Beverley
Hughes: I welcome my hon. Friends contribution. It
was through her sustained, dogged and very committed work that the
action plan for young runaways was eventually brought forward. I
commend her involvement in that. Let me just point out a couple of
things. The prescribed persons referred to in subsection
(4)(b) will, by definition, be young people aged 18 to 25. Younger
peoplethe 15-year-olds whom she was talking about in relation
to some local authorities apparently informal yardsticks for
interventionwould be covered, as far as the Secretary of
States duties were concerned, by the clause as it stands,
because they are under 18 and the Secretary of State will have a duty
to promote their well-being, as he will to promote the well-being of
any
children. In
relation to the prescribed groups in particular, we have no immediate
plans as to how that might apply, but as my hon. Friend implied, we
would have to introduce regulations if we were considering applying the
measure to any of those groups and we would consult on the regulations
before we did so. I hope that, with those assurances, she will accept
that this issue is very much in our mind. Young people under 18 will be
covered. In relation to any other groups, we are considering at the
moment how far they might be
included. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
8 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
9Provision
of accommodation and maintenance for children who are looked after by a
local
authority
Tim
Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 9, page
7, line 28, after subsection, insert
or submit a written explanation
of why such a placement was not desirable or
achievable.
This is an
obviously vital clause at the heart of the Bill. Largely rewritten in
the House of Lords, it deals with the mechanics of how children in care
are placed, giving priority to children being placed with extended
family members if possible and making stipulations about distances from
where the child comes from and about trying to maintain continuity of
education and so on. That goes to the heart of what the Bill is about
and is very welcome to the whole Committee and to those of us who over
many years have drawn attention to the enormous disruption caused by
the lack of stability in the life of a child in the care system, which
can only exacerbate the many problems that such a child will already
have. We welcome very much the level of commitment that clause 9
indicates, but once again we want to try to tighten the provision to
get some greater definition in the
Bill. Amendment
No. 6 relates to the proposed new section 22C(7) that
section 9 would insert into the Children Act 1989, which is about the
hierarchy of extended family members. Many of us would agree that some
such form of hierarchy is needed for children who must be taken from
their birth parents or parent into care, for however long a time, and
that wherever possible, the best alternative, if there is no threat of
harm to the child, is for them to be placed with another family member,
close relative or close friendsomeone with whom there is
already familiarity and a relationship of trust. Failing that, the next
choice would be non-related foster parents or perhaps specialist foster
parents, if the child has complex needs or disabilities, or other kinds
of foster parents, and then, if those were not available, and if it was
appropriate, placement in a residential care
environment. In
many cases, the residential care environment might be the best option.
I do not in any way mean to put it at the bottom of the pile, but many
of us have seen children who have been sent first to residential care
simply because of the unavailability of suitable foster care closer to
home. I hope that we can get the right balance in the future, but it
must be horses for courses, and a question of what is in the best
interests of the
child. In
proposed new section 22C(6) of the 1989 Act, the Government have set
out what they mean by an extended family placement, defining it
as placement
with an individual who is a relative, friend or other person connected
with the
child, who has been recommended by the local authority. We are trying
to make that the absolute default position, and to require that if it
is not possible the fact should be properly accounted for.
Although
finding a placement with a kinship carer has for some considerable time
been a preferencekinship care is described in section 17 of the
Children Act 1989in too many cases, it is still not happening.
There have been various studies, perhaps the most definitive of which
suggested that only 4 per cent. of placements initiated by social
workers are with an extended family member who comes within the
provisions of new section 22C(6). I think that I pointed out
earlier the contrast with places such as Denmark, where some
45 per cent. of such foster care placements are with
extended family members. There seems to be a bit of a discrepancy. Yet
it has been estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 children in this
country are living
with relatives who are not their parents, and only a small proportion of
those are looked-after children. That has implications, of course, for
private fostering registration schemes, which we shall be returning to
later in our consideration of the Bill, if some of us get our
way. Most
people acknowledge that there are clear advantages to kinship caring
and placements with family members. The Family Rights Group has set
some of those out in its brief, which it has provided to hon. Members.
The brief details well-evidenced advantages in children who cannot live
with their parents being raised by family and friends. It lists those
advantages: Children
in family and friends care tend to be in more stable placements that
those placed with unrelated foster
carers. Children
feel loved and report high levels of
satisfaction. Children
appear to be as safe and their behaviour is perceived to be less of a
problem when compared to children with unrelated foster
carers. Children
placed within their family can more easily maintain a sense of family
and cultural
identity. Contact
with family members is more likely to be
maintained. Therefore,
that arrangement presses a lot of the right buttons. Familiarity with
the carers tends to lead to greater short-term and long-term stability.
For children who come from particularly traumatic family homes, a
second chance of a stable upbringing is absolutely what they
need. There
are some difficulties, which the Family Rights Group has also pointed
out. A few of those
are: Family
and friends carers are more likely to be older, in poorer health and in
more disadvantaged circumstances when compared to unrelated foster
carers, yet receive significantly less
support. Some
family and friends carers incur large legal costs in securing the care
of children at risk of ill
treatment. I
am sure that many hon. Members will have had such cases in their
constituency surgeries, often grandparents who want to take on
responsibility for a grandchild whose parent has typically had drug or
drink problems and is unable to look after the child. However, they
face an uphill battle, struggling to make the case that they are
capable of looking after the child to a social worker, to the local
authority, and then having to go through the legal rigmarole,
especially if it may ultimately be an adoptive placement. We should
surely be making it easier rather than harder for people who are
prepared to step into the breach and take on a child who would
otherwise fall exclusively on the public purse, either with a
non-related foster carer or in a home, at much greater expense and with
much less chance of
stability. The
group also points
out: There
are wide variations between local authorities in policies, support,
finance and attitudes toward family and friends care, and in numbers of
children placed with family and
friends. Access
and entitlement to support, including financial support is based on
legal status and not on need, resulting in some carers suffering
significant financial
hardship. Assessment
depends on legal status rather than need, thus risking inconsistent and
inappropriate assessments. Some family and friends carers are subject
to full fostering assessments that are essentially geared to non
relatives while others have no
assessment. We
do not make some of those placements as easy as we might, and there is
a big differential in how they are treated in different parts of the
country. Surely we need to send out a clear signal with this Bill that
that group
of people should be given preference wherever
possible, where it is in the interests of the child and where there is
no risk to the child. Obviously, if part of the reason for removing a
child from a family is the interference of extended family members who
have exacerbated the problem, such a placement would not be in the best
interests of the child. However, there are often other extended family
members who could step into the breach. It is a mystery to me why that
form of placement does not happen more readily in this country,
compared with other countries. I have already referred to
Denmark. The
brief we received from the National Childrens Bureau presented
a few potential answers to the question of what the barriers to using
kinship carers may be. It mentions
that social
worker power can be lessened by kin
placements. Do
some social workers see them as a bit of a challenge? Is it much easier
to take the child completely away from a family environment, to give
them a completely clean break in a placement with a foster carer
directly employed by the local authority and with no connection to the
family? The brief also mentions
that the
complexity of family relationships and kin
loyalties are
considered more
difficult to work with than non-kin foster
care. Is
that because social workers have such an enormous work load? We
described earlier the great stresses on them and it is less likely to
be problematic if a child is placed with a non-related foster carer. In
many cases, do social
workers see
kin as part of the problem, rather than the solution, and therefore not
favour such
placements? 4.30
pm The
NCB relates a number of studies that have been carried out, in both the
US and the UK. It claims that several studies show fewer reported
behavioural
problems in
children in kinship care compared to those in non-related foster care,
and kinship caregivers tend to see themselves in more of a parenting
role than do non-related caregivers and recognise the importance of
their role in facilitating the childs relationship with its
family. A
child has a better chance of returning to the family home with the
birth parents or parent if extended family members are usedfor
example, if a mother with a drink or drug problem goes through
rehabilitation and can take on the parental role
again. The
family drug and alcohol court being trialled in Wells street by
District Judge Crichton is an interesting experiment, which is based on
an idea from California. The Government, to give them their due, have
recently agreed to fund that pilot. I have seen videos from one of the
courts in Santa Barbara or Santa Monica and it is a very interesting
approach. The parents typically have a drink or drug problem and face
care proceedings. In the past, the parent may have been given a last
chance to get their act together or else the child would be taken into
care. However, to get his or her act together that parent needs
rehabilitation for the drink or drug problem, medical treatment, and
often housing assistance as well. If a person is not in stable
accommodation, they often go off the rails and other problems that are
symptomatic of the underlying difficulty may come into the
open. The
judge in the family drug courts assembles a group of professionals from
various agenciesthe local council, housing authority, health
authority, drug
rehabilitation service, social services and perhaps
somebody from an education environmentto put together a package
of care that should enable that person to rehabilitate themselves, if,
when faced with the threat of losing a child into the care system, they
are serious about wanting to do so. That is the last chance saloon.
They will be enabled to rehabilitate themselves, and, if they show
themselves as being up to the job and take advantage of the package of
care, the child will be able to stay with that
parent. The
holistic approach is very exciting. I am sure that the pilots in Wells
street will be successful. Too often we look at the problems in
isolation and tackle the symptoms rather than the root causes, which
can result in parents in miserable circumstances facing the tragedy of
losing a child. Often the support of an extended family member, or even
respite care in a temporary placement, can aid somebody to get the
treatment and assistance that they need to get their act together so
that they can recover sufficiently to get their child back. Kinship
carers are key on all levels of temporary or long-term placement and
support.
The
amendment says that the default position must be that a far more
extensive pursuit of a family or friend placement should be undertaken.
If, after an exhaustive pursuit of that placement, it is not possible
to place the
child with
an individual who is a relative, friend or other person connected
with them,
as set out in new section 22C (6), a written explanation should be
provided and made available to the relevant parties.
We speak to
people whose children have been taken into the care system. I quoted
the Ofsted report, which said that birth parents do not feel that they
have been engaged in the process and do not understand why their
children have been taken away or why they have been placed with
somebody completely detached from the family, particularly if there is
a family membertypically the childs
grandparentwho is prepared to take on the responsibility. It is
perfectly reasonable to place a specific requirement on the social
worker responsible for the child to submit a written explanation if it
is not possible to place the child within the terms of subsection
(6)(a). They should account for why that was not possible and outline
under what terms it might be possible to do so in
future. We
want to strengthen what the Government are trying to do under the
connected persons provision and ensure that there is an increase in the
4 per cent. of placements that are currently made with kinship carers.
If that is not increased, we need to know why. I do not know, and I am
sure that the Minister does not know, why we do not have more kinship
placements. That is the reason for the amendment and I commend it to
the
Committee.
Beverley
Hughes: I genuinely have no difficulty with the spirit of
the amendment. I hope that I can explain how the extra leverage that
the hon. Gentleman proposes through the requirement of a written record
is accommodated in the care planning system that is being established.
According to the figures that I have been given, 9 per cent. of
looked-after children are placed with parents and a further 11 per
cent. live with related
foster carers. That is 20 per cent altogether. It is not enough, but it
is rather more than the 4 per cent. that he
mentioned. It
is extremely important that local authorities make the right placement
decisions for the children that they look after. Such decisions go
right to the heart of whether they are providing the best possible
care. They will affect the ability of those children to maintain
relationships with their birth families, their friends and their local
communities. They will affect their chances of reunification. They will
also impact on their progress in the longer
term. Enabling
children to live with people who they know and trust wherever possible
is key to influencing their life chances for the better. If they cannot
live with their parents, the arrangements should first and foremost be
with family and friends for those within and outside the care system.
The Bill provides a clear hierarchical framework to support such
arrangements while allowing flexibility for decisions that reflect
individual circumstances. We have to do that and I know that hon.
Members will appreciate why. The continuing role of family and friends
as carers is one the key factors that will be taken into account. Most
importantly, placement decisions should be made in the interests of the
child. As
the hon. Gentleman said, clause 9 is the product of much consultation
and of detailed consideration by many experienced people in the other
place. As it is crafted, it will ensure that decisions are made in the
way that I have described. It includes much of section 23 of the 1989
Act, but it is much clearer about the kind of considerations that will
apply to placement
decisions. Where
placement with parents is not possible, the clause requires a local
authority to place the child in the most appropriate placement
available. The determination of that is subject to a number of
constraints. First, subsection (7) requires that the decision be taken
in accordance with the local authoritys other duties under part
III of the 1989 Act, with particular regard to their duties under
section 22 to safeguard and promote the childs welfare, to
ascertain and give due consideration to the childs wishes and
feelings and to those of other relevant
persons. I
am setting out the sequence of the legislation and how it works
together to provide clarity. When considering the placement options
available to it, the local authority must give first preference to
placement with a relative, friend or other person connected with the
child. That reflects our commitment to the principle that children
should, wherever possible, be brought up in their own families and
communities.
Sometimes,
such placements will not be in the childs interests, and
although we recognise that they might not always be possible, we must
make a real push to ensure that local authorities always consider the
potential for relatives or friends to care for the child. They should
not only do that at the first stage of decision making, but revisit the
issue at every subsequent stage. That reflects the commitment that we
made in the Care Matters White Paper to put in place a
gateway approach, and that is what I want to see. At every stage of the
process, there should be a gateway mentality, with people asking
whether the child should be with family and
friends.
|