---

Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 52: 52: After Clause 31, insert the following new Clause— ““Restrictions on making section 8 orders under the Children Act 1989 In section 9(1) of the 1989 Act (restrictions on making section 8 orders), for the words ““any section 8 order, other than a residence order,”” substitute ““a contact order under section 8””.”” The noble Baroness said: We have 10 minutes so we might as well dispose of Amendment No. 52 so that we will not have to bring it back. The purpose of the amendment is to enable applications to the courts for three types of Section 8 orders in relation to children in care. They are prohibited steps, specific issues and residence. Of course, the latter is already permitted. Looked-after children are the only children in the country excluded from these orders. This provision could be especially beneficial where the local authority is considering a placement move when the child believes it is not in his best interests. When we debated this in Grand Committee, the Minister pointed out that: "““Section 8 orders, other than residence orders, do not apply in respect of those children who are in the care … There are good reasons for that. For such children, parental responsibility has been conferred on the local authority through the making of the care order … Once the family courts have made an order to place the child in the local authority’s care, it is right that the local authority has the ongoing statutory responsibility to plan for that child’s care … The Children Act 1989 is predicated on the basis that the courts are to decide whether the grounds for making a care order are met … The role of the independent reviewing officer is important here in monitoring the local authority’s implementation of the care plan””.—[Official Report, 17/1/08; col. GC 591.]" The Minister’s view was that there are therefore sufficient safeguards for the child. We do not yet really know how well the IRO system will work with the new powers. I view the amendment very much as a last resort. If it was implemented, there would be few cases in which a child would take up this right to apply to the court. It is therefore a last back-stop, to ensure that the child has some right to apply in his own right if he is very unhappy and feels that all the safeguards the Minister has put in place have fallen down in his case, and that he must object to a placement move or something of that nature. I apologise for having said that I would not move the amendment, but we might as well dispose of it as we have plenty more to consider on Report. I hope that the Minister can give me a brief response. I beg to move.