Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 22: 22: Clause 9, page 9, line 11, at end insert— ““(1A) In carrying out his functions in relation to subsection (1)(c), the independent reviewing officer must— (a) give information to the child about independent advocacy; (b) where the need for independent advocacy is identified, require the local authority to make arrangements for the provision of independent advocacy for the child. (1B) For the purposes of this section— ““advocacy”” means the provision of independent and confidential information, advice, representation and support to a child; ““independent”” means where the person appointed is not connected with the local authority by virtue of being— (a) a member of the local authority or any of their committees or sub-committees, whether elected or co-opted; (b) an officer of the local authority employed by the children’s services department of that authority; or (c) a spouse or civil partner of any such person.”””” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23. The purpose of Amendment No. 22 is to require independent reviewing officers to provide information to children about independent advocacy and, where a need is identified, for the service to require the local authority to provide it. The purpose of Amendment No. 23 is to ensure that local authorities conduct regular assessments to verify the provision of sufficient independent advocacy services. We tabled both these amendments because we do not believe that children and young people should have access to independent advocacy only at the point at which something has gone wrong. Better outcomes and potentially long-term cost savings can be achieved if independent advocates are involved, where necessary, to support children and to help them to be involved throughout the decision-making process. Perhaps I may say more about Amendment No. 22 first. Under current guidance, the IRO is required to inform the child of his right to make a complaint and, in such circumstances, his right to an advocate. I believe that this is too late. It puts the onus on the child to take action after a decision is made about which he is unhappy, rather than at the time, when he may be able to influence the direction of that decision and thereby perhaps end up with an outcome with which he is much happier. Therefore, we believe that the IRO should inform the child about independent advocacy—what it means, how it can help him and how it is different from the social worker and IRO roles—before each review. Following this discussion, and where the child is clear that he wants an advocate or the IRO feels that the child would benefit from one as his views do not correspond with the care plan, the local authority should be required to provide advocacy services to that child. It should be emphasised that not all children will need or want advocacy, but the point that I am trying to make is that they should be given the opportunity to make an informed decision about it rather than simply not have access to it. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 were both tabled in Committee and I am returning to them. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, expressed the Government’s view that these proposals were unnecessary in the light of the modifications made in the Bill to the role of the IRO. He said: "““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””." He went on to say: "““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””.—[Official Report, 17/1/08; col. GC 581.]" Although I welcome that and the fact that the Government are strengthening the role of the IRO, I do not believe that that enhanced role meets the need for more children to access professional independent advocacy. I say that for three reasons. First, the purpose of independent advocacy is fundamentally different from that of the IRO. The expression of the child’s views in the decision-making process by an IRO who is responsible for facilitating its outcomes is quite distinct from the representation of those views by an advocate who is independent of the process. There is a strong argument that, under human rights law, natural justice requires the child to be independently represented in decision-making about his private and family life. As Mr. Justice Munby said: "““Article 8””—" that is, of the UNCRC— "““imposes procedural safeguards which impose on administrative decision-makers whose decisions impinge on private or family life burdens significantly greater than I suspect many of them really appreciate. And the burden may extend in some instances … not merely to permit representation but even to ensure that parents—and particularly children—are properly represented when decisions fundamental to the children’s welfare are being taken””." In other words, using the analogy of court proceedings, those who are making a judgment about a child’s welfare cannot also argue the case. The second reason is that IROs cannot practically be expected to enable the necessary participation of the child in the review process. Despite the existing requirement in regulations for the IRO to ensure that the voice of the child is conveyed to the review, children still tell the various children’s organisations that they do not feel that they are listened to. One child said of his experience, ““I told the IRO that I wanted contact with my sister but that didn’t come up at the meeting””. Well, it should have come up at the meeting. In response to this situation, the Government have stated their intention to introduce a stronger requirement on the IRO to meet with the child before the meeting. The Minister has just reiterated that in response to the last amendment. That is welcome but will not resolve the fundamental conflict in role in that IROs have significant responsibilities in relation to chairing review meetings, which means that they do not have the capacity to give young people the dedicated support necessary to ensure that their views can be clearly represented. Independent advocates are also able to ask challenging questions of the review participants in a way that the IRO could not possibly do from the position of chair of the meeting. The third reason is that the remit of the IRO is to act in the best interests of the child. It is possible that they may conclude that what the child wants is contrary to what is in the child’s best interests. In that situation, they would not be able to represent the views of the child. Professional advocacy is quite different because it is independent of the system and its primary role is to work exclusively with the child to ensure that their views and rights are promoted. An advocate ensures that children understand what is happening to them, helps them to navigate the system, supports them to understand their rights and helps to ensure that those rights are met. As far back as 1997, Sir William Utting concluded in his report People Like Us that looked-after children need independent advocacy as a source of protection and as a means of making their voices heard in an otherwise very difficult system for a young child. As we heard in our earlier debates, disabled children placed away from home most urgently need a right to advocacy because they are at least three times more likely to be abused or subjected to demeaning treatment than other children. I was delighted that the Minister in another place, Kevin Brennan, during a hearing of the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee on 20 February, agreed with my honourable friend Annette Brooke MP that children with both physical and mental disabilities should have advocates where they need them. I emphasise that better decision-making can save money in the end. I urge the Government to think again and to deliver a statutory right to independent advocacy when significant decisions are being made in the lives of looked-after children and not just when they have cause to complain, seizing the opportunity that professional independent advocacy offers to empower young people to participate fully in decisions. It has to be integral to the strategy, which I know the Government have, of improving outcomes for children in the care system. I beg to move.