---

Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

I have been asked a number of detailed questions about the particular intents of certain aspects of the new clause. Perhaps I may take them one by one before dealing with the wider issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and other noble Lords asked why the duty in the amendment to determine the most appropriate placements, as set out in new Clause 22C(5) and (7) could also be subject to the duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of the child when it is not explicitly stated. I am glad to be able to tell the noble Baroness that it is explicitly stated through the wording, which I shall explain. Following on from the words: "““In determining the most appropriate placement””," in new Clause 22C(7), are the words, "““the local authority must, subject to the other provisions of this Part (in particular, to their duties under section 22)””." That refers to Section 22 of the Children Act 1989, the provision being supplemented by this Bill, which is headed: "““General duty of local authority in relation to children looked after by them””," and goes on to state in subsection (3): "““It shall be the duty of a local authority looking after any child—""(a) to safeguard and promote his welfare””." Furthermore, referring to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, in respect of the views of children, subsection (4) goes on to state: "““Before making any decision with respect to a child whom they are looking after, or proposing to look after, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, ascertain the wishes and feelings of—""(a) the child;""(b) his parents;""(c) any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; and""(d) any other person whose wishes and feelings the authority consider to be relevant””." All of that is encompassed within the duties under Section 22 of the 1989 Act and referred to in subsection (7) of the new clause. So the duty is centrally placed in respect of all of the factors that need to be considered under the Bill. The noble Baroness also referred to issues to be considered alongside each other, and which are to have preference. She asked me whether, all other factors being equal, the placement with a relative or friend should take priority over other forms of placement. That, too, is made clear in subsection (7)(a) of the new clause. I shall take the noble Baroness through the way this has been constructed. Subsection (7)(a) states: "““In determining the most appropriate placement for C [the looked-after child], the local authority must ...""(a) give preference to a placement falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (6) over placements falling within the other paragraphs of that subsection””." Subsection (6)(a) states, "““placement with an individual who is a relative, friend or other person connected with C [the looked-after child] and who is also a local authority foster parent””." By that means, the ““relative, friend or other person”” is given priority in the placement options available to a local authority, but it does not set the hierarchy in the other placement options, thus meeting the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. He asked whether we are suggesting that intrinsically foster parents should be preferable to persons registered under Part II of the Care Standards Act 2000 or ““other arrangements””—I shall come to those in a moment. The answer is no. Under subsection (6), after the preference local authorities are expected to give to relatives, friends or other people, they should consider all of the options in terms of which would provide the most appropriate placement available to promote and safeguard the welfare and interests of the child. I hope that that is clear so far.