---

Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 20: 20: Clause 11, page 8, line 21, at end insert— ““(6) A local authority must ensure that the independent reviewing officer appointed under this section is sufficiently independent. (7) In this section ““sufficiently independent”” means— (a) having minimal connection to the local authority in question; (b) having not worked for the local authority in question in the last ten years; (c) being previously unconnected to the particular child in question; and (d) having no conflict of interest.”” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 20 places a duty on local authorities to ensure that independent reviewing officers are sufficiently independent and defines this as: having minimal connection to the local authority; not having worked for the local authority for 10 years; being unconnected to the child in question; and having no conflict of interest. However, I acknowledge that 10 years may be too long, and am therefore willing to have a debate on the length of time deemed necessary to secure the amendment’s objectives. We welcome the idea of extending the responsibilities of independent reviewing officers but seek with this amendment to ensure their effectiveness by making them truly independent and not just independent of the management of the case, which is the current position under the Review of Children’s Cases (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2004. This system will work only if everyone is satisfied that the reviews conducted are impartial and come from a source unfettered by any hint of subjectivity. The Bill as it stands does not, in our opinion, have such provision. For example, in his extensive letter of 23 January, the Minister said: "““We intend to issue statutory guidance to the local authority emphasising that the IRO’s role should be to provide support and challenge to the child’s social worker to ensure that the voice of the child is heard and respected in the authority’s decision making, and particularly the importance of the IRO being independent in fulfilling this role””." I can see the support bit working but to challenge a colleague is a wholly different matter. Likewise, what do IROs do if, when reviewing a child’s case, they are aware of budget restraints or know that their department is stretched to the limit? I am not for one moment suggesting that they will not do their best by that child but I am afraid that it raises the question of conflict of interest. In his letter, the Minister pointed out that it is up to local authorities to decide whether to appoint IROs who are their employees, whether to contract with an agency or whether to make arrangements with another authority to swap cases for review purposes. As this will be an important driver to effect the much-needed change that we are all looking for, and to help us to ascertain how it works in practice, can the Minister tell us how many authorities undertake this review themselves? Clause 12 gives the Secretary of State powers to establish national arrangements for the delivery of IRO functions if evidence suggests that IROs are not securing significant improvements for looked-after children. In his letter of 23 January, the Minister suggested that this function could be conferred on CAFCASS in addition to its existing functions. Although the Conservative Party is no longer declaring open war on CAFCASS, not least due to the current leadership of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Howarth of Breckland, and their excellent chief executive Anthony Douglas, it is clear from last week’s Ofsted report that CAFCASS still has more to do to recover from its disastrous start in life and therefore would be best concentrating on its core duties. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that, unless it is the Government’s intention to invoke Clause 12 anyway, the best way of securing the success of Clause 11 is to ensure that IROs are truly independent. I beg to move.