Tim
Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for that
explanation and also delighted to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for
Upminster, who has also made a mark with her expertise on the subject.
She might want to elaborate on her point when we debate new clause 19,
which we are about to do, as it is also germane to that
proposal. The
Minister has helpfully given reasons why he thinks the amendment
unnecessary, but perhaps it might find its way into the welfare
checklist that the Minister for Children, Young People and Families
graciously suggested might form the basis of the guidance that will be
issued with the Bill to elaborate on what is meant by
“appropriate accommodation”.
There is one
point on which we do not want to be too constrictive, and it applies
particularly to London and large metropolitan boroughs. There is
clearly a strong practical case for keeping children close to their
home environment in large rural counties, but there might be a case for
transgressing the borders of London boroughs simply because of the lack
of specialist accommodation available. A number of London boroughs have
no children’s homes of their own, so rather than specifying
rigidly that accommodation must be within a borough’s physical
boundaries, it would be sensible to have the capacity for joint
commissioning across London boroughs to provide a specialist
accommodation provider or to commission from a private, independent
specialist provider. I am sure that the Minister does not intend the
Bill to be so constraining, but it is important to keep the child
closer to the home and a familiar environment wherever
possible. The
Minister gave examples of step-down accommodation and trainer flats,
and further examples of that flexible good practice should be greatly
encouraged. As with the Childcare Act 2006, which the Minister for
Children, Young People and Families and I debated in Committee, it is
the local authority’s duty to ensure that there are sufficient
suitable child care places in its area. Quality is also a factor, as
the local authority must ensure that child care places are of
sufficient quality, just as it must do with regard to the quality of
appropriate accommodation in this
context. The
Minister has given helpful clarification and, on that basis, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 19— Appropriate
placement— ‘When
deciding the appropriate placement for a child in a children’s
home the local authority must have regard to the proximity of other
similar
premises.’.
Tim
Loughton: I shall kick off the debate by speaking to new
clause 19 and then we can have a stand part debate. The hon. Member for
Stafford will probably pick me up on a few things, as is his
wont.
The theory
behind new clause 19 is born of practical experience, and my hon.
Friend the Member for Upminster will be aware of similar things. A few
years ago, I was approached by the local police and councillors in my
constituency of East Worthing and Shoreham because there had been what
has been described as an explosion in the provision of independent
children’s homes. We are not unique, as that typically happens
in seaside resorts around the country. Hon. Friends representing areas
such as Thanet and Fylde, as well as coastal towns in Kent at the end
of railway lines, have seen an enormous influx of children from the
care system, who have been placed there by
boroughs—particularly London boroughs—because they do not
have sufficient
accommodation. Typically,
there tends to be some cheap accommodation available in those towns
and, as has happened in Worthing, an independent provider will take
over a residential house. If such a house has six or fewer residents in
it, it does not require planning permission for change of use. So, we
are seeing a big increase in the number of small independent
children’s homes in places such as Worthing, Thanet and Fylde.
If the place is suitable for the children and there are no knock-on
effects of what I call clustering, that increase need not be a bad
thing. In my constituency, however, unsuitability and clustering have
had a negative
effect. I
visited a children’s home, just outside Worthing, in an old
farmhouse, which the estate had rented out to an independent
children’s home company. It was looking after children from
Somerset and London, and I think there was somebody from Newcastle.
Children, most of them from an urban environment, were bunged down into
a remote farmhouse in the middle of the Sussex countryside. A bunch of
farmers came to see me to say that there had been a spate of crime and
vandalism in the area, which was being attributed to some of the
children from the home. When I visited the home it had been smashed up;
there were lots of boarded-up windows and farm equipment had been
damaged. At that time—things have since greatly improved, and
the Commission for Social Care Inspection and others have
inspected—the place was not properly monitored, and there was a
serious question mark over the qualifications and calibre of some of
the staff put in to deal with those children with particular
difficulties. The children wanted an urban environment and found
themselves stuck out in the country with no bus service. More sensitive
placement consideration might have avoided that
problem. The
following year, the chief inspector of police in Worthing approached me
to say that 27 per cent. of crimes in the previous month had been
attributed to a handful of young people who resided in
children’s homes in Worthing. I do not in any way want to tar
all children in care with the propensity to get into
trouble—that is clearly not the case—but where they are
not properly looked after there is greater propensity for them to get
into trouble and fall foul of the
law. A
lot of children’s homes of six or fewer children were springing
up close to each other in residential areas, and there was a lot of
mixing between the children in those homes, which was causing a
problem. Again, it is down to ensuring that placements are appropriate
and that the placed child is properly monitored by the social worker
responsible within the placing authority. We shall come to some
amendments on that. It is also down to ensuring that the homes are run
properly, and that depends on inspection and quality of
care. In
Worthing, there was an enormous backlash from local councillors and
residents, who got up petitions and demonstrated against yet more such
homes appearing
in our town, particularly in a limited residential area. That produced
an unfortunate backlash against children in the care system, who were
perceived as having been dumped in Worthing and not properly looked
after. My
hon. Friend the Member for Upminster mentioned placing authorities. I
think that I mentioned on Tuesday that the head of children’s
services in West Sussex says that 42 children from West Sussex have
been placed in the care system outside the county, most in specialist
placements. However, she estimates that we have at least 700 children
from outside West Sussex in the county. The authority should be
notified of such placements, but often it is not. We have tabled
amendments to tighten up that
procedure. A
delegation from Worthing went to see the then Minister, Lord Warner,
about issuing stronger guidance to ensure that placing authorities
properly notified the receiving authority that they had a child
residing in their area who was the responsibility of another authority.
That is clearly still not happening, because authorities can only
estimate the number of such children, let alone know of any particular
requirements and needs that they might
have. New
clause 19 would provide that an authority, when placing a child in a
residential home, could not just say, “Here’s a
place.” It would have to have some regard to—the language
could be even tougher—the fact that that home might be in an
area where there were lots of other homes, and that that clustering
might have a negative effect. A placing authority would have to have a
proper discussion with the host authority, and the authority or council
area could say, “Look, this is excessive for that particular
area.” At
the moment, things are completely un-joined up. In places such as
Thanet, Worthing and Fylde—and in many other local authorities
around the country, I am sure—that is a problem. It is not in
the best interests of the local communities to have to pick up the
problems, or of the local police, who must deal with problems if they
become a justice matter, or of the local social services, which must
pick up the problems even though they are not responsible. Most
importantly, it is not fair to the children and young people
themselves, who are often placed in inappropriate accommodation far
away from home but in proximity to other people in similar
accommodation with whom it is not appropriate for them to mix in
certain
circumstances. Stephen
Hesford (Wirral, West) (Lab): The new clause might have
the opposite effect. Has the hon. Gentleman not considered the fact
that the language he has used might say, in the minds of some,
“Actually, it’s a good idea to have them all in the same
area; it keeps them all together.”? It might have the wrong
result.
Tim
Loughton: That is an interesting observation from the hon.
Gentleman. That is certainly not the intention, and this discussion
will send out a strong signal that it is not. All practical experience
of such authorities shows that that is the last thing they want. They
want a message that they have some power or leverage to say,
“Hold on, we don’t think that’s appropriate
here.” At
the moment, authorities cannot reject a home for six or fewer people on
planning grounds unless there is some enormous change within the home.
In terms of change of use, an application for planning permission is
not required—people can just get on with it within the strictures
of the inspection regime. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point
technically, but from our deliberations the opposite must be
true. I
do not like using the terminology “have regard to”, but
as the Minister is always reassuring us that it is perfectly adequate,
perhaps he will be more amenable, considering the wording of the new
clause, to placing it in the Bill so that local authorities have some
clout in resisting what has turned out to be a major problem for
Worthing and other
authorities. Mr.
David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): It is a great pleasure to
serve on a Committee chaired by you, Mr. Williams. In plain
English, I like your knowledgeable yet relaxed style of chairing
proceedings. The
hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was absolutely right when he
said at the beginning of today’s proceedings that, in relation
to clause 10, the Government yet again deserve great credit for an
excellent piece of new law. I give them a gold badge for that one,
because accommodation is a key area of concern to everybody with an
interest in the welfare of children in the care system.
As hon.
Members know, I chair the associate parliamentary group for
looked-after children and care leavers. I have been attending meetings
for 11 years now and have chaired the group for about two and a half
years. We have debated many times the shortcomings in local
authorities’ ability to accommodate children in ways that are
good for those
children. I
shall give an example from as recently as March this year. We had a
discussion about accommodation and, sadly, we still heard story after
story of what went wrong. One story that sticks in my mind is that of
two young care leavers in my audience. They were brothers who had been
taken into care by the local authority at different times and ended up
living in different placements. When their time in care came to an end,
each was treated differently. The first one to leave care was found
accommodation with friends; he knew them well and was comfortable and
happy there. He settled in well and got a job, and there was
a good support system around
him. 9.30
am
That young
man’s brother was placed in a shared flat with someone who was
well-known in the locality as a top drug dealer. That boy—he was
still under 18—was put under immense pressure to take drugs, to
sell drugs, to run and to fetch money for the drugs. In the end, he
chose absolute homelessness rather than stay there. No one checked the
accommodation before he went there and no one listened to his concerns
when he was placed there. In the end, he had to make a stark choice and
he chose homelessness, rather than being dragged into the drugs trade.
Clause 10 tells us that local authorities must “have regard
to” meeting the needs of children and have a suitable range of
accommodation available for young people. That is most
acceptable.
The
explanation given for new clause 19 by the hon. Member for East
Worthing and Shoreham reminded me that the starting point for the
debate, on this clause and many others, is the immense range of quality
services offered by local authorities. We have heard
some superb examples—we hear of them also at meetings of the
parliamentary group—of local authorities doing their utmost to
keep families
together. If
that is not possible, local authorities try to ensure that young
children in care are placed somewhere that allows them some community
ties—as close to home as they can manage—which perhaps
allows them to keep in touch with grandparents, other family members
and friends, and even to try to keep the same school, health services
and so on, so that if the opportunity arises to rehabilitate those
children back to the family early, the support systems are all still in
place. If
that is not possible and children have to spend their time in care
until it is time to leave—when they become adults—they
still have connections with some people so that they can return to a
community that still has some support for them.
At the other
end of the scale, authorities such as the one alluded to by the hon.
Member for East Worthing and Shoreham seem to be too easily persuaded
to place children out of area and a long way from home. That breaks
those community ties and, because of the distance involved, the chance
of blood relatives thinking that the children might be rehabilitated.
It also leaves youngsters cut off from everything they know, everything
they are familiar with and the few supports that they have. No wonder
we hear stories of youngsters going off the rails and misbehaving in
those areas—they have been cut off from all support. That is bad
practice, and the clause brilliantly puts local authorities under a
duty to consider keeping children in area if they can. That will be
important in driving up
standards. A
couple of amendments to clause 10 that were not selected for debate,
one of which was mine, would have drawn Ministers’ attention to
those young people who have come to the end of their time in care
because they are no longer children. Under the Children (Leaving Care)
Act 2000, the local authority will still have some obligation to have
regard to their well-being afterwards. I hope the Minister says that
local authorities will still be obliged to ensure that looked-after
children who have left care are in suitable
accommodation. I
shall tell of a recent conversation showing how important proper
accommodation can be. Many Members who spoke on Second Reading
mentioned the lobbying that day by the Fostering Network, and many
foster carers were in Westminster. I spoke to a woman who had brought
up a girl as a foster child for many years and who came to love her as
a daughter. Despite all the obstacles that the care system put in her
way, the girl flew through her GCSEs and A-levels, and finally
got to university.
The foster
mother was proud of all that the two of them had been through together,
so many obstacles having been overcome to get to that position. She
then learned that although the girl had accommodation on campus during
term times, when she was not at university she was on her
own—without accommodation and with no help. The foster mother
was so outraged that she gave up being a foster carer and the income
that it brought in, converted the girl’s flat into lodgings and
rented it to her at whatever state benefit she was able to get to help
to pay for it, so that the girl could use it during the
breaks.
That went well
beyond the call of duty on the woman’s part, and it was done
because of the bond of love that had grown between the two of them.
However, such events should not be happenstance. We know how few
looked-after children get to university; it should not be down to one
individual’s bravery and kindness for that child to continue
there. That is a good example of accommodation going wrong for
youngsters. Because
of my post as chairman of the all-party group, I hold myself out as
willing to visit local authority services and meet users. I went to
north Staffordshire—the county that I am from—to meet
some recent care leavers. True enough, they were all still in touch
with the leaving care team, and so were getting contacts, advice and so
on. However, several of them told me that they were in a flat, getting
housing benefit to pay the rent and did not have a
job. When
three of those people had told me the same story about not having a
job, I said, “Don’t you think that in this day and age
you are in a bit of a dead-end position? You are in a flat, your rent
is paid for you, but you have no job and you are not getting any
skills. Wouldn’t you rather get skills at a further education
college, get a job and make your own way in the world?” Each of
them said, “My adviser advised me that the safest thing for me
was to stay unemployed and have my rent paid.” That is the local
authority that is looking after them advising them to do the opposite
to what any of us would want for our children—certainly what I
would want for my children—and what the Government want for our
country. There
are poor services for people aged over 18 for whom we still have a
responsibility. The clause deals with massive improvements in the
situation of looked-after children in respect of accommodation. Will it
apply to children who have left care but for whom we still have a
responsibility, albeit perhaps not the full legal responsibility of
looking after children? Nevertheless, that responsibility continues
from their time in
care.
| 
