---

Children

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for the opportunity to debate the serious findings of the joint inspectors’ report and to hear from the galaxy of expertise that we have heard today. This, the second report of the eight inspectorates, shows that a lot has improved since the first report, mainly thanks to the Every Child Matters agenda. We need to give enormous credit for the focus, determination and skill of those involved in children’s services. Few professions can have such a beneficial effect on the future of our population if they get it right. Few take such criticism if they get it wrong. However, the report also shows that children in England are being let down by some aspects of children’s services. The good news is that children are increasingly being listened to and involved in decision making by some services; but not everywhere. I would like to pick out just a few areas of concern that struck me on reading the report and listening to the debate this morning. It is a fundamental problem that agencies are still not recognising children’s needs and giving appropriate help, protection and support for disabled children being a particular concern. At the same time, the Home Office is cracking down on children across the country, with its tough package of ASBOs, curfews, dispersals and fixed-penalty notices, and now mini ASBOs, while youth services are being cut. Children with autism and obvious social and behavioural difficulties are quite inappropriately being issued with ASBOs and named and shamed in the local and national press. The anti-social behaviour crackdown makes sure the child and his family wear the label of ““criminal”” or ““failure”” rather than learning that systems are there to help them and safeguard their welfare. Even the media are now becoming concerned about the increasing criminalisation of our children. ASBOs may be civil orders, but breaking them is a criminal offence and gets the child involved with the criminal justice system. When the standard of proof for issuing an ASBO is so low and when we have children who really need help criminalised in that way, we must be concerned. The inspectors found that, in some places, social services operate high thresholds for getting involved with families, so children and young people are being left without the support to which they are entitled. We must ask ourselves why that is. Could it be the same situation as we have had for many years with statementing in education? The child is not statemented because the officers believe that there is no money to fulfil their statutory needs should they be given a statement. Similarly, the thresholds for family support services are high because if they were lower, the authority believes that it could not cope with the financial burden. Special schools report particular difficulties in getting services for their pupils. As we know that children with special needs are 250 per cent more likely to be excluded from school than other pupils, that is very shortsighted. Then there is the matter of someone to turn to. Looked-after children value and need contact with their social worker but, as we have heard, a review of 30 councils showed that only half had allocated all looked-after children to a personal social worker. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, I believe that that is quite wrong. Those children need one person that they can relate to and trust and who really knows and understands them. The report pointed out that most children in family proceedings have little or no say in what happens to them. I have recently been assured by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, that that is changing and I welcome that. However, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 introduced new measures for children to be represented separately in family proceedings. Those have not yet been implemented. Only yesterday, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, when they would be implemented. He was unable to reply to me yesterday; I wonder whether he can do so today. The messages of the report and the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about children’s safety and welfare in custody could not be clearer. They warrant an immediate government commitment to reverse the very high number of children in custody and the end of Prison Service custody for children, in line with international human rights standards. More than half of those children are officially designated as vulnerable—vulnerable to physical abuse and drug misuse, as referred to in the striking remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. The Howard League believes that all children in penal custody should be regarded as vulnerable simply by the nature of their incarceration. During 2003 and 2004, more than 21,000 children were admitted to Prison Service custody, with between 3,000 and 3,500 in custody at any one time—more than almost any other developed country. The inspectorates reported that these children can then,"““become exposed to significant risks of bullying and intimidation by other children and of self-harming””." Seven per cent of children in Prison Service custody say that they feel unsafe all the time. It is impossible to safeguard a child kept in a Prison Service establishment, even from the staff, if the recent Guardian report referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, about pain being inflicted on children as young as 12 is anything to go by. This is supposed to be a civilised country. We should not be using that kind of restraint on children. Here again, the idea of someone to relate to is not happening. The personal officer system in young offender institutions, where children get an allocated prison officer, is ““seriously underdeveloped””—an understatement by the inspectors. Another unacceptable aspect of the treatment of children in custody is routine strip-searching when they arrive at young offender institutions, when young people are at their most vulnerable; and the use of segregation and single separation, when children are made to stay in their rooms. What better way of increasing the already appalling amount of self-harm and suicide? The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, again reminded us of that. Since 1990, 29 children have died in penal custody. It is a disgrace that there has not been a single public inquiry about any of them. How are we learning from those tragic events? I ask the Minister that question. It does not get much better when they leave prison. The Howard League tells me that poor planning and support for children on release from custody is widespread. It cites cases of children being placed in bed and breakfast accommodation or even told to go to night shelters. And we wonder why 82 per cent of them reoffend. The inspectors also reported that children have very few opportunities to bring problems with their treatment to the attention of the authorities. I was surprised and horrified to read that less than 50 per cent of residential special schools have met national standards for responding to children’s complaints, and children in young offender institutions very rarely complain since ““expectations are low””. That is hardly surprising. These are children who are not used to being listened to; why should they waste their breath complaining? We need to create an entirely different culture for such children. Every Minister should read the section on asylum-seeking children and realise the harm and injustice that is being done to those children. For example, those in private fostering situations could be in ““extreme risk””, according to the inspectors. It is true that where their child protection needs are recognised, asylum-seeking children are given the same help as other children. However, the inspectors state:"““there is doubt about whether all concerns are adequately identified, including whether children are subject to trafficking for sexual exploitation or under-age girls are kidnapped for forced marriage””." The inspectors criticise the"““centralised administrative procedures which are not independent””." Only a few months ago, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner condemned the detention of asylum-seeking children and the ministerial review system, saying:"““It is perverse that the burden should lie on the child or his family to take arduous steps to challenge their detention, rather than on the Immigration Service to prove its continuing necessity to an independent authority””." I echo the great concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about the ability of the children’s workforce to implement the Children Act 2004 adequately. I am really worried by what I read about recruitment and retention of a properly checked, trained and skilled workforce. This situation is not new, but it has got worse as the duties, expectations and responsibilities have increased during the past few years—due to what is very welcome legislation. The Government must resource the consequences of their legislation. I of course accept what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said—it is not just about resources, it is about practice as well—but he also agreed that resources are short. Sadly, the Government often do not do that and children’s services are unfortunately a prime example. I would have greater respect for the Government’s intentions if they were to do so for a change. I call on the Minister to say what will be done about the inspectorate. The report is valuable, as was its predecessor. Will the process be done again two or three years down the track? We believe that early intervention and support for children and families by well-trained, integrated services are the answer, but that is another debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. He appears to have to answer on behalf of about eight Ministers to all the questions that have been put to him.