Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

Amendment No. 21 in the name of my noble friend Lady Massey raises the vital issue of relatives and friends who take on the care of children. My other role in these debates will be that of chief fact-provider. Placements with family and friends currently account for about 12 per cent—that is, 7,500—of all looked-after children, but, of course, on top of that 7,500 are a vast number of arrangements in respect of children who are not looked after but whose support by family and friends is indispensable to them not needing to be looked after or to enabling parents to fulfil their obligations more effectively than they might otherwise do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, short-term placements account for a very high proportion of all placements. The latest figures show that 37 per cent of children leave care in under six months and 50 per cent leave care within a year, so the role of family and friends also needs to be seen in that context. We place great emphasis on children in need being cared for wherever possible by their families, including their wider families. We have demonstrated that commitment in Chapter 2 of the Care Matters White Paper, which sets out how we intend to provide additional support for parents, including pilots of new evidence-based intensive parenting programmes for children and families with the highest levels of need, as well as increased support for relative carers and the promotion of family group conferences. We are also aware of the difficulties that some relatives may face in taking on their responsibilities, and the Care Matters White Paper sets out a strong agenda for improving the range and quality of support and services available to them. We have committed ourselves to developing a new framework for family and friends care, which is to be issued as part of the Children Act 1989 statutory guidance, under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, to address the issues of unacceptable variations in levels of support and services between authorities, the lack of policy frameworks and the need for transparency and equity in relation to services and support for family and friends carers. All those issues were raised by my noble friend Lady Massey, and I can tell her that the new statutory guidance will cover the content of an appropriate policy framework, expectations of an effective support service linked to commissioning, wider support, including financial benefits to which carers may be entitled, and an appropriate assessment process where a relative is to be approved as a foster carer. We will, of course, consult our stakeholders on this new framework to ensure that we get it right, and we will consider all the points that have been made so eloquently in this debate. Turning to some of the specific elements of my noble friend’s amendment, we believe that it would be inconsistent with the widely framed general duty to children under Section 17 of the 1989 Children Act to identify a particular group of adults in particular circumstances and to provide a statutory right to an assessment which we do not give to any other group of adults, including birth parents, as part of the Section 17 duty. The amendment proposes a wide range of people who may request an assessment on behalf of a family and friends carer, which is a departure from other provisions in the Children Act 1989. The current assessment process for children in need requires the local authority to understand the child’s developmental needs and their parents’ or carers’ capacity to respond to these needs in the context of their wider families and communities. Any specific needs of carers will therefore be picked up as part of this process. Indeed, a local authority would need to provide an assessment of the child and family in order to know that the child was on the edge of care to provide the appropriate services as a result of that assessment. I can tell my noble friend that we are making one important improvement to the 1989 Act in the Bill. Clause 21 would amend Section 17(6), which restricts the making of payments to ““exceptional circumstances””. The change will give local authorities a wider discretion and will enable them to provide financial support on a longer term basis where they are satisfied that doing so would safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. However, it must be very clear that it is not the role of local authorities to provide income maintenance for families, nor are they resourced to do so. My department is committed to working with the other relevant government departments to ensure that family and friends carers are able to make maximum use of the financial benefits available to them. Section 17E in my noble friend’s Amendment No. 21 proposes that, in prescribed circumstances, where the local authority has decided to provide services, a plan must be made for the provision of support services. I can tell my noble friend that it is already a requirement within the integrated children’s system—to which I referred earlier—that, where services are being provided under Section 17 of the 1989 Act, there must be a child in need plan and review. This requirement will be reinforced in the revised care planning and review regulations and guidance which we proposed in the White Paper. The assessment model is set out in section 7 guidance in the framework for the assessment of children in need and their families issued in 2000. We therefore believe it is unnecessary for any new regulations about assessment, planning and review in this context. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, specifically asked me about the value placed on family care in the performance framework. She is correct that it is not an indicator in the new national indicator set. However, alongside the new comprehensive area assessments, Ofsted will be undertaking a rolling inspection programme of services for looked-after children. We will ask it to ensure that this also considers services for children on the edge of care, which will include services for those in family and friends care. My noble friend’s Amendment No. 86 and Amendment No. 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seek to define all children being cared for by family or friends as ““in need”” for the purposes of Section 17, without an assessment. As they will be aware, if such a child is ““in need”” of services to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development, they are already covered by Section 17. The only group of children who at the moment are automatically defined as ““in need”” is disabled children, and it is obvious why they are included. The identification of other children who may be in need arises following an assessment of their needs for local authority services in order to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development. We believe that it would be inappropriate to designate a child as ‘in need’ simply because they are being cared for by their family or friends when they do not need services in order to achieve reasonable health and development. There is an important point of principle here. The Children Act 1989 focuses on the needs of the child, rather than who they are cared for. We believe that that is correct. Children living with family or friends are a diverse group. In many cases, they are living away from their parents because of a perfectly acceptable private arrangement and have no additional needs. A balance is to be struck between ensuring that children are safeguarded while minimising state interference in private family matters. We must ensure that the law allows identification of children who are genuinely in need, without unnecessarily interfering in families where this is not the case. We believe that the current Children Act duty in Section 17 does this by focusing on the child’s needs, regardless of who cares for him. My noble friend Lady Thornton told me in advance that she would be unable to be in her place today. Her Amendment No. 35 refers to children returning from care or accommodation to live with family and friends. The issues raised by my noble friend’s amendment are also addressed in Care Matters in recognition of the particular needs and vulnerabilities of all children returning to birth parents and wider family following a period in care. In the White Paper we set out our commitment to use the revised Children Act 1989 guidance to address the need for effective care planning to ensure that work continues with the child’s family while he is in care and that appropriate services are delivered to support his return home. I will of course read carefully my noble friend’s speech to see if there are further points to which I should respond, but I hope that I have given a fairly comprehensive response to her points.