My Lords, I have three points. I begin by saying that I believe that legislation should enhance and underpin practice. I declare an interest as being a member of the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation, along with my colleagues who have already declared that interest. It was quite clear to us that, were we able to improve practice in a number of areas, the legislation would simply not be necessary.
The Government should return to thinking about that issue, particularly in relation to the practice of social workers and the difficulties they face at the moment, and the pressures of local government. I am sure the Minister will want to concentrate on what he has before him but unless the Government take a more strategic and broader view of children’s needs, we will simply add to the legislation and the difficulties that local authority social workers are experiencing rather than meet the needs of the children.
4.15 pm
My second point is that I have twice heard the Minister say something that I have not understood; namely, that the Government wish to enhance kinship care. He said it at the beginning of his speech today and in a meeting yesterday. It may be my lack of comprehension but I cannot quite understand how that links to the amendment. I have not quite gathered the Government’s intention in all that. We should remind ourselves that special guardianship, to which we will come later—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, alluded to the fact that many families come to the court themselves and ask for special guardianship—in some ways has a better position than adoption. We know that the Government wish to maintain family relationships where they can; special guardianship maintains that family relationship, while giving the child permanency. As the Committee goes on, I do not think that it should be under the illusion that there is not a great deal of good, solid, permanent placement happening; it is happening under a different name.
I am deeply concerned about my third point. I do not understand, and nor I think do my colleagues, the suggestion that all children, whether they have come into care voluntarily or under a care order—the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, spoke to this—are included. There must be a fundamental misunderstanding in those who have put this together because the two are so different. If you are a mum in trouble through no fault of your own and you need help, and you ask a social worker for help and they say, “We can take your child into care for a few weeks while you get over having your second child and you are a single mum”, you do not expect that child to be immediately placed in fostering for adoption.
Under these rules, I know what will happen because of the situation in which local authorities find themselves: these children will find themselves placed. When the mum has got herself together and the case comes to court, the child will be settled. A judge may believe that the mother should have her child returned but the court’s responsibility will be to look at the paramount needs of the child. If the child is settled in a placement, a judge will sadly—I know of cases—make the decision against the best interests of the family because they think the child is settled and has relationships. We need to look at that extremely carefully or we will find ourselves placing a large number of children when we have no intention of removing them from their primary family. I do not think that anyone really thought through the fact that the parents of these children are still their parents. They are not sharing care with the local authority. The local authority is accommodating the children on the parents’ behalf, unlike when a care order is in place. There are some fundamental difficulties.
I also endorse the point about matching. You may place a child in a placement for fostering. I have been a social worker for many years and I know how difficult it is to find a placement quickly to meet all the requirements of timescales. You may then discover issues around matching that are not appropriate. I could give examples but I will not waste the time of the Committee on too many anecdotes. I hope that we can look at some of this. I am very unhappy to agree to the Minister’s amendment. I am sorry about that because, like the rest of the Committee, I am committed to improving the speed of adoptions and the placement of children. These are unfortunate ways to take that forward.