House of Commons debates
Thursday, 2 March 2006What are Commons debates?
Orders of the Day — Children and Adoption Bill
See the whole debate
« Previous speaker
Next speaker »
4:04 pm
Eric Pickles
(Brentwood & Ongar, Conservative) | Hansard source
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a modest
contribution to the debate. It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. and
learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I hope she will forgive me if I do not
pursue some of her excellent points, as I want to concentrate on a narrower
aspect of the Bill, namely adoption. I want to say something about the secrecy
of the family court. I think that some of the general rules on adoption
concerning foreign nations are relevant to our own system. A particularly sad
case in which I have been involved over the last few months has a direct
bearing on how adoption works in practice, especially forced adoption, the most
extreme of the many issues that we must consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson)
described the Under-Secretary of State as sparky. I am not sure that I can
follow him down that avenue, but I want to record my enormous appreciation for
the courtesy that she has shown me in connection with that case and my concerns
about adoption. We have had three formal meetings and many more informal
meetings. The Under-Secretary has changed my views on a number of important
issues. She has also reinforced some of my prejudices, which is a nice
feeling—but I am genuinely grateful to her, and grief-stricken by the fact that
she is plainly suffering from a heavy cold. I wish her a quick recovery.
As I have said, I am concerned about the secrecy of the
family court. I tabled an early-day motion on the subject. Looking around the
Chamber earlier, I noted that almost every Member present, apart from Ministers
and, obviously, the occupant of the Chair, had signed it. Early-day motion 869,
entitled "Workings of the Children Act 2004", stated:
"That this House urges the Government to remove the
veil of secrecy from the workings of the Children Act 2004; considers that the
closed door policy of the family courts breeds suspicion and a culture of
secrecy which does nothing to instil confidence in those using them, which
affects not just the courts but the social services departments of local
authorities; and believes that it is possible to preserve the anonymity of
children involved in the proceedings without the cumbersome rules which
obstruct parents from receiving advice and support, which in particular works
to the disadvantage of parents with special learning difficulty."
The hon. and learned Member for Redcar spoke about the
concept of the rights of the child being paramount. Her explanation was a good
deal clearer than some that I have received from social services departments.
However, I am less concerned with the effect on the courts than with the effect
on social services. There is almost a process of Chinese whispers, whereby that
noble concept becomes bastardised into an unwillingness to disclose, to
justify, to listen to arguments, or even to see a need to explain decisions.
The law was changed because of Members' difficulties in obtaining information
from social services departments. At one time, they were threatened with
contempt proceedings and prosecutions for pursuing constituency cases. Since
the beginning of April last year, however, we have been able to look at case
files and discuss the issues. I may be wrong but I think that I was the first
Member of Parliament to take advantage of that, after a constituent who was
going through the process brought it to my attention in the early part of April
last year.
The change in the law seems to have wholly passed by Essex
social services department. Despite the will of the House and the change in the
law, it led me through quite an elaborate dance when I wanted to get some basic
information from it. At one point, it insisted that I went to court to get
special permission, when by Act of Parliament I already had that right. Had it
not been for my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield, who happens to be the leader of
Essex county council, I do not think that I would have been able to pursue the
case to the full.
I cannot go into the details of the case, but I can talk
about it in the abstract and discuss the way it affects the law. It concerned
the decision by Essex social services to remove two children from a family
because they considered the mother to be stupid and incapable of bringing up
the children because of her lack of intellect. The mother had an IQ of around
60. Social services sought to present her as stupid to the point of being
unable to understand maternal feelings. In my view, she was a little slow but
someone who clearly loved her two children. She was faced with an unending
stream of social workers dealing with her case—at one point, I counted 16—who
were pushing her in different directions. She was left bewildered and unable
adequately to rebut social services' allegations. I want to say a few things
about people with learning difficulties and then move to the general question
of social services. I want to stay firmly within the terms of the Bill.
A problem has been identified recently with the Meadow case.
I do not want to go down that route but it illustrates the fact that,
sometimes, proceedings have been initiated because hospital consultants or
social workers have been a little over-zealous. It is typical for the person
who initiates proceedings to see the complaint through. There is a need for a
separation of powers between those who take the decision to initiate an
investigation and those who actually conduct it. I am worried—I will come to
this a little later—about the targets for adoption and the obvious financial
benefits that accrue.
The principal problem is that social services departments
cannot be entirely non-partisan in the way in which they identify the issues.
Few people who initiate a serious chain of events are likely to admit it when
it goes wrong. The temptation is to tailor evidence to fit the complaint. That
should be resisted.
I can give a few brief examples of how that happens. As I
said, I think that I was almost certainly the first MP to go through the
process of wading through a social services file concerned with a forced
adoption. It was thick, repetitive and at times confusing. I have talked to the
Minister about that. I speak as a former chairman of a social services
department and was used to seeing that kind of thing. I was shocked at the
sloppiness of record keeping, the shoddiness of the process and the basic
injustice. In that file—this is directly relevant—there was misinformation,
embellishment and inappropriate assigning of motives.
I shall give just two examples, which illustrate the general
problem. In the first example, the husband did not have learning difficulties
but was, by mistake, described as having them. The mistake was recognised and
corrected in the file but subsequently, such allegations continued to be made,
as though it was a proven fact. More seriously, it was suggested that the child
had witnessed domestic violence. It became clear that this was a single
incident in which the husband, in a moment of pique, had picked up his slippers
and thrown them against the wall. He is a gentle and passive man and at no time
were the slippers aimed at anybody; nor was any damage caused, except, perhaps,
for a slight mark on the wall. However, the file on that family states that the
female child
"has witnessed domestic violence and this will have an
impact towards her development".
Following close scrutiny on my part, social workers told me
that there was no evidence of any violence toward either child in the family.
No doctors or casualty departments had expressed concern, and there was no
evidence of repeated accidents involving the children. Yet the allegation
remained on the file.
An allegation was also made of poor parenting and I asked
for various examples. I was given two. First, the female child had been given
sandwiches and a packet of crisps for her lunch, and because she chose to eat
the crisps first, she was too full to eat her sandwiches. That was deemed
sufficiently important to be regarded as an example of poor parenting. The
second example—we should bear in mind that at this point, I was pressing for
another such example—involved allowing one of the children to stay up late at
night to watch television. I asked whether "late" meant 10 o'clock at
night, or perhaps 9 o'clock. I was told that she was allowed to stay up until 8
o'clock to watch the end of "EastEnders" or "Coronation
Street". I have many middle-class friends with children of a similar age
who are allowed to have crisps and to stay up until 8 o'clock. None of them is
subject to a care order.
I turn to the issue of stories being embellished. By this
point, the social worker was finding me a tad provocative. He said that the
mother had screwed up a baby-wipe tightly in her fist and had repeatedly rubbed
it against the genitals of the young male child, to the extent that they were
"red raw." However, the report actually said that the mother had used
heavy pressure, and that the genitals were flattened and "very red".
There is a world of difference between "red raw" and discoloured.
I found distressing the way in which motives were ascribed
in the report, without any obvious discipline. The father was criticised
because he had refused to leave his job of some 23 years to become the
full-time carer. It was said that that showed a lack of commitment. I believe
that holding down a job—in his case, a humble job—for 23 years and putting
bread on the table week in, week out sets a fine example to one's children. The
social workers wanted the father to live off benefits. That might have been a
solution, but if someone can set an example to their children by working hard,
that is something to be proud of.
I want to return to the way in which the primacy rule can be
bastardised. I confess that by this time I was beginning to irritate people,
although I am sure that hon. Members will find that hard to believe. I found
myself being lectured by a very senior person whom I shall not name, as that
would be embarrassing. He said, "We have to consider the welfare of the
child. That is absolutely paramount; whatever is best for the child is what we
do."
I replied, "OK, but if that rule is applied generally,
let's apply it to your children. If I arranged for them to live in the house of
Mr. Bill Gates, they would get enormous intellectual stimulation—probably more
than you can offer—and they would certainly enjoy much greater financial
well-being." The very senior person did not seem to like that, which made
me glad that I had not used my second choice of example—Michael Jackson.
I have talked these matters through with people who really
understand them. They have said, "Look, Eric, what about the guardian? The
guardian is there to look after the interests of children and to be impartial
in the process."
I put that approach to various leading counsel with an
interest in the matter. Although some guardians may exist who are prepared to
stand up to social services departments and act as bastions of freedom, they
are very hard to find. Generally speaking, guardians act as cheerleaders for
social services departments. They are entirely compliant, and seem incapable of
doing more than being a cheering section.
I had the opportunity last night to speak about such
problems to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon.
Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), and I shall give one example of
the role of guardians. A leading counsel on these matters—who, by the nature of
things, acts sometimes for the local authority and sometimes for parents—told
me about one occasion when he was acting for the local authority. Just before
proceedings began, people started to gather round the table. He was not paying
attention to who came through the door, and was about to begin his contribution
when he noticed that the guardian was sitting in the room. "What are you
doing here?" he asked, to which the guardian replied, "Well, you
know, I'm here as part of the team."
That person should not have been in the room, because the
guardian's presence could demonstrate partiality. The system needs to make sure
that the different strands of the process can be separated.
I was enormously surprised to find that there is no national
system for the regulation or disciplining of social workers. No royal charter
exists that sets out professional standards or disciplinary procedures and thus
allows peer judgment to take place. The social work profession needs to address
that defect. The solution does not need to be elaborate, but peer evaluation
among social workers on relevant matters is important. Without that, there is
enormous variation between authorities, which can be as slack as the one
involved in the Climbié case, or as tough as Rochdale in the face of ridiculous
accusations of satanism.
I shall quote briefly from Andrew Scott, an admittedly newly
qualified barrister who deals with these matters on a daily basis. I suspect
that he may be known to some hon. Members, as he has made quite a reputation
for himself. He said:
"I don't think the public appreciates how low the
threshold is. When children are taken from their parents, it is not because
there is a certainty of future harm or even that, on the balance of
probabilities, those children could be harmed. It is enough that there will be
a possibility of future harm. If there is a 70 per cent. risk of a child being
harmed and every child with that risk was taken into care then, in 100 such
cases, 30 children would be taken from families where they would come to no
harm. Sometimes, I wonder whether children are being protected, or whether it
is social workers' careers."
Those are wise words. There may be a temptation for local
authorities, possibly because of the financial advantage, to move towards
adoption when other solutions may be possible.
Mr. Scott goes on to say:
"There's an unspoken fear that children from poor
backgrounds are being freed up for middle-class adopters."
I would like to give an illustration which, of all the
features of the case, has really chilled me. It is about the question of duty
of care. In the April before the children were finally taken with a view to an
enforced adoption, there was a case conference. The second child had not yet
been born. The conference was considering whether to put the child on the
at-risk register. The daughter was already on it. On the basis of the facts
before it, the conference decided that it was not necessary to put the young
boy on the register and furthermore that it was appropriate to take the young
girl off it. Somebody at that conference, notably the chairman, did not like
that decision. There was no change of circumstances and no other substantial
incidents had taken place. Yet the same circumstances were seen as making it
appropriate to put the children into care with a view to permanent adoption.
Let me say what I think needs to be done. Those who
investigate a complaint must be independent of those who initiate it and those
who may in due course be called on to care for the children. A proper code of
conduct for social workers is long overdue. I certainly believe that those with
special learning difficulties deserve special care. We are told that in 1 per
cent. of all families one partner or the other has learning difficulties. We
are also told that 20 per cent. of children in care have one parent with
learning difficulties. There is some dispute over the figures, but whether they
are precisely right or not, they demonstrate a problem.
The secrecy of the family courts needs to be opened up. We
wait for the consultation document. I believe that there is a strong case for
judgments to be published and that they can be published while retaining the
anonymity of the child. I have one additional suggestion. It goes back to the
Meadow case. There is a question whether the professional witnesses should be identified.
If the Government take the decision that they should, I will generally support
that. Once you become involved in a case you get e-mails from all over the
country. Some are heartbreaking, but they all have strong emotion running
through them. Very normal people sometimes become irrational. I recognise that
there might be a problem obtaining witnesses if they are routinely named.
As an absolute minimum, each professional witness should be
given a unique identifying number. I think that that is important—I suspect
that hon. Members understand—because we need to establish a pattern so that if
we get a problem with the veracity of a witness we can have another look at
them.
We need to change the rules with regard to advice. Parents
are put in the dreadful position of being unable to seek advice. They cannot
talk to their county council or unitary authority; they cannot talk to friends
or members of their family. Only recently could they come and talk to us. I can
give examples of where there is a problem. In care or adoption proceedings it
is understandable that parents want to take a fair amount of time off. Under
the existing rules, parents cannot tell their employer why they are absent from
work without going back to the court. Psychiatric evaluations are also often
necessary in such proceedings, but people cannot make full disclosure without
first going back to the court. We have to find ways to solve those problems,
and I wholeheartedly endorse the Committee's recommendations for greater
transparency.
It might be slightly controversial to say so, but some cases
resemble attempts to make bricks without straw. Once the facts have been
established, the courts are reluctant to revisit those facts or their
interpretation. However, if adoption has resulted from fraud or seriously
erroneous evidence, we should have a procedure to enable that adoption to be
overturned, although the period in which that could be done should be limited.
In care proceedings, any carer who is accused of abuse should have an automatic
entitlement to legal aid; the opportunity to instruct an expert of their
choosing; a right of appeal against any findings; and legal aid for any appeal.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these issues, but I wish to make one final point. I hope to be a Member of Parliament for many years to come—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Well, that is marvellous and makes me feel wonderful. However, the case I have described will haunt me, because a grave injustice has been done and the system has let those people down. Those two young people now live in my constituency in a flat that is spotlessly clean and well maintained, with a bedroom full of toys that their children will never see. The beds are made up and presents are waiting for them. While there will be an attempt to overturn the original care proceedings, everyone understands that the likelihood of reversal is not great. When the state intervenes in people's lives, we must ensure that it does so fairly. In the case that I have dealt with over the past few months, that intervention was "intervention beyond the humane."
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2006-03-02a.472.0