The
Minister for Children, Young People and Families (Beverley
Hughes): I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She is
right: the intention in clarifying the provision is to alleviate local
authorities’ confusion about how much flexibility they have in
providing financial
support to promote children’s welfare and
their upbringing by members of their family or friends. It is important
to say that that does not mean that local authorities can be expected
to provide income maintenance for families—I made that point
earlier in our discussions. It is important that the lines are clear on
where families need to go for that sort of income maintenance and on
whom the additional costs for taking in a child, who is perhaps a
member of the family, lie. It is important that it is clear that those
costs are appropriate for local authorities to consider
meeting.
We will
produce guidance, which will make it plain that families are expected
to take full advantage of the sources of financial support available to
them. The guidance will also set out examples of additional costs that
families will incur. Obviously we expect families to apply for child
benefit and other state benefits that relate to caring for children,
but the clause will enable local authorities to meet the transitional
costs of taking in children.
Annette
Brooke: I am going for belt and braces here, because I am
sure that there will be consultation on that guidance, but may I have
assurances that there will be consultation on that guidance, because I
think that the input of bodies that have made representations to us
would be helpful in ensuring that we have coverage. I appreciate the
point made in our previous debate about not supporting general family
costs.
Beverley
Hughes: We will consult on all the guidance that we
produce, so we will consult on that as well. We want to remove local
authorities’ confusion and to enable them to make payments to
families and kinship carers in a way that they have felt constrained
from doing in the past. I hope that the hon. Lady is happy with my
assurance.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 24
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
25Breaks
from caring for disabled
children
Tim
Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in
clause 25, page 19, line 38, at
end insert
‘appropriate’. The
amendment is probing and is intended to give the Committee the
opportunity to ask questions about the clause. We welcome the clause
and the work that has gone into it. The measure originated with the
Secretary of State who, when he was a Back Bencher, did some good work
on the role of carers for disabled children and the need to give better
support for carers, who are often parents or other family members, and
who do a remarkable job caring for disabled children day in, day out.
Many of them do so in challenging conditions, with little recognition
and not nearly enough support from the state.
Without the
work of those carers, the bill that would fall on the state would be
considerable, let alone the additional hardship for the disabled
children themselves. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to carers,
who take upon themselves, often unasked and without demurring from the
challenge, the enormous role of looking after
disabled children and giving them as much love and attention as they
possibly can within a home environment. That is to be applauded, and we
should be putting every service at their disposal, rather than putting
obstacles in their way, which happens too often. It is always a great
frustration to me when I am told about yet another piece of bureaucracy
or yet more form filling that a carer will have to go through to get a
basic entitlement for the person for whom they care. It is
welcome that the Bill includes a provision for carers to take breaks
from their duties, that it recognises them in that way, and that the
Government have given a sum of money for that purpose. We hope that
that is only the first instalment, because this is a huge enterprise
and we are talking about a large number of children and their carers. I
have seen carers in my constituency for whom the odd bit of
respite—it could be a weekend off or a week away, just to regain
their sanity and to spend time with their partners, husbands, wives or
whatever—can make all the difference. It can help them to
recharge their batteries and allow them to get on with what would
otherwise be the 365-day-a-year job of looking after somebody with a
disability. That could provide an enormous boost and would be great for
allowing people to recharge their batteries to enable them physically
to be able to do the job. It is also a positive recognition that the
job that they do is greatly appreciated. We should be doing more to
make it easier for them to carry out their
job. The
Opposition welcome the extra provisions that will enable carers to have
breaks. Subsection (3) is about assisting
“individuals
who provide care for such children to continue to do so, or to do so
more effectively, by giving them breaks from caring”.
The amendment would
simply add a rider that the breaks should be
“appropriate”. Usually, people do not ask for much, but
they ask for breaks at appropriate times—when pressure has built
up, for example, or when they can take a whole week off. We are not
talking about a couple of hours here and a couple of hours there,
although some carers need such breaks. Carers simply want to know that
they are entitled to breaks and that they can rely on the provision, so
that they can take every Friday evening off or one Friday evening a
month or whatever it might be. In any case, it must be
“appropriate”. It is no good the local authority saying,
“We can provide respite care for you between 2 o’clock
and 6 o’clock on a Wednesday afternoon every fifth week,”
or such like if that does not fit in with what the carer needs and can
use.
Inserting
the word “appropriate”, subject to definitions within
regulations, would give that extra bit of strength to the clause.
Carers would not simply get a token bit of respite, for which they are
meant to be grateful, but “appropriate” respite, as far
as practicably possible, so that it really makes a difference and they
are in a better position to resume and continue their very important
role as carers for disabled
children. 5.15
pm
Angela
Watkinson: I welcome the clause, which is a valuable part
of the Bill, but I also support my hon. Friend in wishing to add the
word “appropriate” towards the end of subsection (3). A
break from caring for a child with special needs has to be free from
worry;
otherwise, it does not have the desired effect. That is especially
important when the child has special needs that relate to behaviour or
the way in which they respond to people and their surroundings.
Children on the autistic disorder spectrum, in particular, are a good
example: they do not respond well to change in either their environment
or the people around them. They like things to be familiar and they
enjoy their routine. They are also accomplished escapers, so it is very
important that the provision for them is in a safe environment and that
highly trained and appropriately trained people are looking after
them.
“Appropriate”
provision means provision of a safe environment and specially trained
staff who understand the challenges that such children face. Most
children’s services know very well what is needed and are highly
sympathetic to the families caring for a child with profound needs, but
often they do not have the funding to provide that very specific,
appropriate
accommodation. There
is an organisation in my constituency called RAGS—Romford
Autistic Group Support. It is a group of parents who have children on
the autistic spectrum. I happen to be patron of that charity, and when
I meet the parents they tell me stories about their everyday lives that
illustrate how difficult their lives are. They do not experience
normality as we accept it. Lack of sleep is a recurring theme. One
mother told me that her child can stay awake for a week and the only
time she can get to sleep is when he is at school and she puts a
“Do not disturb” notice on her front door. It is
difficult to socialise. It is difficult to invite people to the home or
to go out, even to the supermarket, because of the unpredictability of
the children’s behaviour. There is great pressure on siblings,
who are not able to invite friends
home. One
mother told me last week at the organisation’s annual dinner
that she has no off-street parking, and if there is no parking space
outside her home when she gets back, the child will not get out of the
car. If she stops outside an unfamiliar house, he will not get out
because it is not his home, so she has to drive round for a while and
then come back to their home and wait and hope that there will be a
parking space outside it. Such things are taken for granted by those
parents as part of their everyday life, but to us they seem an
horrendous mountain to
climb. The
challenge of coping with school holidays, when parents do not have that
break when the child is at school, compounds the difficulties of
everyday life. The challenge of just coping is enormous, and that is
what makes respite care extremely important. I welcome the clause, but
I think that the word “appropriate” is especially
important when we are discussing provision for children with profound
needs. The situation is unlike that of a child with, for example,
mobility problems. It is relatively easy to make adaptations to
buildings with ramps and low switches, so that children using
wheelchairs can be accommodated. For children who have behavioural
problems or who do not understand their surroundings, it is much more
difficult to make proper provision and to have the staff who understand
what they need, and there is a huge cost involved in that. I hope that
the Minister will give some thought to how local authorities, with the
best will in the world, will be able to provide what the Bill requires
them to.
Annette
Brooke: I would like to place it on the record that the
Liberal Democrats strongly support the clause. We are pleased that it
was included in the Bill, because there was considerable debate about
whether it was necessary to place such a duty on the local authority. I
am particularly pleased that Lord Adonis came to the view that it
should be in the Bill.
I am not
entirely convinced by the argument about the word
“appropriate”, so I will listen to the Minister’s
response to the amendment. I appreciate that the Government have put
considerable financial resources into short breaks. It is very welcome,
but it is such a huge area that almost unlimited demands could be
placed upon that relatively small pot. As I understand it, for the most
part that money will go to children with the most severe disabilities.
I find it difficult to believe that a local authority would go out of
its way to offer inappropriate respite care. I realise that the
Minister may have more to say about that. There is no suggestion that I
do not want disabled children to have appropriate care, but I am not
convinced about this
amendment.
Kevin
Brennan: I am sorry to be so disappointing. It is part of
the job sometimes. We all welcome the clause. The hon. Member for East
Worthing and Shoreham was right to single out the Secretary of State
for the work that he has done. Many other hon. Members, including my
hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood
(Mrs. Humble) and my right hon. Friend the Member for
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), had
parliamentary hearings on this matter.
As the hon.
Member for Upminster said, we all come across examples in our
constituencies of parents who have these sorts of caring
responsibilities, looking after children who are often severely
disabled. One of my constituents, Nia Wyn, wrote a bestseller on the
subject called “Blue Sky July”, which was the book of the
week on Radio 4 and book of the month on Radio 5. It was published by
my wife, incidentally, and I recommend it to all members of the
Committee. That is not a plug; the book is very pertinent to this
subject.
This is very
serious matter and everybody welcomes this initiative. Without respite
services, parents often have no relief from their caring
responsibilities. I am in no doubt that without short-break provision,
the care population would grow considerably. That would be a cost to
the state and to society as a whole. We should not forget either the
wider benefits of short-break provision beyond relieving parents. Any
parent can testify that it is beneficial and healthy for children to
gain positive experiences away from home, to develop wider social
networks and be exposed to new influences, be that with another trusted
adult or in leisure or youth work based activities, where disabled
children and young people can mix with their peers. Such opportunities
for children’s personal and social development are
vital. Members
of the Committee will know that the Government are committed to
transforming short-break services and have set aside, as the hon.
Gentleman mentioned, significant additional funding for short-break
services over the next three years: £359 million is to be
provided to local authorities, alongside further funding to health care
bodies to enable a combined approach. Clause 25 will ensure that
short-break provision becomes a recognised part of local authority
essential services, reflecting the importance that is attached to these
services by families.
When
I spoke to the young carers at Fairbourne manor last weekend, one of
the things that they greatly welcomed was respite provision, because
about a third of young carers look after a sibling rather than a
parent. They welcomed the additional funds, as well as the broader
measures in the carers strategy. The clause adds the provision of short
breaks for parents and others caring for disabled children to the range
of services that local authorities must provide for families, and in so
doing puts the services on a statutory footing.
The
new duty makes it clear that breaks should be provided not just for
those carers who are struggling to maintain their caring role, but to
those for whom a break would improve the quality of the care that they
can offer. Short breaks should not only be used as crisis intervention,
but should also help carers to maintain and improve the quality of care
that they naturally wish to provide. I saw good examples of that in
Cardiff a few months ago, when I visited an NCH home where respite care
was provided for children. The children I saw there were at the severe
end of the autistic spectrum. We cannot take a one-size-fits-all
approach.
We are
taking steps to ensure that the significant investment that the
Government will be making over the next three years will result in
transformed services that are responsive to individual needs. It will
include the appointment of a national support body to assist local
authorities and primary care trusts in delivering change. We will also
use a combination of regulation and guidance to ensure that local
authorities design and deliver a range and variety of short-break
provision capable of fitting the often complex lives of disabled
children and their carers.
Now for the
disappointing bit. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham may
not be surprised to hear that we believe that the amendment is
unnecessary. Clause 25 adds provision for short breaks for parents and
others caring for disabled children to the range of services that local
authorities must provide. Part 1 of schedule 2 to the Children Act
1989, which the clause amends, provides for some of the specific
services that the local authority must provide under its general duties
under section 17 of that Act. The general duty is
“to safeguard
and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in
need”
and
to “promote
the upbringing...by their families, by providing a range and level
of services appropriate to those children’s
needs.”
I thank hon.
Members for their kind support for the clause and for their indulgence
on the legal and technical point of substance. I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will agree that the amendment is unnecessary, and I therefore
ask him to withdraw
it.
| 
