UK Parliament / Open data

Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

First, I reciprocate the new year good wishes offered by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and extend them to all Members of the Committee. I also echo the remarks of my noble friend Lady Massey in thanking so many noble Lords for assisting us in our debates on this important Bill. There is no more vulnerable group in society than looked-after children. They deserve the fullest attention of Parliament and it is good to see that attention being given in such full measure this afternoon. Speaking from this position, I also greatly welcome the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that his interest in the Bill was wholly benevolent. I strongly favour wholly benevolent interest in government legislation. I was slightly worried at Second Reading that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, was minded to be less than wholly benevolent. I am glad to see that she is coming back into the fold. She can be relied upon to challenge us, as appropriate, where she thinks that we are departing from the cause of good policy. I entirely agree with all that has been said by Members of the Committee on the importance of early intervention and taking every possible step to avoid the need for children to go into care in the first place. As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, so rightly said, care orders are regarded by the courts as an absolute last resort. It is therefore all the more important that the proper support services are in place to ensure that this step does not need to be taken. Helping children to stay with their families is an important part of the Care Matters White Paper referred to by many noble Lords. Most of chapter 2 sets out how we intend to promote the capacity for families to sustain relationships with children through times of turbulence and stress, through the increased provision of support for the most vulnerable children on the edge of care. I particularly draw attention to the plans set out in chapter 2 for multi-systemic therapy on page 37, and the new family drug and alcohol court described on page 36—which the noble Baroness Lady Sharp, mentioned, and which has just been launched as part of Wells Street magistrates’ court in central London—and an expansion of family group conferencing to make it more widely available. In October 2006, we published guidance to local authorities which emphasises the importance of support being available to families at the earliest point at which it is needed. As part of this, we encouraged them to develop better support services for families. Specific new services include family intervention projects to reduce anti-social behaviour, and pilots of nurse-family partnerships aimed at vulnerable new mothers. On the statutory framework, Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 already contains a wide duty on local authorities to provide a range of services to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in need, and a duty under Section 17(1)(b) of that Act to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, defined as: "““any person who has parental responsibility for the child and any other person with whom he has been living””." It is therefore currently framed in a wide way. This broad legislative framework is satisfactory. Rather, we are addressing the actual services which local authorities provide, which in part—as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said—support the work of the courts to ensure that children do not need to be taken into care, in pursuit of the duties that local authorities already have under the Children Act. I shall address the specific amendments—as my noble friend Lord Judd acknowledged I always seek to do—in a spirit of constructive engagement. The Government will of course reflect on all the points made in the debate to see whether it is right for us to make further changes before Report. Amendment No. 1 of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, relates specifically to the duties of local authorities over children placed within social work practices. This relates to the following debate, but I stress that, under the social work practice model, local authorities will retain the responsibility for providing services to children in need who live at home with their parents under Section 17 of the Children Act. Social work practices will have no role in relation to such children who have never had any contact with the care system. They can be involved only after the local authority has decided to apply to the court for an interim care order and the court has granted that order and where the child has become a looked-after child on a voluntary basis. Those powers and duties apply equally to looked-after children to whom, in addition, the local authority owes an express duty to make arrangements to enable the child to live with his parents. That includes, as I said, a relative, friend or other person connected with him under the 1989 Act.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c273-5GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top