Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 56: 56: Clause 11, page 8, line 25, at end insert— ““(aa) monitor the compliance by the local authority with their human rights obligations in relation to the child’s case;”” The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to introduce an express duty on independent reviewing officers to monitor the human rights compliance of the local authority in relation to an individual child’s case. I know that the Government have acknowledged that IROs are not doing that. They are not sufficiently monitoring or protecting the human rights of children and young people in care, which was the intention when the IRO regulations were first introduced in 2004. Of course, we very much welcome the further strengthening of the IRO role in the Bill through Clause 11. However, that major omission persists in the absence of any express duty on the IRO to monitor the compliance of the local authority with its human rights obligations. The provision in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 for IROs to refer cases to CAFCASS is described in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill as, "““a remedy for this problem””," and the expectation is that IROs will identify potential human rights challenges. There has been much debate about the factors affecting the likelihood of referrals being made by IROs to CAFCASS, but the fact remains that no human rights proceedings have yet been brought by CAFCASS following a referral from an IRO. The DCSF describes the role of IROs in the Young People’s Guide to the Care Matters White Paper as, "““making sure that children get their rights””." We believe that these roles will not develop into the kind of professionals needed by children and wanted by Ministers and others unless monitoring human rights compliance becomes a clear and express duty and the postholders receive human rights training and guidance. It is notable that the DCSF has not issued any specific guidance on the Human Rights Act and other human rights instruments to IROs. The CAFCASS confidential advice line for IROs and managers received only 13 enquiries from IROs in a period of 20 months. As I said earlier, none of those has led to a case. That could be due to a lack of awareness by IROs of this important service. One way of making them aware of it is to put an express duty in the Bill and ensure that that is backed up by training in how to carry out that duty. I beg to move.