Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

I support Amendment No. 17 and shall speak to Amendments Nos. 53 and 71, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32, which should have been grouped with these amendments, since it fits in with this issue more than with Amendment No. 28, with which it has been grouped. Amendments Nos. 17, 53 and 71 would strengthen the duty on local authorities to facilitate sibling contact, unless it is inconsistent with the child’s welfare or a child with sufficient understanding objects to it. Amendment No. 53 spells that out at slightly greater length than Amendment No. 17, proposing to add a new section, Section 34A, to the Children Act 1989. Amendment No. 71 would simply amend the wording of that Act. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, explained, the Bill misses a golden opportunity to increase the placing together of siblings. Children enter care largely as a result of the actions or inaction of adults, yet the process of entering and living in care, even for short periods, can destroy relationships with siblings and take away identity, shared memories, companionship and love at a time when they are most needed. The Department for Children, Schools and Families reported in its summary of responses to the Care Matters Green Paper consultation: "““Many of the children and young people we have spoken to thought that it was vital to keep siblings together wherever possible. Where this is not possible, maintaining contact with siblings is very important to young people””." On Amendment No. 53, Clause 8 repeats the provisions of the Children Act 1989 that relate to the duty of local authorities to accommodate together siblings wherever it is reasonably practicable and consistent with the welfare of the child. Section 34 of the Children Act 1989 requires the local authority to allow reasonable contact between a child in care and his or her parents, guardians and those who formerly had residence. Paragraph 15 in Part II of Schedule 2 to the 1989 Act makes provision for contact between the child and ““any relative””. However, no explicit provision is made for sibling contact. The local authority is required to promote rather than to facilitate contact, though there is provision for covering travel expenses. Amendment No. 32 relates to proposed new subsection (7E) of the 1989 Act. It would delete the words ““reasonably practicable and”” from proposed new paragraph (b), which relates to the duties laid on the local authority to try to ensure that looked-after children are placed in accommodation in the area where their family lives and, under proposed new subsection (7D), with siblings if they are also looked after by the local authority. The problem with words such as ““reasonably practicable”” is that they are too often used as a let-out for not making much effort to pursue that duty. This amendment to the 1984 Act would therefore remove the considerable and unjustified discretion given to local authorities for providing accommodation for looked-after children, while maintaining the appropriate duty to act in a manner that is consistent with the child’s welfare. Amendment No. 53 offers an alternative formulation to Amendment No. 17. It makes it clear that, where it is not consistent with the child’s welfare to be placed with his sibling, there should be an explicit duty on local authorities to support sibling contact, unless that is also not consistent with the child’s welfare or with the child having sufficient understanding of the objects of such contact. Both amendments are crucial if we are to come closer to having a system that cherishes children’s relationships with one another. Amendment No. 71 offers an alternative formulation, although it fails to stress the importance of contact being consistent with the child’s welfare and of the child itself wishing to have such contact. For that reason, such a formulation would need to be accompanied by new guidance emphasising the importance of contact with siblings and other significant family members to looked-after children. Not only Amendment No. 17 but also our Amendment No. 53 spell the issue out in more detail. The preferred amendment of these Benches is Amendment No. 53.