The announcement that the Care Matters green paper is soon to become a white paper is seen by the Government as vital to improving looked-after children's lives.

But consultation responses to the green paper show split views on the Government's proposals. Many respondents want the Government to only push forward the policies that would make a real difference to children in care.

Children who were consulted saw the idea of a pledge by councils for children in care as a major point and it opened up the debate over what the contents should be.

In its response A National Voice said: "We feel the pledge could benefit young people and the professionals working with them so long as accountability for delivering on these pledges rests with the director of children's services and elected members."

Alternatives to care

Proposals for children on the edge of the care system received a range of responses. Respondents were positive about proposals to create a national centre for excellence in children's and family services to share best practice and the increased use of family group conferencing.

Using kinship care as an alternative to a care placement was widely supported by three-quarters of young people. They also said they did not want to be separated from siblings.

But many children surveyed did not want the Government to try to reduce the number of children in care, fearing it could lead to children being left at risk. The British Association for Adoption & Fostering's response said: "We feel a smaller care population should not be a goal in itself. What matters is that children in care are there because care is the right place for them."

The section on the role of the corporate parent also received conflicting responses, especially when it came to independent social care practices, similar to the GP practice model. The British Association of Social Workers felt the practices were a good idea, leading to a shorter decision-making process and allowing social workers to be more responsive to children.

Hilton Dawson, chief executive of Shaftesbury Young People, formerly Shaftesbury Homes and Arethusa, says: "Shaftesbury believes the proposal for social care practices is the single most important idea within this green paper."

But other respondents were concerned the practices could cause a dilution of accountability and create a two-tier arrangement that would complicate the care system. There was also support for reducing social worker caseloads and the opportunity for young people to see their social worker more.

Another suggestion that prompted debate was the introduction of a tiered framework of responsibility for looked-after children underpinned by a national qualification for foster and residential workers. Many respondents felt a tiered framework could help increase stability by improving the matching of children with placements, with those with the most need being placed with the most highly trained carers. But some responses suggested the tiered framework could have the adverse effects of compromising stability with a child moved as their needs diminished.

Those consulted generally welcomed the proposal to introduce a national qualification, although one young person said: "I am not interested in what qualifications my carer has. I am interested only in their kindness, understanding and commitment to me."

In terms of education, 67 per cent of young people at a What Makes The Difference? consultation event felt children in care should have the opportunity to go to boarding school as an alternative to other care options, as long as the decision was in the child's best interests.

Parenting accountability

One group of young people suggested local authorities should be prosecuted if a child in care does not attend school. This view was backed up by the National Association of Head Teachers, which said: "We pursue and prosecute some very vulnerable families who have neither the resources nor capacity to ensure children attend school. Local authorities have no such excuse."

At the launch of the document, children's minister Beverley Hughes said: "We were in a residential home and one young person said that often they were not particularly required to go to school. This young man asked me why local authorities hadn't been hauled up before court like any other parents would be if they were not sending their child to school? We have to answer that."

The idea of a virtual head teacher overseeing all children in care, wherever they are at school, was welcomed in some capacity, although there was a warning the role should not dilute that of a real head teacher.

In terms of leaving care, many respondents wanted all young people to have the opportunity to stay in care until they are 21. One young person suggested: "I would like to have a trial to see if I can handle moving out, or I want to. That way I have the choice to go back home if I can't cope."

Many young people thought a bursary of £2,000 to stay in education was a good idea, although many felt it should be extended to young people going onto other kinds of education and training.

The Government is now compiling the white paper, which is due out later this spring.

KEY POINTS

- More than 2,000 individuals and groups responded to the plans in the Care Matters green paper

- This includes 1,376 written responses from children and young people

- Care Matters: Consultation Responses can be downloaded from www.dfes.gov.uk.