HL Deb 04 June 1986 vol 475 cc1065-75

8.57 p.m.

Baroness Lane-Fox

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The honourable Member for Westbury sponsored the Bill in another place, and I am grateful to him for entrusting me to take the Bill through your Lordships' House. If at first glance the Bill appears to be slender, when read more carefully it will be seen that its provisions are clearly important, and sometimes very important, to persons who are in what are often stressful situations.

My own interest in child care started way back in 1939, when my very first job was that of billeting clerk to a rural district council for a reception area during the government evacuation scheme. Later, as chief billeting officer dealing with child evacuees, both accompanied and unaccompanied, to see the reaction of infants and school children in their changed circumstances, plus the trouble that threatened their parents or guardians, left me continually interested in that area. Lately, those matters have been highlighted by numbers of dreadful cases, culminating in the tragedy of the Beckford case.

The main objectives of this Bill are, first, to make children in care more safe; and, secondly, to make child care law more fair and just. It is intended as an interim measure of reform in advance of a comprehensive review of child care legislation. The DHSS working party, in its Review of Child Care Now, proposed reform over the whole field. On Second Reading of this Bill in another place the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security said that consultation was in hand towards this goal and that he was, to use his own words, optimistic that the exercise will be launched before very long.

The Bill before us today aims to tackle, here and now, some of the worst defects in the present system. Nothing in this Bill pre-empts the impending wider reform. In these matters delay can cause harm or even irretrievable damage, so this Bill is designed, please, for action at the earliest possible moment.

Clause 1 provides the power to make regulations concerning the return of a child from care to its home, on trial. This, it is hoped, will prescribe standards and criteria to be ascertained by the social worker before such a move can take place. The regulations will also deal with the level at which, and the manner in which, a decision will be made to take the child home.

Clause 2 refers to appeals. It ensures that the parents always have a right of appeal whether in the name of the child or, when a separate representation order has been made on the grounds that there is or may be a conflict between the interests of the child and those of the parent, in their own name. The Review of Child Law says that, such a change would obviate the need to clarify the parent's present right in such cases to appeal on his child's behalf and would therefore meet the Select Committee's concern over the confusion in that part of the law". This is a real step taken, for I understand there was formerly no right of appeal on this basis.

Clause 3 deals with parties. Subsection (1) has the effect of making parents and guardians automatically parties if a separate representation order is made. Subsection (2) enables grandparents to become parties with the leave of the court, subject to the rules of court, which will make provision for leave to be given in certain circumstances.

On Second Reading in another place the Minister said he was much impressed by the argument of my honourable friend the Member for Westbury on the contribution that grandparents can make in these circumstances towards obtaining the best outcome for the child. On Report stage in another place the Minister said that the rules of court would be outlined in your Lordships' House. I therefore avidly await the comments of my noble friend the Minister, believing that grandparents can play a leading role in a child's life and upbringing.

Initially the honourable Member for Westbury proposed that in some situations the putative father should be entitled to apply for leave to be a party, but as the whole question of illegitimacy is still so complex and is under review the Bill as it now stands does not pursue this further. However, the question of grandparents is different. I understand that there is no statutory definition of "grandparent", and there seems no grounds for putting grandparents through a test of legitimacy. After all, many of the cases concern illegitimate children who often are particularly close to a grandparent. At Committee stage, I shall table an amendment aimed to allow for this.

Clause 4 is about rules of court. Subsection (1) enables an authority to make rules of court providing for this to take effect. Subsection (2) empowers rules to make a parent or grandparent become a party Clause 5 refers to the commencement of these measures.

It is my fervent hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to meet our request. It is a request that the adoption of these measures shall be expedited as far as is practically possible. In matters affecting the safety and welfare of children there is always the spectre of losing the race against time. Knowing the sensitive qualities of my noble friend the Minister, I believe this question is in good hands. Clauses 6, 7 and 8 are technical and are, I hope, self-explanatory.

I trust that your Lordships will decide to give the Bill its Second Reading. It embodies valuable reforms to strengthen child care legislation in those areas where at present this does not match the depth of public concern. The Bill was tellingly brought forward in another place by the honourable Member for Westbury, and I now beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Lane-Fox.)

9.5 p.m.

Lord Meston

My Lords, we must thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for introducing the Bill to your Lordships' House and for her exposition of it. Indeed, we must also congratulate the honourable Member for Westbury, Mr. Dennis Walters, for his skill and tenacity in taking the Bill through another place.

The Bill endeavours to deal with a number of different areas concerning care proceedings—areas of concern which have been identified by practitioners in this part of the law. There can be few more difficult or important decisions that a social worker or a court has to make than the decision to take a child away from his or her natural parents and the subsequent decision whether or not to restore that child to the family from which it has been removed.

It goes without saying that all participants in these decisions are motivated by compassion for the adults and children involved. But much more than that is needed. An expert objective assessment of the facts and of the future risks to which the child may be exposed is vital in every case. Day by day the courts and social services are not just dealing with the dramatic cases which catch the headlines, involving wicked people who kill or maim innocent children. We now realise, of course, that children are exposed to a much wider range of abuse, neglect and deprivation by parents and step-parents who are more inadequate than wicked.

In this decision-making process a judicial procedure is, I suggest, essential. In practice, of course, the great volume of the work falls on the magistrates, particularly since certain judgments of the courts and, indeed, of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity have all but removed the safety net of the residual wardship jurisdiction of the High Court in the area of local authority care cases. Few people would doubt the ability or the integrity of the social workers in the vast majority of cases and few would doubt the fairness of the internal procedures which exist within the social service departments. But sometimes wrong decisions are made—or worse still, sometimes no decision is made—and a child's fate is left to drift.

All the decisions in this area are of such fundamental importance and involve such basic human instincts, needs, emotions and relationships that it is essential that the ultimate responsibility rests with expert and independent courts to provide a civilised forum, and indeed a catalyst where it is needed. It takes little observation of or participation in these cases to see how, as between the social worker and families of the children involved, suspicions, resentments and frustrations can build up.

This Bill comes to your Lordships' House in a considerably diluted version of the simple and robust Bill that was introduced in another place. I think that of the original Bill only the clauses applying it to the Scilly Isles and disapplying it to Scotland and Northern Ireland remain. Inevitably, the primary reason for its dilution in this way is our old friend "resource implications".

Clause 1 originally provided that a local authority should not return a child from care without the permission of the court, which of course was the product of the great concern that had been mounting over the years but which reached a climax with the Beckford case. On 4th December 1985, at col. 1400 of the Official Report, there appeared a Question for Written Answer put by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, who asked the Government: How many children have been taken out of care and returned to their parents during the last two years, and how many of these children are reported to have subsequently been ill-treated by their parents". The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, answered: Information is not held centrally about the placement of children on their discharge from local authority care; nor about reports of subsequent ill-treatment". I am bound to say that seems a very disappointing lack of central information. One wonders what the answer would have been—and one suspects that it would have been the same—if the Question had been: "How many children still in care are returned to their parents and are subsequently ill-treated?"

As a result of amendments in another place the precautions envisaged will be left to regulations, which of course will have to combine the various particular and general conditions that are necessary to provide the safeguards that are so essential. Indeed, we look forward to seeing such regulations, in draft at least, to see whether they achieve what is needed.

Clause 2, again in its original form, met a long-overdue need for reform in the appellate structure provided in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. At present, appeal is to the Crown Court with all its criminal overtones. Again, I gather that that clause as drafted was removed at the Government's insistence, but it must be said that in the interdepartmental review of child care law the avenue of appeal to the High Court was recommended. I wonder whether the Government can indicate that when comprehensive reform is introduced this specific recommendation will be adopted. As to what is left in Clause 2, as it now is, there can be no argument with it so far as it goes in giving a right of appeal which was absent hitherto.

Clause 3 deals effectively with the remarkable oddity that parents do not have the full status of parties in care proceedings. The desirability of that reform is so obvious that it needs no further comment. Clause 3 also allows to grandparents the possibility of that status as a party. Evidence tends to suggest that local authorities vary in their practice as to the extent to which they will look to the wider family for help in resolving issues which involve children. A recent decision of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity offers a good example. It was a case in which grandparents found that their granddaughter had been taken into care and was being prepared for adoption, and they were held not to have recourse to the High Court in wardship. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has indicated, very often for young children their grandparents can prove the mainstay of the family in crisis as they possess the maturity, concern and responsibility that frankly the parents lack.

On 2nd May, at Report stage of the Bill in another place, the hope was expressed that the rules provided for under this clause would not be too restrictive, and I repeat that hope tonight. The Minister in another place also said that the rules would be outlined in your Lordships' House. I wonder whether the Government are able to indicate when they will be outlined and perhaps they will also give their views on the proposed amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, as to the inclusion of the grandparents of illegitimate children.

I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in urging a swift implementation of this proposed legislation. This is an area of the law which has already suffered from limping legislation under the Children Act 1975. All too often nowadays, it seems, legislation is passed through Parliament enthusiastically and then left and not brought into force for years even; and indeed sometimes it is amended before it is actually brought into force.

It could be said that this Bill produces piecemeal reform. In a sense it is piecemeal, but it is no less valuable for that; and as the noble Baroness indicated in opening this debate, it will not impede comprehensive reform of child care law which, as we all understand, is under consideration. It is entirely consistent with the interdepartmental report's proposals and indeed to some extent it foreshadows them. We recognise that this Bill represents perhaps half a loaf but I certainly urge upon your Lordships the merits of half a loaf in this context and I offer this Bill unqualified support.

9.15 p.m.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, perhaps I may pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox for bringing forward this Private Member's Bill. I also pay tribute to Mr. Dennis Walters, the Member of Parliament for Westbury, in that he showed very great sensitivity in bringing forward a Bill which showed his genuine desire to safeguard the well-being of children, and particularly those at risk. When the Bill was first brought before the other place I disagreed with it. I did not disagree with the motives behind it, nor with the sensitivity shown by the honourable Member for Westbury; I only disagreed with the way it was going to be implemented. I should also like to thank him very much indeed for the letter he wrote to me explaining his reasons.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have gone through the Bill so I shall not go through it again, but perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister whether she considers that the position of parents and grandparents could be improved even more than proposed in this Bill. I think that perhaps this has been mentioned. Would she agree that legislation should clearly state that parents have a right to appeal to discharge care or supervision orders? At present they can do this on behalf of the child but the court is then put in a difficult position when the child is separately represented and the child's solicitor and guardian ad litem cannot support the application. This problem will not be resolved merely by making parents parties to proceedings once an order for separate representation has been made. It will only be resolved if parents have a clear right to make an application on their own behalf. Would my noble friend the Minister consider that parents should automatically be parties to care proceedings? Should grandparents who are made parties to care proceedings have a right of appeal? I would be most grateful for the views of my noble friend the Minister.

I cannot forbear from making a few other remarks, perhaps outside the Bill but related to it. Again I am grateful to Mr. Walters, the honourable Member for Westbury, for giving me this opportunity. First, many of the recommendations in this Bill are good child care practice. To me it is very sad that in some of the things recommended the place of parents and grandparents has not been acknowledged in day-to-day good child care practice throughout the child care field. Secondly, this brings me to the question of the training of social workers. I plead with the Government to support the desire of the Council for Training and Education in Social Work to improve the training of social workers, particularly in the field of child care and child abuse.

A further point that I would make is that a number of us think that the present juvenile court system is not the best one that we could have. Although I think it would be impossible to transpose the Scottish system on to the English, I wish that we could adopt some of the principles and practices of the panel system in Scotland. That would introduce in a much more understandable way the place of parents, grandparents and other relatives. I went up to Strathclyde some time ago and attended a panel meeting. Sitting in the room—I shall not say completely informally, because there was an atmosphere that the law had to be administered—were the grandparents on both sides, the parents and two aunts. That is how it should be. If we are to support and to help children we must be aware of all the relatives in the case. I will just take the opportunity to say how much I hope that we shall be able to look at our court system for juveniles.

I would make another point which was brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, concerning the question of illegitimacy. The Law Commission has written a report on it and drafted a Bill. I very much hope that some of the problems stated by the noble Baroness will not arise if that Bill is brought before Parliament and made law.

Lastly, not only with social workers but with doctors, educationists and all others dealing with children, we have sought for a long time to have consolidation of child care law. We have had a law that has been fragmented, and Acts of Parliament have been passed, some of which have been implemented and others not. It was therefore with great relief that we read the report of the Select Committee chaired by Mrs. Renee Short in which she recommended a child care law review.

As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox, we want this Bill to go through as quickly as possible. But, having said that, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether it will be incorporated into the child-care law that we very much hope her right honourable friend the Secretary of State is to bring forward. When is that legislation to be brought forward? We very much hope that it will incorporate this laudable Bill.

9.22 p.m.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, as vice-chairman of the all-party children's committee, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is chairman, I start by saying that I agree with every word that she said, and that very much includes the welcome and gratitude that she expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for introducing the measure and admiration for Dennis Walters for introducing the original measure. However, I have to say that had it not been significantly changed through all-party collusion in another place, as some might say, I should have found myself standing at this Dispatch Box disagreeing with what was perhaps the major part of the Bill. As we recognise, we are now dealing with a Bill which in almost every respect is different from the one that was introduced with the very best of motives by Dennis Walters with all the experience that he has and the sympathetic approach that has been referred to.

I saw one very interesting vote in the Official Report of the Committee stage. Only the Minister and the Labour Party spokesman were on one side and the rest of the Committee went in another direction. The Minister's powers are great and the Labour Party spokesman's powers of judgment are even greater.

I completely agree with the Bill in its present form, which is why I am grateful to Dennis Walters and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for enabling the House to ensure that the Bill goes through. It has many good points. In Clause 1 the power to make regulations for the placement of children in care at home on an on-trial basis is an interesting innovation. I hope that it will prove to be a suitable way of ensuring that children in care placed at home who may be at risk of abuse are properly supervised. We all recognise that supervision has been a great problem.

Clause 2 is also much to be welcomed. Where a parent or guardian is made a party to care proceedings or to an application to discharge a care order, they will have a right of appeal. I was a member of the Select Committee in another place—that seems a long time ago—and we put forward the recommendations which the Government have been subsequently considering. Most of the points included in the Bill were reflected by the Select Committee of which Mrs. Renee Short was the chairman.

Some things have changed. Since 1985, parents involved in care proceedings have had no right of appeal. That is clearly unjust. Many care orders are made as a result of allegations against parents which they may deny. The effect of a care order is to transfer all parental rights to an authority until the child is 18. The parents may deny the allegations made against them, but they cannot appeal against the making of an order. That is clearly unjust and it is put right in the Bill. The Bill, therefore, remedies a substantial injustice.

I welcome Clause 3. It provides that where an order is made for the separate representation of children and parents in care proceedings, the parents shall be full parties to the care proceedings. Since 1983, parents have been able to obtain legal aid for care proceedings but they have not been parties to those proceedings and have had only limited rights in those proceedings. By consensus, that is put right in the Bill. Another unjust anomaly is therefore put right in the Bill.

I do not know what the Government's views are, but (and this point was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull) the clause may be amended in Committee so that parents are automatically parties to care proceedings. That may avoid some of the delay caused by waiting for an order for separate representation before parents are granted party status and would be in line with the recommendations of the child care review.

Clause 3(2) is much to be welcomed. We have talked about grandparents being parties to proceedings. I do not know what the statistics show, but the role of the grandparent in bringing up the child—this may apply especially in a one-parent family—is often important. Casework, particularly in the past two years, has highlighted the injustice suffered by grandparents who wish to have a say in their grandchildren's future but who have in fact no legal rights. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward a clause which allows for that. We may be able to make some improvements to that clause in Committee.

Clause 2 should perhaps give grandparents who are made a party to care proceedings a right of appeal. That is not in the Bill, and I should like to see it included.

I know that the Government agree that the time has come for major child care legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said. I agree with the concept of family courts or panels. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, as a member of the Select Committee, I have seen the system at work at Strathclyde in Scotland. I have seen the informal relationship which seems to be so much more appropriate than that which exists in juvenile courts in England.

I hope that the Minister may be able to give some idea of the timetable for the general legislation and to say whether it will come in at the same time as legislation on family courts which we know the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is now sympathetically considering. It seems many years ago, at a time when I was a member of the Social Services Select Committee in another place, that these proposals were put forward. My one fear is that this modest measure, though very welcome, could give the Government justification for delaying major legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to say that this will not be taken as an excuse for not proceeding at what, I think on all sides of the House we agree, is the time for major child legislation.

9.31 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, this debate has shown again the deep concern, knowledge and interest that this House has in matters relating to the welfare and protection of children. I am sure that child abuse, whatever form it may take, is abhorrent to us all. We all want to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to prevent abuse and safeguard children from further abuse and that where it is in the child's best interest, rehabilitation takes place. The Bill before us tonight is a modest worthwhile measure in this field. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox most warmly upon bringing the Bill to us following its journey through another place.

I am aware that there has already been considerable debate on the provisions of this Bill and some of those arguments have been reiterated tonight. It is the Government's view—I address myself particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Meston—that building on and improving existing social work practice within broadly the current legal framework is, for the present at least, the right approach rather than the more radical changes in the balance of power between the courts and local authorities envisaged by the Bill as originally presented in another place. There will, I hope, be opportunity before too long for the House to consider a major and comprehensive Bill on child care and I think it is right that before then, we should be circumspect in introducing changes to an already complex—many think over complex—area of law. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already announced the Government's intention to publish a White Paper later this year setting out their proposals for child care law.

In saying that we believe we should seek to improve practice in an evolutionary way, I am not underestimating the difficulty of making many "home on trial" decisions, nor am I complacent about the performance of local authorities in these matters. The report of the Social Services Inspectorate's recent inspection of child abuse casework published on 6th May has shown that there are deficiencies which need to be remedied, but I am sure that a preferable way forward is by improving the professional performance of authorities within a strengthened regulatory framework for which this Bill will make provision.

Statistics held centrally record the number of children in care and the percentage of these who are "home on trial" as opposed to boarded out or in children's homes. It would not be reasonable to expect local authorities to report what happens to children after discharge of the care order or what injuries happen when a child is home on trial. The chief inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate has recently written to directors of social services asking them to report the deaths of children in care. These will be followed up by the Social Services Inspectorate. It is worth pointing out that there is no certainty that involving the courts in sanctioning return home on trial will prevent such children subsequently being abused. The majority of organisations with experience in the child care field support the Government's argument.

It was in that particular spirit that the Government amended the Bill in another place to provide the Secretary of State for Social Services with a regulation-making power—Clause 1—in respect of children in care placed at home with parents or guardians, or with relatives or friends. This will fill a gap in the Secretary of State's current powers, as he is presently able to make regulations to govern the way in which local authorities discharge their responsibilities for children in their care whom they place with foster parents or in children's homes, but he does not have similar regulatory powers in relation to children in care placed at home under the charge and control of a parent, guardian, relative or friend. Regulations would in the Government's view usefully underpin good professional practice.

The existing legal rights of grandparents in care and related proceedings are limited. My department receives many approaches from grandparents who wish to be involved in decisions concerning their grandchildren and maintain links with them. I am conscious of the importance that these matters have to the many grandparents involved in such cases. It is for this reason that the Government are supporting in Clause 3 a new right for grandparents to apply to be joined as parties to the proceedings as well as the new right for parents to be made full parties to proceedings when the court has ordered that their interests should be separately represented from those of the child's. This is a provision for which there has long been support.

My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether parents should always be parties, not just after a separate representation order. My answer is, yes, but this is only part of the comprehensive review of child care law. We are here only making the most urgent improvements. The House must await the White Paper to see the Government's line on this matter. The same applies to parents having the right to apply for discharge.

My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox has asked me to outline the Government's proposals for rules of court concerning grandparents. However, as my honourable friend indicated in the other place, I am afraid that I cannot yet do this, though I hope to do so at a later stage of the Bill. The result is that we now have a Bill which, modest though it may be in size, has, I believe, a potential for good within it. The new regulation-making power in relation to "home on trial" should help to strengthen existing arrangements for child protection, especially when linked to other steps we are taking to assist local authorities in their child abuse work. The new provision allowing parents to have party status where an order for separate representation of the child is made, will, if the Bill becomes law, remedy what I know many see as a real injustice to parents. Their present inability to appeal on their own behalf against a care order is a particular defect and I am glad that we have the opportunity of this Bill to put it right.

Perhaps I may leave the last word with my noble friend Lady Faithfull. If this Bill receives Royal Assent it would be included in a comprehesive child care Bill.

Baroness Lane-Fox

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for her very encouraging reply. It is very clear that she is seized of our message. Although I am sorry that she could not respond to our request about grandparents at this stage, I feel certain that we can rely on her to do so at a later stage.

I should like to thank everyone who has taken part in this Second Reading debate, particularly after last night's marathon sitting, and to record an expression of my appreciation to Mr. Walters, the honourable Member for Westbury, for inviting me to move this Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.