Mr.
Kidney: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there is already
a welfare checklist in the 1989 Act, but there is no reference in the
new clause to the way in which its checklist would interact with the
Act’s checklist. What is his thinking? Why do we need two
checklists, with some checks that are the same and some that are
different? It would be a recipe for confusion if the situation either
was not clarified or was completely different.
[Interruption.]
Tim
Loughton: Yes. Checklist or checklists. You say tomayto,
we say tomato—it’s all the same thing, is it
not?
The hon.
Gentleman makes an appropriate point, however. I do not want to
replicate provisions so that one has to go through two different
checklists, but the checklist in new clause 1 is germane to
looked-after children. Clearly, the 1989 Act will retain its
appropriateness and its sections on the welfare of the child their
paramountcy, but we are dealing specifically with children in the care
system, whereas the 1989 Act deals with more than just those children.
The new clause has its place.
No doubt the
Minister will say that she cannot accept the new clause for the reason
that the hon. Gentleman just gave—that it causes confusion or it
replicates. However, it is a genuine effort to measure whether local
authorities are achieving what the legislation wants them to
achieve—its spirit. With reference to “have regard
to”, they may have been doing less, and not achieving the very
best outcome for the child, than they would have done if they had had
to measure up to the checklist before
us.
Mr.
Kidney: The hon. Gentleman’s answer is wrong, and I
am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the
family law barrister behind him, could tell him that the welfare
checklist in the 1989 Act relates to circumstances whenever a court is
asked to make a decision. It could take place in private family
proceedings or in public care proceedings. It could also take place
when a local authority seeks a care order, or when someone wants a
variation of an order, wants to bring an end to an order or wants
contact with a child who is already in care. So, when the hon. Member
for
East Worthing and Shoreham says that his welfare checklist relates only
to children in the care system, and that the list in the 1989 Act
relates to some other children or to children generally, he is just
wrong.
Tim
Loughton: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
doing the Minister’s job for her. It might be more accurate to
say that the new clause relates to children in the care system as set
out in the Bill—that all the new factors that the Bill brings in
should be measured against the checklist. It is an innovative attempt
at being more appropriate to the changes that we all welcome in the
legislation, so that local authorities can be properly measured. The
welfare checklist—with its vagueness in certain
areas, for obvious reasons going back now 20
years—could be tightened up by the more detailed provisions
before us. I fully appreciate that competing priorities are a
possibility. However, when it comes to judging whether a local
authority has done its job in promoting kinship care or sibling care,
and in keeping children closer to home, which the Bill will bring
about, it is that checklist that will have to be used to see whether
local authorities have measured
up. 6.15
pm The
hon. Gentleman is right in so far as we are talking about the same pool
of children, but we are talking about new legislation and new
requirements. If we are serious about wanting to ensure that those
requirements make a difference, we need a test against which local
authorities should be prepared to be judged, one against which their
performance could be found wanting—or found to be fulfilling the
real spirit of the legislation that we are all so eager to bring in. On
that basis, I am keen that the new clause should be considered by the
Committee.
Annette
Brooke: I welcome clause 9. I have not yet had the
opportunity to express those warm words. It is significant that there
is so much common ground among Members. We all agree on the outcomes
that we wish to achieve, but it is the mechanisms that will ensure they
can be achieved that are under debate.
I speak in
support of new clause 27. The payments that might be made to kinship
carers vary between local authorities, but they are made at a time when
the carers desperately need support. I am aware that some authorities
can be more generous with the budget made available to them by social
services, and that others are not.
There are
all sorts of reasons why a kinship carer may be short of money at times
of crisis, and that might put pressure on the relationships that we are
talking about—relationships that we want to flourish. I know of
an example in my constituency. A grandmother had to pay considerable
babysitting fees so that she could keep her one night out every week.
That did not seem unreasonable, but I was surprised at how much she had
to pay. It ate up the entire sum that she was given by social services.
I mention it because a grandparent taking on a 14-year-old girl and not
wishing to leave her at home unaccompanied is very worthy but
expensive. We need to consider the matter further. I imagine that we
will be discussing it again when we reach clause 24, but the new clause
fits in well at this stage because of the necessity, when appropriate,
of giving all the support that we can for kinship care.
I
might also say a few warm words on new clause 1. The principle that the
hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is trying to achieve is
rather interesting. I am not sure about the exact details, and the
title seems to throw things into disarray, but we nevertheless need
more in the Bill than what we have now that will give a stronger
message to local authorities. Something like new clause 1, perhaps with
a different title, might become as significant as the welfare checklist
was in the context of the Children Act 1989, not least because the Bill
is meant to be another landmark piece of legislation in a highly
specialised area.
The new
clauses deal with two different things, and they need to be approached
carefully. I hope that the Minister will pick up on them and not
dismiss them entirely.
Beverley
Hughes: New clauses 27 and 1 are clearly intended to
ensure that, as we discussed earlier, local authorities should better
consider the needs of children being cared for by family and friends,
and when that is happening we need also to consider the needs of the
parents themselves. However, it is important to note that many
excellent services are already available in the best local authority
areas, whether provided by them or third sector partners. We have to
ensure that those services are available no matter which area of the
country people live
in. Chapter
two of “Care Matters” sets out how we intend to make
significant improvements to the support for carers who are either
family or friends. In particular it sets out in statutory guidance the
expectations of an effective service to those carers. That will address
issues that authorities need to consider when they are commissioning
services, such as widening support to include financial benefits to
which carers may be entitled, and an appropriate assessment process in
which the relative is approved as a foster carer. Obviously, we will
consult widely as we develop the new framework to ensure that we get it
right. It
is important to remember that section 17 of the Children Act 1989
already places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and
promote the welfare of children in need in their area and to promote
their upbringing by their families by providing a wide range of
services that are appropriate to children’s needs.
As the hon.
Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned, we are already
seeking, through clause 24 of the Bill, to amend section 17(6) which,
at the moment, restricts the making of payments to exceptional
circumstances. We will no doubt debate that clause when we get there,
but the intention is to give local authorities a wider discretion to
provide financial support on a longer-term basis if they are satisfied
that to do so would safeguard the child’s welfare.
We want to
see more relative carers receiving financial and other support from
local authorities when it is needed. The serious problem with the
amendment is that it would, in effect, remove the discretionary aspect
of section 17 for this category of children and family carers and
effectively give family carers an entitlement in law that birth
parents, who may have similar difficulties, currently do not
have.
We have to
be very clear that it is not the role of local authorities to provide
general income maintenance for families, and nor are they resourced to
do so. Carers
who are family or friends are already entitled to a
range of financial supports similar to those that parents are entitled
to when caring for their own children, such as child benefit and tax
credits. Neither of those are affected by any payments made under
section 17. Carers can qualify for other benefits on broadly the same
terms as parents generally. If they are bringing up a child on their
own and unable to work, they may claim income support on the same basis
as other lone parents. The main problem—I very much understand
the intention here—is that the measure would give an entitlement
in law to family carers that birth parents do not have. That is why I
cannot accept this particular amendment. Turning to
new clause 1, there is a great deal to be said for all the principles
underpinning the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing
and Shoreham. In fact, when we looked, they were nearly all included in
other pieces of legislation, particularly the Children Act. If they
were not, they were included in the Bill. I think that the hon.
Gentleman has put forward a very powerful proposition that all such
principles should all be brigaded in one place. We all reflect and
understand the way in which the welfare check list in the 1989 Act has
been readily understood and is on the tips of the tongues of everyone
who works with children; they know about all the measures because they
are in one place, in a list, and it has had a powerful impact. Although
I do not think that we should include this amendment in the Bill
because the issues already exist—and I can send the hon.
Gentleman the collation that we have done—in other pieces of
legislation, the idea of brigading all of the elements together in one
place is an excellent one. I assure him that, when we set out the new
care planning guidance, I and the Under-Secretary of State will set out
a list of key principles, including any that we might have missed that
might be elsewhere in legislation.
That will
have the same effect as a check list, such as the one in the 1989 Act,
although in this case the list will be set out in guidance, given that
very specific provisions exist in law already. Brigading those themes
in one place will have a powerful effect by setting out very clearly
the principles that we think should govern every aspect of social care
work practice in relation to looked-after children. Indeed, the list in
his new clause underpins the Bill’s four themes—good
parenting, stability, the voice of the child and higher aspirations for
children. I hope, therefore, that he accepts my assurance that we will
set out that list at the beginning of the care planning
guidance.
Helen
Southworth: Will the Minister also look at proposed new
section 22C(6)(d) dealing with placements? According to the explanatory
notes, placements
may include, for
example, supporting young people to live independently in rented
accommodation, residential employment, or in supported
lodgings/hostels.” Will
she make explicit whether proposed new subsection (6)(d)
will be subject to the Ofsted inspection process? Furthermore, a case
was brought to my attention of a 15-year-old girl placed be her local
authority in bed and breakfast accommodation. Will she make it clear in
guidance that accommodation under the subsection must be suitable and
appropriate.
Beverley
Hughes: I understand the spirit of my hon. Friend’s
interventions. I shall have to write to her on the technical detail,
and I shall do so before our next sitting, if she will accept
that.
Tim
Loughton: Mine was not the lead new clause, but I would
still like to reply briefly to the Minister, who gave a very gracious
answer. Whatever the mechanics of my proposal, and however it might
conflict with provisions elsewhere in legislation, it was a genuine
attempt to brigade—as she put it—the key principles,
which are
appropriate for the children and affected in the Bill. If she is happy
to set out such a list in the front of the care planning guidance
protocols, I would be delighted, and I look forward to seeing the
fruits of our labours.
Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
9 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Schedule
1 agreed
to. Further
consideration adjourned—[Mr.
Foster.] Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Six o’clock till
Thursday 26 June at Nine
o’clock.
| 
