Clause 19
Child Poverty Bill
10:45 am
Andrew Selous (Shadow Minister, Work and Pensions; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)
There are three amendments in the group, and I shall go over them in turn.
Amendment 3 is a probing amendment and not one that I intend to press to a vote. It is intended to provoke some debate about the inclusion of police authorities and chief officers of police as partner authorities in eradicating child poverty. I recognise that they are statutory bodies and already members of local strategic partnerships, which is entirely appropriate in the context. However, I must admit that I find it a little difficult to understand their core role and purpose in defeating child poverty, particularly given how child poverty is defined in the Bill, with the four targets specifically focused on income poverty.
I can see that the police have a role in child well-being, because children need to be safe and secure; that is even more important for children than for adults. The Government, however, rejected our amendment 58, which sought to place “well-being” in clause 8. We were told that the Bill is not about childhood well-being, which is fair enough; that is the Government’s prerogative. However, I was left questioning why chief officers of police and police authorities are mentioned.
It is not just me who suffers from a little confusion about such matters. When we saw reference in the Bill to chief police officers, Conservative Members said that they thought it appropriate for the Association of Chief Police Officers to give evidence to the Committee. ACPO’s feedback was that it was not sure why it was being asked to give evidence in discussions about a Child Poverty Bill and that it could not see the immediate relevance of being asked to do so; I am not the only one to question its involvement. Involving ACPO would certainly do no harm, but I can see more logic in amendment 62, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. That would include mental health trusts in the list of partner authorities.
It is almost a clichĂ(c) to say that mental health trusts are the Cinderella service of the NHS, but they seem to be cast in that role given that the Bill makes no reference to them. I have no doubt that the Minister will direct me to clause 20(1)(c) and say that local authorities can include mental health trusts if they so choose. However, it is a little odd to say that councils must work with the police whether or not councils think that they are helpful, but that councils only “may” work with mental health trusts. It would be more logical to put things the other way round, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness will explain with his customary panache when speaking to his amendment.
Annotations
Alix Cull
Posted on 5 Nov 2009 12:15 pm (Report this annotation)
It is my opinion that some input from the Mental health Services is vital for childrens welfare. They may then identify not only children who have mental health problems, but also child carers of mentally ill parents (or other carers) This would however most probably involve further recruitment and training for the specialists workers. Also more education about mental conditions to some degree is needed for teachers, school M.O's(If there are still such doctors working in the public health field) Health Visitors who have easy access to homes and others connected in childrens welfare. I would also suggest that in the larger schools or academies there is a nurse who can attend to minor accidents or illness in children, undertake annual eye tests, regular examinations for hair infestation, and give time on an appointment basis with any pupil who has problems, to discuss any difficulties the pupil may have. This would be in a team situation with the head teacher, and give access to parents or other cares of pupils who give cause for concern.