HC Deb 23 July 2004 vol 424 cc766-7W
Vera Baird

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what consideration is being given in the review of children's cases in the area of the(a) Cumbria County Council, (b) Durham County Council, (c) Northumberland County Council, (d) Sunderland City Council, (e) South Tyneside Council, (f) North Tyneside Council, (g) North Yorkshire County Council, (h) Newcastle City Council, (i) Hartlepool Council, (j) York City Council, (k) Gateshead Borough Council, (l) Darlington Unitary Authority, (m) Middlesbrough Borough Council, (n) Stockton Council and (o) Redcar and Cleveland Council following the judgement in R v Cannings to what a child should be told about why it was removed from its birth parents, in cases where (i) evidence about Munchhausen's syndrome by proxy, (ii) evidence about factitious disorder by proxy and (iii) other evidence from (A) Professor Meadow and (B) Dr Southall may have played a role in the child's removal but the authority's judgment is that the best interests of the child are in the status quo. [179921]

Mr. Stephen Twigg

Information about individual cases in the named local authority areas is not held centrally.Existing guidance says that: Every young person needs to develop a secure sense of identity and all those with parental or caring responsibilities have a duty to offer encouragement and support in this task. All children—whether living at home or not—are entitled to expect information about their personal and family history and need to understand their past as well as their present situation.

Obviously in practice the imparting of information of this nature is difficult and anyone undertaking this task, for example adopters, foster carers, birth parents or indeed professionals, may need support to be able to help the child to understand their life history in a way that is appropriate to their age and understanding.

Forward to