Chamber and committees

It is weird to come in when virtually all the arguments have been stated.

It is interesting that, although the minister highlighted that, currently, one in five children say that they want advocacy, groups such as Barnardo’s have stated that, when there is the right process and the advocate is able to sit down and discuss with the child what the situation is and what advocacy will bring to them, there is more than 90 per cent uptake. That highlights to me that what we have now is not fully working for the majority of children.

I will speak only to my amendment 198, which would introduce a requirement on the principal reporter to prepare and publish reports on waiting times for children’s hearings. As Children First said in its submission, requiring further transparency and accountability around waiting times is not necessarily a bad thing. This simple amendment would give us more information. I am a great believer that we do not know where the issues are if we do not have the information to back it up. Amendment 198 would allow us to find out exactly what the waiting times are for children’s hearings.

The blueprint that the minister mentioned might be considered a little out of date, given the increase in work that there has been since it was published in 1999. She said that she would like the next Government, whatever colour it might be, to look at this. Is that on the understanding that the blueprint is perhaps a little out of date?

The “Hearings for Children” report called for a decisive move to an

“inquisitorial rather than adversarial”

model—it is not easy to say that when you have a cold. However, Children First told us ahead of today’s stage 2 proceedings that legal representatives acting in a way that is not appropriate for children’s hearings is a constant challenge and it creates an adversarial atmosphere, and I entirely agree.

My amendment 111 therefore seeks to introduce a framework for the accreditation of solicitors who represent children and relevant persons in children’s hearings. It represents a practical and important measure to ensure that legal representation in such sensitive proceedings is consistently competent, professional and child centred. In seeking to provide training standards, accreditation and a register of solicitors, the amendment would ensure that those who represent children are properly equipped to act in the child’s best interests, uphold procedural fairness and engage in a trauma-informed manner. It would also allow suspension or removal of that accreditation if standards were not met, which would ensure accountability.

I am well aware that work is happening—and has been for some time—to address that matter, but it would be helpful for the bill to provide for further regulations to provide a statutory underpinning. That is why I lodged amendment 111.

My amendments 110 and 197 look specifically at the younger end of the scale.

We have had various representations that much of the system that is in place does not work for infants and very young children, and my amendments recognise that children under three years of age require special consideration in the hearings system.

Their developmental stage, vulnerability and inability to articulate their views mean that a one-size-fits-all approach is not working and is not appropriate.

We know that the first 1,000 days of a child’s life are when the brain builds the required foundations for every aspect of their life, including social bonds, learning skills, rationale, understanding and attachment—the list goes on. Those are fundamental. The longer a child stays in an environment that causes potential harm, the harder it is for them to grow into adulthood.

13:00

Amendment 110 would provide for a specialised children’s hearing process for infants, allowing ministers to set out regulations that cover the composition of hearings, timescales, panel training and evaluation of the process. By tailoring hearings to infants’ needs, we can ensure that decisions are made quickly, sensitively and appropriately, with panel members who are equipped to understand infant development and the impact of decisions on very young children.

Amendment 197 would complement that by enabling independent representation for infants. It would allow ministers to establish regulations for the appointment of trained, independent persons to represent an infant’s interests in hearings. That would ensure that the child’s welfare and best interests are effectively safeguarded; that their participation is meaningful, even at that early stage of life; and that decisions are informed by someone who can speak on their behalf.

I move amendment 110.

I will not move the amendment and take the opportunity to work with the minister.

Amendment 111 not moved.

Amendments 112 to 114 and 195 to 197 not moved.

I thank the minister for her comments. As we all know and as the minister has stated, language is so important in this process. Although I whole-heartedly accept what the minister has said, the word “control” is difficult. I am happy to take the minister up on her offer to work on that, although we will be doing an awful lot of work before stage 3. I am minded to accept it, because, at the end of the day, if we can get to something that works properly in a legislative framework, I am willing to do so. I will not press amendment 117.

Amendment 117, by agreement, withdrawn.

Will the minister give way?

I am listening intently to what you are suggesting. When we look at the whole family wellbeing fund, we see some disparity in spending across the country. Are you saying that the data from the other avenues that you mentioned provides the necessary information? There seems to be a small disconnect. If you are relying on that data, what reassurances can you give me that action will be taken to ensure that we have a better understanding of where the gaps in the system are?

10:00

I will speak only to my amendment 174. Our foster carers do a phenomenal job, and we know that it is a struggle to find them. I would hate for the production of a register to do anything that might inadvertently make the situation harder. The register is a good idea, but it cannot be used as a league table. Parameters must be put in place to ensure that it is purely a register of people who are foster carers, rather than a mechanism to grade them.

That is all that amendment 174 tries to do. It is designed to strengthen safeguarding while protecting the integrity and wellbeing of the foster carers who are on the register, and it recognises that transparency improves trust. I hope that the Government can support amendment 174. It is a small one that will ensure that the register, which we all agree with, does not inadvertently move into a way of grading foster carers.