrum. It is a limited measure which will ensure that a child is seen without summarily removing it from the family home. I should like to place the Bill in the context of other developments trying to tackle the scourge of child abuse. The Home Office has an important role. The recent improvements where children are able to provide evidence by means of a video link and their evidence need not necessarily be corroborated by an adult must make sense. There is no evidence to suggest that children are inherently less truthful than adults. Of course, the appalling situation in which the court appearance was at least as traumatic as the original abuse must be counteracted.

There should be tougher penalties for those responsible for harming children, although that has to be seen in the context that the vast majority of abuses take place within the family and that there will be problems involving the reporting of offences if we develop an increasingly punitive atmosphere in which they are discussed.

It is also important that more information about the criminal record of those who work with children should be provided. However, the investigation, the prosecution and the punishment play a small part in comparison with the importance of improving prevention. The Department of Education has taken steps to improve the training of teachers and their skills in detecting child abuse. There are plans for preparation for parenthood programmes and educational programmes encouraging children not to talk to strangers. However, the primary responsibility must lie with the DHSS. In the light of successive inquiries and concern, it has introduced a series of welcome initiatives.

Since the Maria Colwell inquiry 15 years ago, there have been 35 inquiries into cases where children have lost their lives. Each inquiry has repeated the need for agencies to work together. I hope that the DHSS will bring forward its guidelines about working together. Of course, the community and the various professions involved have a part to play. Similarly, there are attempts to standardise inquiry procedures. Child abuse inquiries have often been horrifically expensive and unedifying occasions. Frequently they have been witch hunts where the professional workers, parents, friends and anyone associated have been denigrated and villified with little constructive outcome.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

My hon. Friend was wrong to use words such as "witch hunt". The Cleveland inquiry was in my constituency and I find that remark offensive. The inquiry sought to discover the truth. Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss was magnificent in the chair. Such remarks are intemperate and I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw them.

Mrs. Bottomley

My hon. Friend has made an important point. The Cleveland inquiry was very different from other inquiries into incidents where children lost their lives. By no means did I mean to imply that the leaders of the inquiry had conducted themselves in such a way. Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss and Louis Blom-Cooper have been models in trying to combine the various interests and provide a considered report in an atmosphere of great heat. Often it is the press treatment of the individuals involved that has been particularly unedifying. All of us would hope to find a way of dealing with these appalling cases without necessarily establishing a laborious machinery for doing so. As for my hon. Friend's example of the Cleveland inquiry, my hon. Friend the Minister is to be congratulated on acting so firmly in setting up a statutory inquiry into what seems to be an idiosyncratic set of circumstances that relate to a problem that has only recently come to light.

The maintenace of national statistics is a further important development. Problems can now be analysed and assessed in their proper and considered context. In his Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986 my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) improved the rights of parents and grandparents and made it possible for regulations to be made to cover those who are at home under a care order. In the case of both Tyra Henry and Jasmine Beckford there was a care order in place; the children were the responsibility of the local authority, yet they slipped through the net. We eagerly await action to implement the remainder of the measures that are provided for in my hon. Friend's Act.

Training is fundamental. Initiatives have been taken, but I remain doubtful about the full effect of the Seebohm report, which recommends that all social workers should be generic. Special skills, training and knowledge are fundamental when dealing with cases of child abuse and child neglect. Increased resources have been made available for the personal social services, and inevitably the problems of an ever-increasing elderly population take up more and more time. There should be specially trained and skilled social workers, with supervision and clear line management guidance to deal with cases of child abuse. Training needs to be given to deal with the confusing multiplicity of orders available.

A point that emerged from the Kimberley Carlile inquiry was that the power to issue a warrant is not widely recognised. I am pleased that the DHSS responded so swiftly by clarifying the section 40 warrant procedure under the 1933 Act. A comprehensive review of the legislative framework is needed, and much work has been done on that. The White Paper "The Law on Child Care and Family Services" recommends many improvements to the legislation dealing with child protection. It recognises the rights of parents and recommends that the powers of social workers should be clarified and improved. However, the White Paper does not cover adequately the need for medical assessment. A major recommendation in the White Paper is the introduction of an emergency protection order. If there are worries about a child's safety apart from the section 40 warrant the only provision is a place of safety order. That means removing the child from home. Under the emergency protection order, removal would take place when it was reasonable to believe that damage to the child's health or well-being was likely unless the child could immediately be removed from home and kept in a place of safety. It is time limited to eight days and gives greater power to the parents, but it provides for the removal of the child. The important point for the protection of children, for the respect of parental rights and for the use of the power by social workers in my Bill is that it requires the child to be seen, but it expressly does not provide the power to remove the child from the home. Recently, the Family Rights Group's solicitor, Katherine Gieve, wrote about the order. She said: the Family Rights Group's experience suggests that it would be preferable to distinguish clearly the search for evidence of abuse from the need for a child to be removed from a dangerous situation. These two may run side by side, but they may not: a child should not be summarily removed from home in order to find out if there is a risk in being there. The Bill gives social workers and health visitors power to ensure that a child is seen. It is extraordinary that many children who lost their lives were not seen. All sorts of excuses were given about why the child could not keep an appointment or was not available at the time of contact. The clear power in the Bill will ensure that the child is properly seen, measured, weighed and assessed.

It should not be underestimated how difficult it is for a social worker to visit a family and say, "I need to see your child, and I ask you to take the child's clothes off because I must see whether the child is being neglected or injured." The social worker arrives at that home as a visitor.

A medical assessment has much broader acceptability. Medical assessments are part of our day-to-day lives. Indeed, we have just had a debate about them. For the most part, child health clinics are not threatening places. Medicals before attending school and throughout a child's life are straightforward, non-provocative occasions.

Some people have written to me in response to the Bill asking for all child health assessments to become a statutory requirement. They have suggested that child benefit should hinge on attendance at a child health clinic. I have not been convinced of the merits of that argument.

Parents' rights are considered in the Bill. The European Court of Human Rights recently decided that any parent whose access to a child is restricted can challenge that decision. The Cleveland cases have drawn attention to the fact that the parents' position must be considered. However, not only their rights but the traumatic effect of removing a child from the home must be considered.

I shall give a quotation from a letter sent by the director of the National Children's Bureau, Ronald Davie, to The Times. He said: There are many circumstances when the removal from his family of a child at risk may add further crippling emotional damage to the harm already done. There is therefore a conflict of potential risk to the child. The professional judgement needed in the individual case is typically complex and made no easier by the frightening consequences for the child—psychological or physical—of getting it wrong. None of us should underestimate how difficult it is to make such judgments.

Under the Bill, parents have a right of appeal; it is rather like paying a parking ticket. They must either produce the child for a medical within the required time of three days or appear in the juvenile court or before a magistrate to explain their objections. The specification of a child health clinic, a medical centre or, if necessary, a hospital gives a certain amount of discretion to the person making the order, according to what is likely to be required by way of further tests.

Some children may require only a weighing or sighting. For others it may be necessary to have specialist paediatric help to hand, and others may need an X-ray. It is possible to require further assessment if it is necessary.

I realise that the inclusion of a health visitor and general practitioner as people who can require an order is breaking new ground. I think that the medical profession is re-evaluating its traditional code of confidentiality, and its relationship with the patient must be questioned in the light of child protection. As long ago as the Maria Colwell inquiry, the GP had a significant part to play. The GP also had a part to play in the Kimberley Carlile inquiry. It is right and proper for the medical profession to reconsider where its first duty must lie when a child's health and welfare are at risk. Similarly, an NSPCC worker is empowered to make the order, but, in my view, it would not be appropriate to include a police officer because, above all, the order will be available for children who are at risk or may be vulnerable, as opposed to a child in specific danger. A child in danger will remain the subject of emergency protection orders or a warrant.

I believe that the provision of 72 hours—three days —is a balanced move. A week is too long and 24 hours is too little. It recognises that it is at the time of assessment that a crisis within a family can be precipitated.

The Bill has received widespread support. The National Children's Bureau, National Children's Home, the Children's Society, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the British Association of Social Workers have all argued—I would not argue against it—that this should become part of comprehensive reforming legislation for our child care law. They agree that the gap needs to be filled. I should like to quote Jim Harding, the director of child care for the NSPCC. He was a member of the commission of inquiry in the Kimberley Carlile case. He said: This Bill will afford greater protection to children without removing them from their parents. Medical examinations and assessment could help provide evidence of child abuse but more importantly could allow for a child who has been abused or neglected to be seen and offered help … The need for a Medical Examination Order was emphasised by the Commission of Inquiry … This child's tragic death might have been avoided had such an order been available to the professional agencies involved. It will offer greater protection to the thousands of children at risk of abuse and neglect in Britain today. I hope that the Minister will find a way to bring forward his legislation at the earliest opportunity and I hope that he will find a way to incorporate this measure, into that legislation. Whether one is concerned about excessive intrusion of workers or about their lack of action, I believe that this small, discreet and specific measure has an important part to play in respecting parents, safeguarding children and adding to the tools necessary for those charged with the responsible work of protecting the young.

2.23 pm
Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)

I know that the House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on the manner in which she has spoken to her Bill. The House benefits from her wide experience in social work and as a juvenile court magistrate. She has applied to the preparation and presentation of the Bill the diligence and attention to detail that does her credit.

In 1985 the NSPCC celebrated its centenary. It is sad that 100 years after the society was founded it is still necessary for it to exist. I have the honour to sit on the society's central executive committee, and I therefore see at first hand something of the wide extent of its activities. There has been a good deal of publicity recently about the sexual abuse of children. However, non-sexual, ordinary physical abuse, alas, continues. The society's literature provides details of some horrific cases.

The society can provide statistics for the thousands of known cases per year, but how many cases are unknown or undiscovered? A feature of the recent sexual abuse cases is that the publicity produced a number of adults who came forward to give details of their experiences as children—cases of which nothing was known at the time.

The extent to which parents sometimes seek help from the society is encouraging, but there are many instances when the society is given information by neighbours who are worried about what may be going on. The society's officers make further inquiries. They call at the home and, if they are allowed access, can perhaps form a view. Possibly it is necessary just to give a little help or advice. The fears may be ill-founded. If the problem is found to be serious, the officers can go to court, obtain a place of safety order, and the child is removed, but what happens if the officers cannot see the children? What happens if they are told repeatedly that the child is ill or is staying with grandparents? The social worker and NSPCC officers are faced with a dilemma—either they apply for a place of safety order on what may be flimsy and second hand evidence, and the child is removed from the home, or they ignore the situation and hope that all is well. There is no middle course. A number of recent cases have demonstrated the clear gap in the law. The Bill seeks to fill it.

Neighbours and relatives may be aware of what is happening and be anxious about whether there is child abuse, but may be hesitant to report it because they fear that the child will be taken from the home. Surely it is more likely that these cases will be reported if, as under the Bill's provisions, it will lead simply to examination of the child so that further steps can be taken or fears laid to rest.

The Kimberley Carlile inquiry recommended that an assessment order, such as is provided for in the Bill, should be available so that the child can be produced for examination, but not necessarily removed from the home. If that power had existed it might well have avoided some distressing cases, such as those which were the subject of the Cleveland inquiry.

I can confirm that the NSPCC warmly welcomes the Bill and the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West in bringing it forward. The NSPCC thinks that an assessment order as provided for in the Bill would be helpful to social workers. We are awaiting the Cleveland report and expect a wide-ranging review of child care law and subsequent legislation to implement it, but that, of necessity, will take time. The Bill could be passed and the powers in it activated rapidly. I hope that the Government will feel able to give it their support. I hope, too, that I have allowed time for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health to say that that is what he will do.

2.27 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton)

The answer to the last observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) is "just about", but "not very much". I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) will accept my apologies because I shall not have time to pay her the full tribute that I would otherwise have paid both to her assiduous pursuit of this matter and her experience in the many activities that give her her expertise.

To avoid my comments being cut off by the ruthless actions of the Chair, the clock, or whatever it may be before I have said much, I shall try to distil my message into some basic points.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West has acknowledged, we have put forward a range of proposals for the widespread reform of child care law because we, too accept the need for reform. As we said when I set up the Cleveland inquiry in July last year, and as we have said a number of times since, we think it right to look again at some of our proposals in the light of the outcome of that inquiry and the inquiries into the Kimberley Carlile and Tyra Henry cases in the intervening period. We do not intend to use this additional information and these additional reports as an excuse for delaying the introduction of legislation. I cannot, for reasons which the whole House understands, give any undertaking about the introduction of any particular Bill at any particular point, but it remains the Government's clear intention to get on with this as soon as possible.

We considered a proposal not dissimilar to my hon. Friend's when we were preparing the White Paper. However, we thought that on balance the emergency protection order that we proposed was the right way forward. A number of people support my hon. Friend's view that the proposal or something like it, was suggested in Louis Blom-Cooper's report on one of the child abuse cases. Therefore, I can undertake that we will re-examine the arguments, in the light of my hon. Friend's Bill, today's debate and what emerges from the Cleveland inquiry report as well as the other report, before attempting to reach a final conclusion.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.