Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 18 February 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HL) on Children and Young Persons Bill [HL].


Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

I find myself in great sympathy with and full of respect for practically everything that has been said by noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It stands to reason that there is no more vulnerable constituency of persons than children in care. If there is one principle that dominates everything else in relation to their welfare, the principle of consistency in their care must come very high on the list. As a family judge, over the years I saw many instances of a multiplicity of officers responsible for cases. To some extent I regarded the officer as being in loco parentis, on the same level, possibly, as a carer or the matron of a home. Therefore, the uprooting effect of changing that relationship more often than you have to is at the very heart of this problem. I respect very much the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. Exactly how one deals with the problem is another matter. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that in many cases this has nothing to do with slovenliness or a lack of appreciation for and sympathy with the situation of children; it has much more to do with maternity leave, illness, people having to attend lengthy courses, retirement and so on. Therefore, if one makes the procedure too rigid, one may well be punishing people unnecessarily in adding another wheel, as it were, to the coach. However, if one made some reference to it in statute, not of necessity on the lines of the wording of the amendment—I am sure the noble Baroness would be prepared to consider any improvement of the nature of widening it somewhat and making it less specifically prescriptive—it would have the benefit of becoming a statutory obligation. Social services, often in an impoverished country, would be able to say, ““We are not able to carry out that specific statutory obligation””. That is the strength of the argument in favour of a reference in statute—but, as I say, not of necessity within the exact terms of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c41 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Education Children Child tax credit Child benefit Children in care Carers Families Drugs Protection Misuse Regulation Social services Training Young people Social work Social workers Care leavers Kinship care
Legislation
Children and Young Persons Bill (HL) 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk