COUNTY COUNCIL 3 APRIL 2008 ITEM 9(b)

The rights of children in our corporate care. (The 18^th Rule)

To be moved by Councillor Hockley:

Members may recall that I have raised the issue of foster carers and others who smoke in the presence of our looked after children, on at least two prior occasions. Both times I was advised that the care of Hampshire's fostered children was in all respects within the guidance laid down by County but at no time was the actual issue posed by me ever answered.

Since then I have looked further into the subject and have attended an AGM of the Hampshire Foster Carers Association. At the conclusion of break times more cigarette ends littered the floor outside the Hampshire County Council building than I cared to count.

During the early part of February of this year I attended a meeting for prospective foster carers. On entering the HCC owned building I noticed a sign which prohibited smoking within the building. This sign or similar appear in all HCC work places. In view of this it caused me to wonder why HCC had no rules or regulations in respect of the exposure of our looked after children to secondary smoking which emanated from foster carers charged with their wellbeing. Policies YES, RULES NO! At this meeting I heard about the 17 checks that each and every potential Foster Carer must go through and must pass, I was impressed and waited for the one that dealt with smoking, it didn't come, it actually doesn't exist!.

I quote from a briefing note which the Deputy Director, Children and Families has prepared on the subject of smoking. The note is attached to the Notice of Motion for all Members' information. "There is increasingly strong evidence to support the view that smoking and passive smoking have a detrimental effect upon the health and development of children." And yet members we still don't do anything positive about it!

The briefing note goes on to say: "The issue of smoking is controversial and requires the rights of carers to smoke to be balanced against the rights of looked after children who have the right to be healthy." I would suggest that the issue of smoking is not controversial. Smoking is simply the single largest cause of cancer in the world today. Secondary smoke inhaled by people can have a similar detrimental effect, The TV personality Roy Castle is perhaps a prime example. It appears then, that while we know what we allow is wrong, we are still prepared to continue allowing it!

The briefing note continues. "The Children's Department is currently revising its policy on smoking and to this end will need to take into account the research, evidence and recommendations of various organisations etc etc" Members, I believe that I can save the department the time and money that this would take by the use of a very simple sentence. "Smoking and secondary smoking can lead to cancer and other serious respiratory problems and more importantly, cancer can kill!" I would suggest that the Children's Department can save time by not looking into research, evidence and recommendations. It should forget about the so called policy and concentrate instead on rules and regulations to protect our looked after children.

Some time ago foster carers were asked not to smoke if the child in their care was 3 years old or less. This has since been raised to five years. Has this increase in years achieved anything? Are foster carers still only asked? Are five year olds less likely to contract respiratory illness than a three year old, I think not! The question must be asked "Does anybody really care?" "Probably" is the simple answer.

Returning to the question of the rights of foster carers to smoke. I would prefer to turn this on it's head and ask about the "rights of fostered children to stay healthy"

There is the question of potential future litigation. The legal system litigates about anything and everything and I am certain that, as soon as somebody thinks about it, a writ will be issued to somebody for allowing smoking to happen to the detriment of others. After all, our foster carers are employed by HCC, their wages and allowances are paid by HCC and in my view, their homes are effectively places of work. This Government has banned smoking in places of work. So it appears that we are already breaking the law. An employment lawyer has been asked for his view on this matter and his response is attached. But litigation is really not the issue, not the driving force. What actually drives me is the right of young children to grow up without having tobacco smoke ingested into their system, to grow up in a healthy, smoke free environment.

I fully recognise that we will probably never be able to stop children of a certain age from smoking. This 18^th rule is as much about future education in all its various modes, health, family, peer, We can however stop the young ones from being exposed! Children from birth to perhaps 12 years of age or maybe older. We can stop prospective foster carers who smoke from taking fostered children. We can hold the final sanction of fostered children being taken away from homes where smoking is the normal and detrimental.

There can be no doubt that the fundamental issues contained within this paper must enjoy the support of all Councillors. What we are doing isn't joined up and very certainly isn't correct and must be rectified! The 18^th rule that I have mentioned must require prospective foster carers to affirm that "The household to which these young children are potentially welcomed is in all respects a NON SMOKING HOUSEHOLD." Checks by Children's Department staff must ensure that this 18^th rule is strictly adhered to. Sanctions must be applied where this fundamental rule is broken. Households who already foster children where it would or might be unreasonable to remove them must be advised of the 18^th rule and the potential litigation that could occur should this rule be broken and the health of children affected.

Members, I seek approval to the following motions:-

That the health of our fostered children is paramount and prospective foster carers, who smoke be advised that their application to foster can regretfully not be considered.

That Hampshire County Council will, as from this date not place children for fostering in households where any member of that household smoke.

That all foster carers be written to and advised of HCC's Non Smoking Rule and advised of the considerable risk to health to smokers and secondary smokers and the possibility of litigation against the carer if this rule is broken.

That, as a separate issue for debate at a later time, consideration be given to the same rules being applied to prospective adopters.