| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 to 32, 55 and 71. These government amendments enable the full implementation of the policy of the Welsh Assembly Government in relation to independent reviewing officers. The effect of the amendments is to confer on Welsh Ministers powers in relation to Wales identical to those conferred on the Secretary of State in relation to England. The Bill before Parliament provides powers for the Secretary of State to make national arrangements for delivery of IRO functions and related matters in England, either through a new body corporate or by conferring additional functions on CAFCASS if in future evidence suggests that IROs are not securing significant improvements for children in care. The Welsh Assembly Government would like to put in place similar arrangements for Wales. These amendments provide equivalent powers for Welsh Ministers to establish arrangements for delivery of IRO functions in Wales, either through a new body corporate or by conferring additional functions on Welsh Ministers.
The amendments provide for Welsh Ministers to exercise such a power by order, which will be laid in draft and approved by the National Assembly for Wales and, having been so approved, be laid in draft and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before being made. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Adonis moved Amendments Nos. 24 to 29:
(a) ”“(b) that the functions of the body must be performed in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State.”On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Adonis moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 32:
(a) establish a body corporate to discharge such functions as may be conferred on it by the order; or(b) provide for the discharge by them of such functions as may be conferred on them by the order.18 Feb 2008 : Column 103
(2) An order under this section may confer functions in relation to Wales in connection with any or all of the following matters (but no others)—
(3) An order under this section may, in consequence of the conferral of a function by the order, modify any provision made by or under an enactment—
“Orders under sections 12 and (Power to make further provision concerning independent reviewing officers: Wales): supplementary provisions
(1) The conferral of any function by an order under section 12 or section (Power to make further provision concerning independent reviewing officers: Wales)(1)(a) also confers on the recipient power to do anything which is incidental or conducive to, or designed to facilitate, the discharge of that function.
(2) An order under this section may authorise the recipient to charge fees for the discharge by it of any function conferred by the order.
(3) An order under section 12 or section (Power to make further provision concerning independent reviewing officers: Wales) may transfer property, rights and liabilities to the recipient (and may also provide that anything which might otherwise prevent, penalise or restrict such a transfer is not to do so).
(4) Where an order makes provision by virtue of subsection (3) in relation to rights and liabilities relating to an employee it must make provision for the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 to apply to that transfer.
(5) An order under section 12 or section (Power to make further provision concerning independent reviewing officers: Wales) may require the recipient to establish a procedure for dealing with complaints relating to the discharge by it of its functions.
(6) In this section “recipient” means, in relation to a function, the body on which the function is conferred by the order in question, and for this purpose “body” includes the Welsh Ministers.”
“Expiry of powers conferred by sections 12 and (Power to make further provision concerning independent reviewing officers: Wales)
(1) If no order has been made under section 12 by the relevant time, that section, and section (Orders under sections 12 and (Power to make further provision concerning independent
18 Feb 2008 : Column 104
(2) If no order has been made under section (Power to make further provision concerning independent reviewing officers: Wales) by the relevant time, that section, and section (Orders under sections 12 and (Power to make further provision concerning independent reviewing officers: Wales): supplementary provisions) so far as it applies for the purposes of that section, cease to have effect.
(3) “The relevant time” is the end of the period of 7 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 13 [Duty of local authority to ensure visits to looked after children and others]:
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 not moved.]
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 36:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Independent visitors for children looked after by a local authority]:
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 38:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 41:
“(aa) his siblings;”.(3) In paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 (promotion and maintenance of contact between child and family), after sub-paragraph (1)(a) insert—
The noble Baroness said: I am bringing this amendment back because the debate we had in Committee indicated concern about this issue on all sides of the House. It is not that we doubt the Minister’s response; we accept that time and again guidance and directions make it clear that, except where it is not in the best interests of the child, high priority should be given to ensuring contact between a looked-after child and his siblings. Equally, it is clear from the evidence we have received that this is not happening. What is more, we also know that, when asked, the children themselves say that it is not happening but that it is one thing they would really like to happen.
We are forced, therefore, to ask whether guidance is enough. Have we got to a point where there is so much prescription, so many codes of practice, regulations and guidance, that the professional fails to distinguish one from another and pays scant attention
18 Feb 2008 : Column 105
As the Minister said in his response to the series of amendments put forward in Committee, Section 34 and paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 already provide for contact orders and the promotion of contact between the child and his family. The amendments make it explicit that the family includes siblings.
The new amendments which the Minister brought forward to replace Sections 7 through 10 in the legislation give high priority to placement with family and friends, and particularly stipulate that, where practicable, brothers and sisters who are looked-after children should be kept together and looked after together. However, as we know, that is often not practicable and sometimes not judged to be in the best interests of the child. We have already discussed the degree to which the weasel words “reasonably practicable” can let local authorities off the hook. I do not want to re-enter that debate, but it is important to note that placement is one thing and contact is another. When siblings are not placed together, or indeed when some children are left in the parental home while others are looked after, contact becomes important. That is where the proposed amendment would kick in, putting contact with siblings on a similar footing to contact with parents.
I end by quoting the words in Grand Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Judd—I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear me quote him. He said—and it is so true:
“It is important that, wherever it can be done and the children so want it, every muscle should be stretched to ensure that the siblings can stay together. If that is impossible, not to have generous and practical arrangements for contact is a pretty sad state of affairs. It can also have very costly consequences”.—[Official Report, 14/1/08; col. GC 402.]
That is why we are pressing this little, but very important, amendment once again. I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: We moved a similar amendment in Grand Committee on the basis that stable relationships and family ties reinforce a sense of belonging and trust, which are among the rarest and most necessary features of a child’s experience in care.
The Care Matters White Paper reported that consultation with children and young people highlighted the importance of not separating siblings without a full assessment both of their views and of the implications of separation. I was reassured by the Minister in Grand Committee that the legislative framework to promote sibling contact already exists, through the Children Act 1989 as well as the Arrangements for Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991, although I was concerned when he said:
18 Feb 2008 : Column 106
“We recognise, however, that practice may often fall short of these legal requirements”.—[Official Report, 14/1/08; col. GC 405.]
I was also struck in Grand Committee by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, who said that she felt exasperation that amendments on contact with siblings had to be tabled and felt that enough legislation was already on the statute book. We could all say amen to that.
Will the Minister therefore say a little more about the integrated children’s system and the need to record contact arrangements with siblings, as well as on the practicalities involved? What will happen if it does not happen?
Baroness Butler-Sloss: I support the amendment in principle because it is obviously important that most siblings who are parted should have the opportunity to see each other regularly. I am not, however, entirely happy about the way in which the amendment is intended to be slotted into Section 34 of the Children Act. The Act states:
“Where a child is in the care of a local authority, the authority shall (subject to the provisions of this section) allow the child reasonable contact with ... his parents”.
If we were then to insert “and his siblings”, the separate matters of the welfare considerations of that child and the child’s siblings would arise. Whereas in a large number of cases it is highly desirable that children should see each other, there is a minority of cases in which it is crucial that they should not. Children are parted in certain cases by social workers for the best of reasons. One has therefore to allow for the majority of children who should see each other and the minority who should not. Consequently, if one were to insert the new paragraph, it would require something along the lines of, “subject to the welfare considerations for the child and for the siblings”.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I supported the amendment on a previous occasion, although the overall principle behind what is being proposed may need some alteration. Above all, however, the argument that the children themselves are not satisfied that their wishes in this respect are being listened to needs to be heard more. I take into account the fact that there may be a need to change some wording in the Children Act 1989, as my noble and learned friend just said. Nevertheless, more effort should be made to make generous practical arrangements—going back to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about every muscle stretched. It was a good quote; the noble Lord was not here at that moment to hear it quoted, but he is now in his place, so he can now. I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind.
9.15 pm
Lord Adonis: My noble friend Lord Judd left the Chamber and missed a remarkable tribute being paid to him. That will encourage him to stay put in future, in case someone is about to say some extremely nice things about him. He can take my word for it that the remarks were very flattering.
18 Feb 2008 : Column 107
I think that we all agree on the importance of children living away from home maintaining links with parents, brothers, sisters and others who are important in their lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that guidance was not enough and, quoting my noble friend, that we needed the provision in the primary legislation. In fact, it is in primary legislation: paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 contains provisions for the promotion of maintenance of contact between the looked-after child and his family. In particular, it requires the local authority,
- “endeavour to promote contact between the child and ... any relative, friend or other person connected with him”.
Relative is defined in Section 104 of the Act as including brothers and sisters, whether of the whole or half-blood and whether related by marriage or civil partnership. Siblings, however related to the child, and of course the child himself, can also apply for contact orders under Section 34 of the Children Act 1989. The independent reviewing officer is required by regulations to assist the child to obtain legal advice in connection with an application for a contact order.
These contact requirements, which as I say are in primary legislation, are further reinforced by the provisions of the Arrangements for Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991. The schedule to those regulations requires local authorities to consider arrangements for contact and whether there is any need for changes in the care plan to promote contact which is consistent with the child’s welfare. This is echoed in the Review of Children’s Cases Regulations 1991, which require contact with the child’s family and others to be one of the matters considered at the regular six-monthly reviews of the child’s case. The accompanying guidance to the Children Act stresses the importance of contact between the child and all those connected with him or her. So it is in the primary legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked me what the integrated children’s system does practically to see that the case practice of social workers has the effect of promoting such contact. Within the integrated children’s system care plan and placement information records, practitioners are required to record contact arrangements with siblings, including step and half-siblings, and the practicalities as to how this will happen. Guidance notes within the records emphasise the importance of this contact.
Having said all that, I know that many contact issues arise because it is not possible to place children together, either because the sibling groups are very large—hence the reasonably practicable requirement in the Bill; it is not a let-out clause but simply recognises the realities of the situation in terms of family structures—or because the needs of different siblings may conflict, as the noble Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, rightly noted. It is absolutely right that social workers and others engaged in these cases
18 Feb 2008 : Column 108
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am very grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply and much reassured by the fact that there is enough in legislation for this to be carried through. It is a matter of carrying it through into practice—and let us hope that practice improves. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 42:
(1) Regulations may make provision for the purpose of assisting post-care adults to obtain information held by local authorities and voluntary organisations in relation to their personal and family history.
(2) Regulations made under this section may authorise or require local authorities and voluntary organisations to provide appropriate support, including information and advice, to post-care adults who require it.
(3) In this section “post-care adult” means a person aged 18 and over who has at any time been in the care of, looked after or accommodated by a local authority or voluntary organisation.”
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |