UK Parliament / Open data

Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

Looked-after children and young people must be confident that their views are heard and they should receive effective support so that they can make their views known. The examples of poor practice mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, are clearly of concern. We believe that the key issue is to improve the professional practice of social workers involved in the day-to-day conduct of children’s cases and of the independent reviewing officers who will be responsible for monitoring the case as a whole and overseeing the regular reviews of the care plan, taking full account and expressing the views of the child in care. The role of the IRO is central to ensuring that the voice of the child is heard. Therefore, Clause 11 introduces a specific duty on the IRO to ensure that the wishes and feelings of the child are given due consideration in care planning. We are providing that duty for precisely the reasons set out by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The Bill extends the responsibilities of IROs to monitor the performance of the local authority’s functions in relation to a child’s case, ensuring that they effectively oversee the care planning process so that it is fair and reasonable and gives proper weight to the child’s wishes and feelings. The IRO will support children’s active engagement with the care planning process, ensuring that there is greater scrutiny of the care plan for each child in care and making sure that children and young people are informed about their rights if they consider that they have been treated unfairly. We have also committed to provide as part of these reforms, through regulations and guidance, that the particular communication needs of a child or young person are taken into account. We expect IROs either to have the skills necessary to elicit the views of those with communication difficulties or complex needs, or, in appropriate cases, to have access to specialist input from someone who does, in the way that I described in our debates yesterday. We also recognise that there is an important ongoing role for advocacy and for access to independent advocacy to provide for complaints and to facilitate other representations about services provided to looked-after children. That is provided for under the current statutory framework: all looked-after children should already have access to advocacy services—that is, assistance by way of representation—to help them to pursue complaints and to make other representations about the services that they receive. As to professional practice in this area, we recognise that there can be specific barriers to accessing advocacy. That is why, for example, we have been funding Voice, the organisation mentioned by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, for the past three years, to extend access to its advocacy service for disabled children and other vulnerable looked-after children. I pay tribute to the work of Voice. Statutory guidance also makes it clear that we expect children to have access to advocates beyond the complaints procedure; for example, a child should be able to secure the support of an advocate in putting forward representations concerning any changes that may be required to the services that they receive. The noble Earl’s Amendment No. 95A seeks to ensure that children and young people receiving or seeking services from a children’s home or a fostering agency have access to independent advocacy services. I am glad to be able to tell the noble Earl that the children in the categories covered by his amendment—namely, those receiving services from children’s homes and fostering services—will be looked-after children and will therefore benefit from the statutory framework that I have set out. We accept that practice in this area needs to improve. Elements of the Bill will ensure that that happens. We also support other improvements in professional practice that will meet the objectives set out in the debate.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c581-2GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top