Tim
Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically
churlish. I started by saying clearly that the clause was welcome. It
has been rewritten and greatly improved. We very much approve and
support, as I have said, the hierarchy of kinship care. We approve of
the detail on putting siblings together. I am trying to improve it
further, in order to ensure that it is not open to misinterpretation.
The hon. Gentleman and I share the same goal. Although it is always
good to hear from him, he is being slightly churlish at this juncture.
I am trying to give credit where credit is due.
New clause 4
takes a belt-and-braces approach. It places a duty on an authority to
“take all reasonable steps” to ensure that if the
siblings cannot be placed together because of problems—the
siblings may have suffered a traumatic time and cannot live together;
that may be one reason why the home has broken down—whenever
possible there should be the means for those siblings to keep contact
if they desire it. Again, both sides have spoken of the desirability of
retaining some family contact whenever possible. The local authority
should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the child can
“maintain contact” with other siblings, but with the
get-out provision in subsection (3) that if the child does not want it,
it will not be forced on
them.
Mr.
Kidney: I rise to ask the hon. Gentleman about a welfare
get-out from contact between siblings. I very much support his
point—indeed, I hope to speak in a moment to a new clause on
sibling contact—but we would not want to force sibling contact
when it is contrary to a child’s welfare. Clearly, we are not
going to force them to live together if it is against their welfare,
and new clause 4 recognises that point with its proposed new section
34A(1) of the Children Act 1989. However, the Bill does not say that
there would be contact subject to the welfare of the child. It refers
to “taking all reasonable steps”, and we could argue that
it would not be reasonable to enable contact if it were against the
child’s welfare. However, that is not explicit in the Bill. The
hon. Gentleman just said that his proposal has a proviso about consent
but it is not the same as the welfare of the child. Does he agree that
there is a bit missing from the Bill?
Tim
Loughton: Yes. That is a good point. The Minister has lots
of civil servants who could go through the detail of the Bill, and
somewhere the terminology will
demonstrate that it involves the welfare of the child rather than just
consent. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the issue, and I
can envisage a situation in which a young boy wants to see his sister
and has no objection to it, but the child may have been separated
because, for example, there was some inappropriate sexual behaviour
between the two and it would not therefore be in the best interests of
the welfare of the child for those two children to be brought together
occasionally. The question is not just about objecting because the
child does not want contact; there is a welfare factor in respect of
both children or more siblings. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right,
and perhaps in his amendment he will take account of it, too. I
entirely take his point on board.
There is a
wider issue within the amendments, too. Local authorities should not
just enable contact; they should promote it. Other than in the
circumstances that the hon. Gentleman and I have just described, it is
in the best interests of the children to maintain such contact,
particularly if they are unable to maintain kinship contact with the
older generation of their family. A sibling may be the only family
member who comes into a child’s environment at all, so there
should be a duty on local authorities not only to enable contact but to
promote it—to make it a practical reality, particularly if the
siblings are not able to stay together. If the foster placement were in
danger of breaking down, perhaps because of insufficient support for
the family in respect of their special needs due to dealing with a
complicated set of siblings, the prime consideration should be whether
an alternative foster placement, which did not keep those two or more
siblings together, would be preferable to keeping the existing
placement.
The three
amendments, grouped with new clause 4, would only add detail and
definition to the Bill. They are absolutely intended to achieve the
objectives that I am sure the Government want to achieve—quite
rightly and praiseworthily, having included clause 9. On that basis, I
hope that the Minister will accommodate me by saying that this is a
good idea and the Government accept it.
Mr.
Kidney: I rise to speak to new clause 30, which is grouped
with amendment No. 7. Like the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, the
new clause is about ensuring that local authorities facilitate contact
between siblings if they are not accommodated at the same place. The
formulation in the new clause is slightly narrower than that which the
hon. Gentleman attempted, because it would simply amend section 34 of
the 1989 Act. It already includes the full panoply of a local authority
allowing reasonable contact between a child and various groups of named
people, but it does not include naming siblings. The amendment would
include siblings on the list. The 1989 Act says that where a child is
in the care of the local authority, the authority shall allow the child
reasonable contact with parents, guardian and anybody with a residence
order, and the proposal would add “siblings” to show that
the local authority should also allow reasonable contact with a brother
or sister.
Mr.
Turner: Does the word “sibling” include both
looked-after children and children at their
home?
Mr.
Kidney: Yes, because siblings are simply brothers and
sisters wherever they are. The local authority’s duty is to the
child in its care, so if one child was in care and one was not,
allowing contact would be to allow contact with the child that was not
in care. I think that that is the point on which the hon. Gentleman
wants clarification.
The good
thing about amending section 34 of the 1989 Act is that it goes on to
provide many safeguards in order to ensure that the contact takes place
safely. For example, if the local authority had doubts about whether
contact was a good thing, it could refuse to allow it to take place.
The person who wanted to object could apply to a court, and the court
could make an order or refuse to make an order, depending on the
circumstances of the case. In that sense, everything is
protected. New
clause 30 would make a similar amendment to paragraph 15 of schedule 2
to the 1989 Act to ensure that the two provisions are consistent, but I
read the measure more carefully when preparing to speak to it and I
found that the Children Act 1989 is inconsistent. Paragraph 15
states: “Where
a child is being looked after by a local authority, the authority
shall, unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with his
welfare, endeavour to promote contact between the
child”— this
is the point that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made
about
promotion— “and— (a)
his parents;
(b) any
person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility
for him; and
(c) any
relative, friend or other person connected with
him.” I
took the trouble to look at the definition of “relative”
in the 1989 Act. I see that it includes brothers and sisters, so
brothers and sisters are covered in a schedule to the 1989 Act, but not
in section 34—the primary legislation that matters the most. I
should have thought that Parliament would be compelled to put that
right and make it
happen. The
hon. Gentleman made the case well on why sibling contact is important,
but it is worth pointing out to the Ministers that their Department
published its summary of responses to its consultation on the
“Care Matters: Transforming the Lives of Children and Young
People in Care” Green Paper last December. In the summary, it
said: “Many
of the children and young people we have spoken to thought that it was
vital to keep siblings together wherever
possible.” That
is where clause 9 helps. The summary went on to
say: “Where
this is not possible, maintaining contact with siblings is very
important to young
people.” That
is a very welcome statement. It is an all the more compelling reason
for the Department to think that the amendment should be
made.
The
children’s rights director, Roger Morgan, published a report in
December 2007 that gave the views of 433 children on
improving care standards, which
said: “care
placements should be designed so that brothers and sisters can stay
together”. That
was the children’s fourth main recommendation.
Finally,
the Family Rights Group has produced a briefing for members of the
Committee in which it stated that NSPCC research published in 2000
entitled “Your shout too!” found that more than one third
of children in care felt that they did not see enough of their brothers
and sisters. That is compelling evidence of the need for an amendment,
and new clause 30 is the right form for making that change rather than
the other proposals included in this group of
amendments.
Annette
Brooke: I support both new clauses. The point has been
made clearly about the great desire for more sibling contact. It is
evidenced by a number of surveys, including one by A National Voice, an
organisation that is run by for young people in care. That showed that
83 per cent. of children and young people who do not live with their
birth siblings would like to see more of them. The critical point is
the difference between allowing something and facilitating and
supporting it, which is one step further. I would certainly want the
caveat of when it was in the children’s interests for that
contact to take place and safe to do so, with welfare being absolutely
paramount. 5.15
pm Within
those parameters, however, we should go that one step further to be
truly facilitating. Travel expenses might be provided—I believe
that they are—but sometimes more is needed. Making the first
contact is a big step, so perhaps a person might need some support to
undertake the journey rather than just the cost. I support the thrust
of both new clauses and hope that the Minister, should she find the
wording unsatisfactory, will be able to accommodate the views that have
been expressed with regard to sibling
contact.
Beverley
Hughes: We are all aware of the importance that
looked-after children place on their relationships with their brothers
and sisters and the importance of those relationships for their
well-being and progress, and in that regard we are all coming from the
same point of view. These are the relationships that, for most
children, endure throughout childhood and beyond and can provide that
much needed stability and emotional support that we are seeking in a
child’s life, so I share the sentiments behind amendments Nos. 7
and 8, which relate to the placing of siblings together.
With regard
to amendment No. 7, I have simply been advised that section 6 of the
Interpretation Act 1978, which applies to all other legislation, makes
it clear that in any piece of
legislation, “unless
the contrary intention appeals,...words in the singular include
the plural”,
and vice versa. I did
not know that before today, but think that it deals with amendment No.
7, for absolute
clarity. Amendment
No. 8 relates to the placement of siblings together. For looked-after
children it can be all too easy for relationships with siblings to be
lost by being placed separately, either because the different needs and
circumstances of individual family members might lead them along
different paths in care or because there are too many children to
accommodate, at least initially, in one foster family. We are extremely
concerned to ensure that children are placed with their siblings
wherever possible and where consistent with the welfare of each child.
We expect those placements to be maintained as
long as they remain suitable, in accordance with the overarching
responsibilities of the local authorities to safeguard and promote the
welfare of children for whom they are providing that type of
accommodation. Furthermore,
the Bill places an expectation on local authorities to ensure that
there is sufficient accommodation of a suitable type across the range
of accommodation needs. When we draw up the guidance on how local
authorities should fulfil that sufficiency duty and develop their
commissioning strategies, we will include references to the possible
need to accommodate sibling groups.
Mr.
Timpson: The right hon. Lady’s final comment
relates closely to the point that I was about to make about the
deficiency in the present system of foster carers who are able to take
sibling groups of three or more, which accounts for a fair proportion
of the children going through the care system. Will she clarify what
the Government propose to do to expand that group of foster carers to
ensure that sibling groups are not split up simply because there is not
provision, despite the spirit of the Bill, for them to remain together
within the care
system.
Beverley
Hughes: I share the hon. Gentleman’s views. As I
have said, we are emphasising the need for children to stay with
brothers and sisters where it is in their interests to do so, and we
are giving local authorities a duty to ensure that there is
sufficient suitable accommodation of various types. That duty is given
in the Bill, and in the guidance we will refer specifically to the need
to anticipate and make provision for a wider range of placements,
including those that will enable siblings to stay
together. Where
siblings are separated on entry to care, perhaps because of a lack of
capacity or because it is physically not possible to place them
together at that point, we expect that separation and the reasons for
it to be included in the care plan. If it is not possible to place
siblings together, IROs should track the arrangements that are being
made to reunite them at the earliest opportunity, so that that is in
the interest of each child, and that appropriate arrangements are made
for contact in the mean time.
Miss
Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove) (Con): Mr. Pope, I
apologise for not being here this morning and if I missed anything
important that is relevant to my question, but I wonder whether the
Minister has any figures that would help the Committee to understand
roughly how many children coming into care did so as two or three
siblings together. How many children came alone and how many came as
two, three or more together? My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and
Nantwich has suggested that, in his experience, a large number of
children coming from one family were more likely to be in this
position.
Beverley
Hughes: I do not have a breakdown of the number of
siblings and how many were in each grouping. The range is broad. Hon.
Members may be familiar with a recently publicised case where 14
children in one family were taken into care at various times. Clearly,
that is an extreme example of the sort of pressure that there can be on
local authorities. Much more normally,
where siblings are involved it tends to be groups of two or three. I
shall see whether figures are available and if so, I shall let the hon.
Lady have
them. The
child’s permanence record, which is prepared when a child is
being placed away from home long term, including for adoption, requires
an enormous amount of detail about each sibling to be recorded to
ensure that contact can be maintained or resumed in the future where
they are not being placed together. Our intentions are clear. Together
with the sufficiency duty that we are requiring local authorities to
take on, I cannot see that amendment No. 8 would make any difference in
practice to the duty in clause 9 in relation to placement.
The
amendment talks about maintaining the placement, but I cannot imagine
that local authorities would wilfully not support successful
placements—indeed, there would be a huge financial disincentive
to doing so. As a further strength, both in the new Children Act
guidance that we are completely rewriting and in the first ever
statutory guidance to independent reviewing officers, we will reinforce
the considerations in respect of sibling placements and the importance
of supporting sibling contact.
I thank my
hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, because the inclusion of new
section 22C(8)(c), which requires a local authority to provide
accommodation for siblings to live together, is a huge step forward. It
makes clear our intentions to local authorities, which we will support
and buttress in the guidance that we give to them.
The new
clauses deal with contact between siblings. Obviously, we are all aware
of the difficulties that contact presents for some children and
families who are separated. It can generate difficult, mixed feelings;
it requires careful planning, organisation and in some cases
supervision for that contact to be maintained when they have been
separated. Paragraph 15 of schedule 2 to the Children Act
1989, which my hon. Friend had diligently researched, explicitly
requires local authorities, as he said, to be proactive in not just
maintaining contact, but promoting it—indeed, it is
headed: “Promotion
and maintenance of contact between child and
family” Included
in that paragraph is a reference to “any relative.” As he
said, under section 105 of the Act, the definition of
“relative” specifically encompasses grandparents,
brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts and stepsiblings. The point is that
the law as it stands already requires local authorities to maintain
contact between siblings. I accept my hon. Friend’s
argument—up to a point—that we have to work from section
34 to schedule 2 and on to the definitions in section 105 of the 1989
Act; none the less it is there in statute, and we would achieve nothing
more by accepting the
amendments.
| 
