Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 23: 23: Clause 7, page 5, line 24, after ““after)”” insert ““— ““(a) after subsection (2) insert— ““(2ZA) Where a child is placed under subsection (2) with a grandparent or grandparents (““G””) as sole carer, the local authority must provide G with the same financial and other support as that authority makes available to foster carers.””; (b)”” The noble Baroness said: This amendment follows on directly from that on the subject of support for family and friends caring for children. However, it is at least morally and practically different. It seeks to ensure better support for grandparents, and I shall put their special case. I thank my noble friends for supporting the amendment. My noble friend Lady Hollis is here in spirit, if not in body, because she has to be at another meeting. The issue of grandparents as carers has been around for a long time. I am grateful for parliamentary support for grandparent carers—my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, in particular, has shown an interest—and I was glad to see in the new Children’s Plan a reference to family needs. I quote from page 19: "““Different families will need different things at different times and in different circumstances. The challenge is to provide services which are flexible and meet the needs of all families, in whatever shape or form. Our family policy will support families with whatever level of information and support they need, when they need it. This will include lone parent families, step families and families where children are being brought up by their grandparents””." When grandparents take over, it is because the parent or parents are incapable of looking after the child or children. The grandparents become substitute parents but they are older than parents normally are. Grandparents are sometimes an overlooked group who do not make too much noise because they are struggling with the circumstances of bringing up children, often in difficult circumstances. They often take on all grandchildren, and I know of several who have taken charge of three siblings. We talked earlier about siblings. The grandparents whom I meet are mainly those who have taken on the care of children because the parents are dead, in prison or addicted to drugs or alcohol. I have hundreds of letters and case histories which testify to the problems encountered. The grandparents are dealing with children who may be grieving or they may be grieving themselves due to the loss of a son or daughter. They take on their grandchildren because they desperately do not want them to go into care, yet they report horrendous problems in trying to get support and failing because the system is unsympathetic and not geared up to help. We must change this. Grandparents suffer physical, emotional and financial hardship. They are a special case because they are older people. Some have given up jobs and some have poor health and poor economic circumstances, yet they save the state millions of pounds by caring for their grandchildren. They probably save even more in the long term. As I said earlier, children who are settled with a family have more positive outcomes than those in care. This situation is unfair and unacceptable. There is confusion about what help is available. Grandparents cite particular difficulties as being those of residence orders, financial concerns, aftercare and isolation. I have just read a new document by Ed Miliband on families at risk, which talks of some families being seriously disadvantaged and of the fact that systems and services have to be made to work for them. I suggest that most grandparents as carers fall into this category. Where is the help for them? The Children Act 1989 gives local authorities the power to determine financial arrangements. Unfortunately, despite this being clear, there is good evidence that grandparents who care do not receive the same payments as other foster carers. There is case history on this, which I have here. In Manchester, a case came up concerning whether the local authority policy of paying family and friends who were short-term carers significantly less in relation to the child’s maintenance than would be paid to other carers was lawful. It is known as the Munby case. Mr Justice Munby, who heard the case, granted judicial review and declared the policy to be unlawful on the basis that it was irrational and discriminatory against both the adult and children concerned, the level of payments failed to meet the welfare requirements of the child, and the limits placed on the amount paid to relatives was arbitrary and inflexible. It was a pretty strong judgment. In addition, recent research has shown that family and friend carers receive far less practical support in caring for a child than an unrelated foster carer. They are—I hear this a lot—left to manage all arrangements, including complex care, on their own. This places a strain on everyone, including the children. Those of us who occasionally look after grandchildren know that it is a delight but it is also very wearing. Let us imagine those grandparents for whom this is a 24-hour a day job with no respite and little support. Outcomes for children are the central theme of the Bill. If those outcomes are to be improved, we need to look at and repair the anomalies present in the system. If, in practice, a case can be ruled unlawful in one local authority, surely it is unlawful everywhere. I am not a lawyer but that seems to be the implication. The amendment, and those that came before it, must be addressed as a matter of urgency if we are not to compound an already confused situation and if we are not to leave some carers seriously deprived. I beg to move.