|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Hammond: I welcome the Minister's remarks. All Opposition Members support the idea of a level playing field and seek to redress some of the disadvantages that children leaving care clearly face compared with those who have been more fortunate and perhaps have had more opportunity to enjoy their childhood and prepare for adult life.
We welcomed the Bill when it was introduced. We have consistently welcomed measures that improve the protection of vulnerable children in our society, but that does not mean that we have no significant issues to raise. Some of those issues involve important points of principle, but there has never been any doubt that we support the underlying purpose of the Bill. The Minister has acknowledged that on many occasions.
My noble Friends in another place played an important part in mapping out the final shape of the Bill. It builds on the Children Act 1989, which remains the basis of our system of child protection and child support. I am glad to say that there has been a large degree of consensus even when we have needed to debate the details. We have identified weaknesses and failures in a system that is supposed to protect vulnerable children, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that it is time to correct those weaknesses and failures or collectively share the responsibility for allowing them to continue.
I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to consult Opposition parties on the regulations. As so often happens, an unnecessary level of tension is created during the passage of the primary legislation because we do not have sight of the regulatory structure that will inform its operation. We have to assume the worst, but I hope that we will be satisfied and reassured by the regulations in respect of many issues on which we have expressed grave concern. In general, if it were possible for Departments to produce draft regulations for hon. Members to consider alongside the primary legislation, we might find that we needed to spend rather fewer hours arguing about things that might never happen, but which we cannot be sure will never happen until we see the precise form of the regulations.
I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising his desire for consensus throughout the proceedings on the Bill. As I have said before, I believe that on a matter such as child protection we can only proceed by consensus. The Opposition certainly hope that we will proceed in that way in future, to continue to strengthen and reinforce the body of child support and child protection legislation.
Mr. Dawson: It is useful to spend a little time reflecting on the importance and qualities of what everyone should regard as a fine piece of legislation. It is a particularly fine measure not only because the Government have drafted it well, prepared it well and consulted on it well in the first place, but because they have altered it and improved it in response to well-informed opinion. Frankly, the best-informed opinion and the highest quality of advice that the Government have received have come from young people with experience of the care system.
I dismiss entirely the view that the Government are arrogant or do not listen, and I can cite examples of some of the most vulnerable young people in our society who have been welcomed by Ministers and civil servants and have been fully involved in the crucial work of the Department of Health on areas of concern about which they know so much. That is tremendously to the credit of the Government and those officials.
This is very fine and much-needed legislation. I first had formal responsibility for young people in care in 1987. We had in-care meetings and conferences, and young people's concerns about leaving care were always the same. They were left bereft and felt that they were pushed out into the world without support, training or induction or any on-going involvement from local authorities. They were expected to cope independently at an age at which none of us in the Chamber would have been able to cope.
There are some individuals who make great efforts. A woman in my constituency runs a children's home, and every Sunday young people and adults as old as their late 30s go back to the home to visit. That is a matter of working way beyond the call of career and duty, through professional and caring values. Of course, we also try to find solutions and put measures in place with housing authorities.
I started working with young people in care before the Children Act 1989. There have been many references to that Act tonight. It is a great piece of legislation, embodying the finest principles and making children the focus of concern, with their needs made paramount, but it was left full of holes. Section 24, in particular, which gave powers to local authorities, did not change the situation for children leaving care.
There are good and decent people of all parties in the House, but the care system in which I worked up to 4 April 1997 was a disgrace. It was completely inadequate. There may be consensus now on the broad basis of the way forward, but the Labour Government inherited a care system that had palpably failed. When I was working in the system, it did not seem that the Government were listening to our concerns. They seemed not to care about the vulnerable people in the system. They had other values, expressed in statements about there being no such thing as community or society. Their priorities did not include young people in care.
When I came to the House, I saw it as a fantastic opportunity to try to change the care system. At a conference three years ago, I outlined what changes I wanted in the care system. I wanted investment, and we are getting an extra £290 million in a five-year programme through quality protects. I wanted attention to standards, and we are getting that through the Care Standards Act 2000. I wanted more money for training, and we are getting that. I wanted attention to be paid to children's rights, and the Government, to their enormous credit, are funding a children's rights director and a new national organisation for children and young people in care. I wanted attention to be focused on the issue of leaving care. If there is one outstandingly excellent thing about the Bill, it is the extension of statutory duties to local authorities for young people up to the age of 21. That is profoundly important and good, and the Government should receive the great credit that they deserve for this excellent measure.
Dr. Brand: I join the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) in rejoicing in the Bill. We have gone a long way since the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) gave evidence to the Health Committee and made a commitment to extend local authorities' duties of care to people up to the age of 21. We have had a hiccup or two, but I am glad that we have arrived where we have.
There are one or two disappointments. It is sad that the collective brilliance of parliamentary draftsmen could not come up with some way of describing this group of people as young people, rather than children. Nowadays, when people reach 16 they no longer see themselves as children,
Our debates here and in Committee have been very interesting. The concept of a local authority as a corporate parent interests me greatly. One could interpret that in more than one way. One could be corporate in the sense of being a corporation. Sometimes, one got the impression that we were discussing not care plans but business plans, that something had to be delivered against a target, and that there would be no reward unless the target was met.
I hope that the framework is firm enough where it has to be, but flexible enough in other areas, so that the corporate parent can act as a tolerant parent. My experience of young people in care is that they are there because their parents were either totally intolerant of them or ignored them, neither of which is very acceptable. The worst situation would be to have a rigid framework in the care planning that disaffected the young people even further.
That raises my main concern about the implementation of this excellent Bill. How will it cope with the care leaver who is not motivated to be the good son or daughter of an excellent corporate parent? Most of us have the privilege of 16 years' experience before we start looking after a 16-year-old. It will be a very hard learning curve for local authorities to be able to meet this very important responsibility, which goes far beyond handing out resources and telling people what they can or cannot do. Careers advisers or representatives of the Benefits Agency can do that, but more is involved in the task facing local authorities.
Resources are important, and there will never be enough cash resources, but I am more worried about having enough human resources. The Minister has been most helpful in that he has not been too specific about what type of human resources are required. However, the human resources involved should be of high quality, and they should be supported. Our deliberations have not touched on the need to support the advisers and social workers who will have to implement the Bill and work with the children involved.
The House has done its best with the Bill, which will pose major headaches and responsibilities for local authorities. We must be tolerant of those authorities and support them as their new role evolves. It is easy to pass legislation that tells people what to do--but much good legislation has failed because the difficulties of implementation have not been resolved. Many hon. Members have experience of the real world. However, I hope that Ministers, who have been so flexible in the guidance that they have created, also understand the need to support the people charged with the vital task of helping children leaving care.
Finally, I congratulate the Minister on steering the Bill through the House, and all the members of the Standing Committee. The Minister will not wind up the debate. I am used to ending my contributions by saying that I look forward to what he has to say, but I have heard it all now--often more than once, but then the question has often been asked more than once too.