Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

Regular visits by a social worker to looked-after children have rightly been identified as one of the key mechanisms to ensure that a child's needs are met and that the care plan remains appropriate. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is intended to define more precisely which staff in local authorities should carry out the new visiting duties under the clause. We agree with her that it is important that children are visited by people who they know and who have been involved in planning their care. We will make clear in guidance that that should generally be the case. However, we do not believe that it would be helpful to be prescriptive in the Bill as to which staff in a local authority can carry out that very important representative role. For example, it may be appropriate for visits to be made by other members of children's social work teams under the supervision of a qualified social worker. At certain points in a child's life, the most appropriate person may be a personal adviser or another member of staff employed by the local authority, especially where a child or young person is moving into a different stage of their life and requires the support of someone with different skills and experience. At times, it may also be necessary for an experienced member of staff to visit the child, even where they are not previously known to the child—perhaps because the child has indicated that an urgent visit is necessary and the familiar representative is unavailable, perhaps due to leave or sickness. The circumstances in which that may happen cannot properly be described as truly exceptional but, in our view, it is more important that the child is visited regularly by a person with the appropriate skills to carry out the functions of the job, and that the authority is responsive to the child's request for support, than that visits are delayed until a visitor who is known to the child or previously involved in the child's case is found. Being unduly prescriptive in the Bill could work against the best interests of the child, so we do not feel minded to accept the amendment. However, we accept that the points made by the noble Baroness should constitute general good practice, and we will make that clear in guidance.