| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that extremely concise, precise and explicit explanation of the effect of these provisions. I have a vision of lawyers in the future poring over the noble Lady's speech, because it will probably be the best gloss available, if this part of the Bill stands, on precisely what effect the provisions are designed to have.
In many ways the length to which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, had to go in explaining how this part of the Bill would operate demonstrates its convoluted nature, and the reason why so many stakeholders believe that this is not the best way of proceeding. That is why, although it may appear to be slightly harsh in some cases, the placement order which goes to court—which then does not have Clauses 30, 31 and 33 involved, but simply requires one to apply to court, or the agency comes back and removes in those circumstances—is preferable as a much clearer way forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth—whose speech I found very interesting—described this part of the Bill as convoluted. Having done a fair amount of reading between our previous Sitting and today, she has clearly come to grips with it. It is very difficult. We on these benches would much prefer to see something clearer which gave that certainty. The agency would have powers of removal if it applied to the court and the order was made. However, the point at which discussions truly occurred would be in court when the placement order is dealt with.
There may well be issues about resources and about whether access to court is available and so on. However, when this House legislates, we assume that the resources will be made available to implement that legislation. We do that in relation to our NHS reform Bills every day of the week. If Bills are passed but resources are not available, we want to know why. The same would be true if we passed legislation simplifying the process so that placement orders had in each case to be dealt with in the court.
Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I think that much of the complexity attaches to the amendment rather than to the clauses themselves. We are dealing with three steps here. Under the clauses on placement by consent, one can ask for the child back. If one does, the agency must return the child within seven or 14 days depending on whether the child is placed or waiting to be placed. The only exception is if the local authority has to seek an adoption placement order. That is the essence of the clauses. However, I am grateful to him for describing what I thought was a complicated matter as he did. Nevertheless, I believe that it is simpler than he thinks.
Lord Clement-Jones: Clearly we have a philosophical difference as to whether it is the Government's scheme or the scheme proposed in our amendments that is complicated. I should think it self-evident that we would make progress on simplification if we removed three clauses from the Bill. As the Minister is shaking his head, we clearly have a different philosophy of regulation, too.
I do not think that we are going to get much further on the matter; this is the second stage of debate on it. I shall read very carefully what the Minister had to say. Nevertheless, there is still quite broad disagreement on this part of the Bill. I shall take on board what she said about Amendment No. 67E, and about its interaction with the 1989 Act. It may well be that there is a drafting
flaw. Although we on these Benches are not always known for the precision of our amendments, we have at least had a useful debate on this broad point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67B to 67E not moved.]
Clause 34 [Return of child in other cases]:
Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 69:
- After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 69 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Chan. At the outset, I pass on to the Committee the apology of the noble Lord, Lord Chan, for not being able to be here today.
The amendment deals with a very important and much overlooked subject; namely, that of private fostering. My interest in, and my entire knowledge of, this subject were sparked when I started to read the Bill; I was previously unaware that private fostering arrangements are permissible. I suppose that that was because I had missed one very small but significant fact; that Victoria Climbie˙ was a privately fostered child. In the months since her death, there has been a great deal written and discussed, principally in the social work journals, about private fostering.
Many people are genuinely unaware that certainly since 1989 there has been a legal duty upon anybody who privately fosters a child to notify his or her local authority. In fact and in practice, very few people do so.
It may help Members of the Committee if I explain to them, as it was explained to me, what the term "private fostering" really means. It means a wholly private arrangement between birth parents and any private individual to look after a child for a length of time. Such arrangements are fairly common. It is impossible to be more precise because nobody knows how many private fostering arrangements there are.
This issue has been the subject of study over many years. In 1973, Mr Bob Holman produced a report entitled Trading in Children. In it he talked about the fact that there were any number of children in these long-term but wholly unregulated relationships. He concluded, at that time, that they were perhaps some of the most vulnerable children in our society. Interestingly, in 1973 he called for a system of registration. His findings were ignored then; and hence earlier on last year, in the wake of the Victoria Climbie˙ case, he was back on television saying exactly the same things that he had said in 1973.
In 1997, BAAF—the British Association for Adoption and Fostering—did some work with the African Family Advisory Service and, as a result, it produced its report entitled A Very Private Practice. It is perhaps the most comprehensive study of this subject in this country, and it makes for some rather horrifying reading. Its main finding was that, although local authorities have a duty to look after any child who they may have reason to believe is in a private fostering arrangement, in practice very few can do it. It is impossible to find many local authorities which know how many children are in such arrangements. If these children are not known about, they are quite often extremely vulnerable.
What A Very Private Practice did discover and talked about were the different types of arrangements which exist. It is not uncommon in this country for children who have been here all their lives to hit adolescence, with all the horrors that that brings for them and their families, and to go off and live with another member of the family for a period of time. That is not really what we are talking about here. We are talking about a large number of children, many from particular minority communities, whose birth families remain in their country of origin but who are sent to this country by their parents in the belief that in this country they will have a better life.
There is also another subset of children; the children of people in this country who are often students—medical students and so on—who come from a culture where it is normal and accepted practice to send children to extend members of the family to be looked after for quite long periods of time. Therefore, there are not only the matters of children's vulnerability, about which we have spoken so far, but there are also, for some of them, acute issues about culture and distance from their parents.
It is the case that notification is supposed to be given to local authorities. It is also the case that that rarely happens. That is not because people are defying the law; in most cases, it is because they simply do not know that they have to. Most people just do not know; they have come to a working arrangement that may exist within their family, so why should they tell anybody about it?
There are also, however, arrangements which are commercial transactions.
"REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE FOSTER PARENTS
For section 69 of the 1989 Act (power to prohibit private fostering) there is substituted—
"REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE FOSTER PARENTS
(1) Every local authority shall keep a register of persons who act as private foster parents within their area.
(2) A local authority shall not register any person as a private foster parent unless it is satisfied that he is fit to act as a private foster parent.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make provision, pursuant to section 1(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, as to the considerations to which a local authority is to have regard in reaching a decision as to whether to register a person as a private foster parent.
(4) A local authority shall cancel the registration of any person under section (1) if—
(a) it appears to them that the circumstances of the case are such that they would be justified in refusing to register that person as a private foster parent;
(b) the care provided by that person for any privately fostered child is, in the opinion of the authority, inadequate having regard to the needs of that child; or
(c) the premises in which any privately fostered child is or would be accommodated are not suitable for that purpose.
(5) No person shall act as a private foster parent unless he is registered under subsection (1).
(6) A person who contravenes subsection (5) shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(8) A person aggrieved by the refusal of a local authority to register him as a private foster parent may appeal to the court in accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to this Act.""
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page