Appendix 1
Government's response to the First Report from
the Children, Schools and Families Committee, Session 2007-08
First Report of Session 2007-08: Children and
Young Persons Bill
Thank you for your report into the Children and Young
Persons Bill. I have studied the report with great interest. I
am particularly grateful for your comment about the development
of Care Matters policy, that in "many ways this
is an exemplary way for policy to be developed and implemented,
and the Government is to be congratulated for a thorough and serious
consultative process." I hope that this response to the
points raised in the report will maintain this high standard,
reflecting the importance I personally attach to improving the
lives of all children and young people in care. I have set out
my response to reflect the structure of your report.
Social Work Services
The pilots need to fill the evidence gap on social
work practices. It is vital that they are properly evaluated and
that they are not rolled out unless there is clear evidence that
they will provide the essential continuity and stability for looked-after
children. (Paragraph 12)
As the Committee suggests the pilots are designed
to test whether social work practices can make a real difference
to children in care; indeed Prof. Julian le Grand wrote in the
foreword to Consistent Care Matters this "could
only be resolved by observing the idea at work".[2]
It is important, and we have made clear to the House, that we
will undertake a robust and thorough evaluation to assess whether
this delivers benefits for looked-after children. We will commission
an independent organisation to conduct a comprehensive evaluation
to ensure we are able to make informed decisions about any longer
term roll-out and are in a position to know what works best to
provide stability and better outcomes for our most vulnerable
children. Further detail about the social work practices pilots
project was published in a prospectus this month.[3]
We do not see inspection as the answer to concerns
about services being withdrawn at short notice by a private provider,
as in the case of the Sedgemoor children's homes. We note the
Minister's point about Ofsted being the registration authority
for homes, but in that case and with the proposed social work
practices, it seems to us that contract terms or some other form
of regulation would be more appropriate ways of controlling these
problems. Throughout our evidence, continuity and stability for
looked-after children are emphasised as key, and therefore some
sort of safety net is needed. (Paragraph 13)
Whilst I recognise the concern of the Committee in
relation to Sedgemoor, I do firmly believe that a diverse provider
base is necessary to meet the needs of children and young people
in care. Independent Fostering Agencies and independent children's
home providers secure good outcomes for the children they serve.
As the Committee notes, HMCI is the registration
authority for children's homes and as such we think it is entirely
appropriate for the notification of closure, at least three months
in advance of the planned closure, to be to HMCI. The existing
National Minimum Standards for children's homes (under review
at present), which children's homes are required to meet, include
requirements about financial stability of the registered provider.
These standards can be taken into account in any proceedings against
a provider for an offence under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act
2000.
We do, of course, expect local authorities to maintain
close relationships with providers with whom they contract for
services and with whom the children they are looking after are
placed, and to respond appropriately to actual or anticipated
changes in the provider's ability to provide accommodation, whether
precipitated by financial considerations or not. That is also
why providers are also required to give notification of closure
three months ahead of the date of closure to the local authority
in which the home is based. In such circumstances there is a clear
statutory framework for placement moves that local authorities
must follow to fulfil their responsibilities for safeguarding
promoting the welfare of the looked-after children in their care.
Education
We welcome the Minister's comments that he is
giving consideration to increased support for those undertaking
other education and training and not just those in higher education.
We recommend that a broader bursary system is introduced for looked-after
children in post-16 education and training. (Paragraph 18)
We are committed to providing care leavers with access
to education and training that best suits their needs. The tuition
costs of a first level qualification or a first level 3 qualification
will be met in full for all young people, including care leavers.
To better support care leavers, we are extending the right to
a personal adviser to age 25 for those who are in, or want to
return to, education or training. In addition care leavers will
be entitled to a pathway plan which sets out the services necessary
to support them so they are able to make a successful transition
to adulthood. It will include the services that are needed to
meet each young person's learning needs to help them follow their
chosen route into employment and economic independence. Local
authorities can also contribute towards care leavers' living expenses
relating to a course of education or training and meet other expenses
associated with education or training.
The higher education bursary will set out a minimum
level of financial support that local authorities must provide
to all care leavers who go to higher education. We have introduced
this measure in response to evidence of the higher levels of debt
experienced by care leavers in higher education, and because responses
to the Care Matters green paper showed that young people
in care perceive cost to be a particular barrier to going on to
higher education. I believe that we must do all we can to enable
more care leavers to enter higher education and it is right that
we both remove the barriers that they face and provide incentive
for them to do so.
We expect all existing Academies to designate
a teacher to have responsibility for the educational achievement
of looked-after children. If the Minister's voluntary approach
does not result in every Academy making such an appointment we
expect him to reconsider his decision to exclude Academies from
the legislation. (Paragraph 22)
As the Committee is no doubt aware, Academies are
given the freedom to innovate to improve the education of some
of our most disadvantaged children. I know that Academy principals
have demonstrated their commitment to improving the education
of looked-after children. We will continue to work with them through
their school improvement partners and my Department's academy
educational advisors to ensure that they adopt the best practice
in relation to looked-after children. Of the 83 open academies
surveyed in November 2007, 82 already had a designated person
for looked-after children.
Academies are regulated through their Funding Agreements
rather than through legislation. We are committed to maintaining
the existing light-touch regulatory framework for them, which
allows them to innovate to raise standards in the most challenging
circumstances. Nevertheless, due to the importance we attach to
improving the education of looked-after children we will specify
in the funding agreement of future Academies that they must have
a designated teacher for looked-after children.
Representation
The Minister told us of his concern that the independent
reviewing officer [IRO] system was not yet working effectively,
and the Government acknowledges this in the Bill by making provision
for the Secretary of State to establish a body to be the employer
of independent reviewing officers to provide greater independence
if matters do not improve. The Government needs to be explicit
about how it will judge if this change is needed, and how long
it will allow present circumstances to continue without perceived
improvement. (Paragraph 30)
I am pleased the Committee recognises that we are
serious about improvement in this area, and the important role
of the IRO in providing the stability and support that looked-after
children need by ensuring that the child's views and wishes are
fully represented, and reviews of the care plans are conducted
rigorously.
The Bill does contain provisions that would enable
the Secretary of State to establish a national IRO service with
flexibility to determine the nature and function of such a service,
from accreditation and training, to appointing and employing IROs
to address any shortcomings evidence may demonstrate. However,
we are committed, through the strengthening provisions in the
Bill, and through the implementation of Care Matters, to
realising real improvements in the current arrangements.
We will monitor the impact of our reforms in this
area through detailed consideration of evidence from Ofsted inspections;
information from the new annual Ministerial stocktake on children
in care; and from an independent evaluation of the IRO service
in 2011. We will also take into consideration our statistical
returns and any other evidence. A full review will necessarily
include the views of key stakeholders and in particular will reflect
the experience of children and young people, as well as their
parents and carers.
The power to establish a new national IRO service
is subject to a "sunset clause", so that the power will
lapse within 7 years of Royal Assent if not used. We believe that
seven years gives Government the appropriate amount of time in
which to assess the impact of the strengthening measures in the
Bill on the effectiveness of IROs in improving outcomes for looked-after
children, decide whether we need to introduce further changes
to the way the IRO functions are delivered and if necessary the
right lead time, for example, for CAFCASS to establish a national
service.
If the new arrangements for independent reviewing
officers do not improve the way the system works, the Government
should look again at independent advocacy and whether there is
a need to replace the neutral independence of the IRO with active
advocacy on behalf of the child or young person. (Paragraph 31)
I thank the Committee for their considered view on
this point and we will bear this in mind when assessing the effectiveness
of IROs in their important role, including their active engagement
of children and young people in the care planning and review process.
Every looked-after child should have one key individual
to whom he or she can turn, and wherever possible the child should
be entitled to say which individual should perform that role.
(Paragraph 35)
The concept of one key individual, or a lead professional,
is an important one, particularly for looked-after children where,
as the Committee recognised, consistency and stability of relationships
is critical. In most cases the lead professional for a looked-after
child is the social worker who is allocated to plan for their
care and support. There will, of course, be other adults in the
child's life who will have an important role in providing them
with the help they need—e.g. foster carers or children's
home staff. For most looked-after children, their parents and
families will also continue to play an important role.
Local authorities have statutory responsibilities
for seeking and giving due consideration to children's views in
taking decisions that affect them. This includes taking account
of any preferences a child expresses about the adults responsible
for their care.
Placements
The welfare of a child and his or her ability
to thrive must always be paramount, but, given that, we expect
the benefits of a placement with family and friends to be considered
seriously before other options are chosen. (Paragraph 39)
I am pleased that the Committee agrees with us on
this point, and this is part of the rationale behind our replacement
of section 23 of the Children Act 1989. Local authorities are
required to determine the most appropriate placement for a child,
that is one that best safeguards and promotes their welfare, and
in that assessment is required to give a preference to placements
with someone connected to the child, such as a relative or friend.
Children tell us that maintaining links with their
friends and family is important to them. Evidence suggests that
outcomes for children looked-after by family or friends are at
least as good, and sometimes better, than for other looked-after
children, despite the fact that children placed with family or
friends have equally challenging needs. Placements with family
or friends tend to be more stable, children feel loved, report
high levels of satisfaction, appear to be as safe and their behaviour
is perceived to be less of a problem. In addition it is easier
for children who are looked-after by family or friends to maintain
a sense of family and cultural identity. This was reflected in
the Care Matters White Paper, and underpins the implementation
going forward. It is, of course, important as the Committee suggests,
to balance this against the circumstances of individual case and
the decisions made have to be in the interests of the individual
child.
We acknowledge the Government's attempts to address
problems with the original text of the Bill. We recognise that
the issue is likely to be a matter for debate once again when
the Bill reaches the Commons. We hope that the Government will
continue to take the constructive approach that it has done in
the Lords when the debate continues in this House. (Paragraph
41)
I thank the Committee for their endorsement of our
approach so far.
We note the Minister's outline of what the Government
is doing to pilot post-18 fostering arrangements, and we ask him
to provide further information about the pilots, where they are
being held and the issues that they are designed to clarify. (Paragraph
45)
I regret that I cannot as yet provide information
on the location of the pilots as my Department only put out an
invitation to tender in late February and is currently in the
process of assessing the bids from local authorities. We plan
to have the Staying Put: 18+ Family Placement pilots in place
shortly. I will ask my officials to let the Committee Clerk have
the details as soon as these are available.
The "Staying Put" pilots will offer a significant
change in some young people's experience, giving them the opportunity
to remain with their former carers into legal adulthood; and enabling
them to move to greater independence when they are ready and have
been properly prepared, rather than when they reach a predetermined
age limit. These pilots support an integrated approach to care
planning where plans to enable children and young people to make
a positive transition to adulthood are based on a thorough assessment
of their full range of their needs and gives weight to the young
person's views.
We are piloting these 18+ arrangements in the first
instance because we want to understand the possible practical
and financial problems and develop practical solutions to issues
such as:
- financial barriers that could
arise such as the tax status of carers for care leavers and difficulties
obtaining appropriate insurance;
- how local authorities manage to develop new fostering
capacity to meet the needs of younger children entering care if
young people are remaining longer with their former foster carers;
and
- how carers will be trained and supported to maintain
a positive relationship with young people, who will no longer
be "children in care" but independent young adults making
their transition to adulthood; and how they actively enable these
young people to develop the social and practical skills that they
will need to be confident successful young adults when they move
to greater independence.
We will commission an independent evaluation of the
pilots to assess the contribution of this model of continuing
care to enabling young people to develop into confident successful
adults.
Given that the opportunity for further legislation
is likely to be limited in the near future, we recommend that
the Government considers amending the Bill to provide for regulations
in respect of post-18 fostering if the pilots require it, following
the example of proposals for independent reviewing officers already
in the Bill. (Paragraph 46)
When I gave evidence to the Committee I said that
powers existed under the existing legislation to make regulations,
but I was unable to state definitively that further legislation
would not be required. We have now examined the relevant legislation
further and we are confident that the Care Standards Act 2000
provides appropriate regulation making powers. Regulations could
be made under this Act to require registration with HMCI of authorities
that make arrangements for 18 to 21 year old former relevant children
to live with 'foster carers'. The Government will decide whether
regulations are appropriate on the basis of the findings of the
Staying Put: 18+ Family Placement pilots.
The Minister says that he wants more time for
the voluntary notification system for private fostering to work
effectively. Given the concerns about some of the children in
this situation, we ask the Government to give its assessment of
the numbers of children in private fostering arrangements, to
set out how it intends to increase levels of notification, and
to explain its criteria for assessing whether the voluntary system
is working or not. The Bill would allow another three years for
a registration system to come into being. If it becomes apparent
before then that the voluntary notification system is not operating
effectively, the Government should immediately bring forward a
registration scheme, having put in place the necessary arrangements
in advance. (Paragraph 49)
Government believes the current arrangements should
offer an appropriate level of protection to privately fostered
children. However, as the Committee is aware in the Children Act
2004 we also took the precaution of providing powers for regulations
to be made requiring the registration of anyone proposing to foster
a child privately.
We believe, and I understand that organisations such
as the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) who
work extensively on private fostering agree, that we should seek
to ensure the current arrangements are operated effectively and
evaluate them more fully before introducing a new registration
regime. It would not be in the interests either of children or
of those who work with them to do otherwise. Our primary aim should
be to ensure that there are fewer "hidden" or high risk
private fostering arrangements. It is not clear at this point
that registration would encourage more private foster carers to
come forward than at present—and indeed there may be a risk
that such an approach would be seen as heavy handed and deter
those private foster carers who offer welcome help in some family
situations.
On the specific question regarding the number of
private fostering arrangements, figures published in November
last year show that at 31 March 2007 1,250 children were reported
to be in private fostering arrangements in England. We recognise
this is an under representation of the true figure and this is
why we are taking steps to improve the rate of notification. The
annual data published in November each year shows that notifications
of private fostering arrangements have risen in each of the last
three years.
We believe there is more we can do to promote the
good practice this rise in notifications signals. We will gather
and publish evidence of good practice. We will also seek to support
better awareness of the notification requirement and private fostering
amongst the public in general, private foster carers, parents
and the range of professionals who might come into contact with
privately fostered children. For example we are working through
Government Offices to raise awareness, particularly in areas with
low notification rates; and my Department is funding BAAF to run
a national private fostering awareness raising week, from which
good practice will be widely disseminated. We will also consider
how better to target advice and guidance to different groups of
potential private foster carers or other third parties; and we
will consider how effectively arrangements are working to protect
certain groups—for example children who are being illegally
trafficked, about whom we published specific guidance in December
2007.
We will not be able to evaluate the impact of this
activity until November 2009, when the annual 2008-09 notification
data is due to be published. If that data shows that our activity
has not significantly increased notifications, and evidence continues
to suggest that a significant number of private fostering arrangements
are not notified; or if other research suggests that privately
fostered children are at particular risk, despite an increase
in notifications, we would then consider, in consultation with
stakeholders, the case for registration. If the case were made
out, we would then have to develop and consult on detailed proposals
for policy and on regulations and guidance to implement these.
This work is likely to take until 2011.
2 Page 3, Foreword, Consistent Care Matters: Exploring
the Potential of Social Work Practices, June 2007. Back
3
Piloting the Social Work Practice Model: A prospectus, DCSF,
May 2008, available at: www.teachernet.gov.uk/publications REF:
DCSF-00389-2008 Back
| 
