Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

I strongly support Amendment No. 19. I am sure that I would also support Amendment No. 30, but my comments are directed to Amendment No. 19, requiring that the local authority provides, "““a sufficient and diverse provision of appropriate placements within their local area””." Other noble Lords have spoken about the disadvantages for children of being placed hundreds of miles from home—and we know that that happens an awful lot. The precise wording of the amendment is important. I know only too well from my work in east London that boroughs such as Tower Hamlets, Newham and Hackney simply cannot provide sufficient fostering placements or other placements within the borough. I am sure that that applies also to a lot of other inner-city areas. Therefore, the term ““local area”” is important, as it adds the required flexibility to achieve the desired result. The key point is that boroughs need to negotiate with the boroughs next door to provide sufficient local placements so that the children can maintain contact with their families and school; one hopes that they can attend the same school as they went to before, and so forth. I very much agree with the British Association for Adoption & Fostering that focusing on local authority boundaries could be clumsy and work against the interests of children in some cases, particularly if the nearest placement was on the other side of the borough, when going over the border into a neighbouring borough would produce a much better outcome. The focus on the local area therefore makes a huge amount of sense from a number of points of view. The aim to have sufficient provision in each area except in exceptional circumstances is also important. The Children’s Services Development Group makes a powerful case for out-of-area placements for children with acute or complex needs, for whom it would be unrealistic to replicate services locally; I am sure that all noble Lords are familiar with that point. The sufficiency of local provision would take account of the proportion of children who will anyway need to be placed out of area, so I do not think that that is an issue. The organisation National Children’s Homes expressed concern that local authorities may have an incentive to place children locally, if they have sufficient places locally, even when that might not be in the child’s best interests. NCH has a point, as local authorities would certainly be tempted to try to place as many children as possible in their local area, or certainly within their local borough, if they could do so, even when that might not be in the best interests of the child. However, I would like the Minister’s assurance that that issue could be dealt with through guidance or perhaps even regulations. Like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I draw the Government’s attention to their commitment in Care Matters, "““to drive improvements in local authority commissioning ensuring a sufficient provision of local suitable and stable placements””." They also pledged to legislate for that. Along with the noble Earl, I do not believe that the wording in the Bill makes that commitment. The purpose of the amendment therefore is to honour the Government’s commitment. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will support it.