Annette
Brooke: I, too, congratulate the Government on clause 10,
which is the result of excellent work in the House of Lords. I refer to
it as “evolution”, which is sometimes a good way to reach
the point that one wants to
reach. I
am pleased to speak after the hon. Member for Stafford because he
expressed the post-care concerns so well. All sorts of things may come
along whereby a young person just needs to touch base as much as
anything, so the provision is needed to get that extra advice.
Sometimes, a small amount of support is needed, but, without it,
somebody can start on a downhill path, which would be unfortunate if we
were getting all the other building blocks in place. We want to ensure
continuity. I
agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and
Shoreham. I am uncertain about the wording of his new clause, but I
think that the points he is making are valid. I have received
representations from other parts of the country—the north, in
fact—about local children’s services not being informed
when children are placed in their area. We return again to the point
that that may be in the guidance, but there is so much evidence of it
not happening in certain circumstances that it and the guidance perhaps
need to be looked at.
I am also
concerned about placing young people a long way from home in
residential children’s homes, if, unfortunately, there may be an
element of antisocial or minor criminal behaviour—perhaps
because the children are labelled and get judged more harshly. One way
or another, a proportion of children end up in the local youth justice
system. Multidisciplinary working between the youth offending team,
where the children are placed and the local authority that has placed
them is important. A lot more needs to be put in place to ensure that
that is
happening. Finally,
I return to the point of my intervention, which I obviously did not
express well. My concern is about not the legislation kicking in for
children with severe disability needs, but the fact that boroughs with
little provision—few foster carers and no residential
care—that place children outside their area could just go on
saying, “We haven’t got the foster carers or the places.
We haven’t even got them in the next borough
along.” I
cannot see what will trigger the search for foster places nearer home,
because boroughs that are not wholeheartedly signed up to the current
agenda could hide behind the term “reasonably
practicable”. I realise that that is the only phrase that can go
in the Bill, but I was looking for the Minister to say that there would
be guidance and that we would not prolong a situation in which large
numbers of children are placed outside their local authority area. It
is not that these children have specialised needs, but that the
authorities that send them away are not doing enough to provide local
accommodation.
Helen
Southworth: I echo the comments of my hon. Friends and
other hon. Members by saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr.
Williams. I
welcome the clause, which represents a radical change for children who
are looked after by local authorities. I particularly echo the concerns
about authorities placing children out of area. Warrington has a large
number of young people placed from out of area, so I have considerable
experience of young people who do not have access to the support that
they need. Another issue is that local authorities that place
looked-after children are unable to get the information that they need
about the relevant networks and what is happening in and around care
homes.
I have
several points to put to the Minister. He will not be surprised to hear
that, as the chairman of the all-party group on children who run away
or go missing, I have received representations from a large number of
children who have discussed their experiences. There is no question but
that there is a significant need for local authorities across the
country to provide emergency accommodation in their areas. How will the
general duty on local authorities to secure sufficient accommodation
address that need? I ask that particularly in light of the review on
access to emergency accommodation, which he and his Department have
established for this year.
The Minister
will recall the “Stepping Up” report by the
Children’s Society, which specifically addressed the issue
through extensive consultation with local authorities. Of the 69
authorities that replied to the request for information on emergency
accommodation, only 20 indicated that such accommodation was available
for
young runaways in their area. Of those 20, none felt that provision
fully met the need in their area, while six felt that it mostly met
local need and three that it partly met it. That is a fairly radical
gap that needs to be addressed rapidly if local authorities are to meet
the duty in the
Bill. I
should remind the Minister that that duty will be valuable not only for
those young people who run away from something that is a danger to them
and who need somewhere safe to go because they cannot be returned home,
but for the small number of looked-after children who need a breathing
space because their needs or issues with the local authority placement
must be addressed before they are given more long-term accommodation.
Will the Minister also tell us how emergency accommodation meets the
needs of children and young people who seek a safe haven from sexual
exploitation or trafficking? How will local authorities address those
needs under clause
10? 9.45
am I
add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on the
need for young people to have suitable accommodation on leaving care.
Many of those young people are under 18 and will be given direct
consideration under the clause. I refer the Minister back to clause 9,
which inserts new section 22C into the Children Act 1989. Under section
22C(6)(d), in addition to placement in foster care and local authority
children’s homes, a placement
means “subject
to section 22D, placement in accordance with other arrangements which
comply with any regulations made for the purpose of this
section.” Under
clause 10, will local authorities have a duty to provide accommodation
under section 22C(6)(d); and, if so, will that accommodation come under
the requirements of new section 22G(2), inserted by clause 10, that it
should be in the local authority’s area and meets the needs of
the
children? Will
the Minister discuss the issues relating to location of accommodation?
A problem raised time and again by young people who have run away from
local authority care, local authorities and police officers is that a
local authority has placed them in accommodation in close proximity to
known problems, such as drugs or sexual exploitation. Sometimes,
children are placed in close proximity to a registered sex
offender. If
I can beg your favour, Mr. Williams, perhaps I can draw your
attention to new clause 36, which covers some of the questions that
have been raised by other hon. Members. We hope that it will be
selected for consideration later in Committee
proceedings. Mr.
Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Williams. I would like to
make several points about new clause 19. First, the distances between
the foster home, the local authority and the family home should be
taken into account. If the child has been plucked out of an adverse
situation or, worse still, if legal action has been taken to safeguard
the welfare of the child, a placement close to home may not be ideal.
Conversely, where quick reassimilation into the family home is
desirable, the child should not be placed too far away.
For many local
authorities in London, placing children within the capital is not
always ideal or possible. As a result, many children are placed in
other counties. When that happens, it is much more difficult for a
local authority to maintain the level of communication and support
needed to help families through such a challenging process. We must
also be aware that children’s behaviour can be
different—I am not saying that it is good or bad—if they
are moved to rural or coastal parts of the country from the centre of
London. Finding the right placement is a hands-on job that requires the
full attention of those in the local authority. If the child is moved
too far away, they may simply fall under the radar, with detrimental
consequences. Since
there are no geographical limits on where children are placed or where
homes are set up, the chance of one street containing several homes
owned by different individuals or local authorities is increased. That
is not desirable and could spell trouble, as children in care are often
damaged or vulnerable in some way. Pooling large groups of such
children is not conducive to their emotional or social development. It
might even exacerbate problems that should be in the process of being
rectified. Lynda
Waltho (Stourbridge) (Lab): I echo the comments of hon.
Members in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Williams, for
this most important Committee on a Bill that, once enacted, will
transform the outcomes of looked-after children for many years to
come. The
new clause deals with accommodation—a matter on which a great
stride is needed. As we know, many young people in care have
experienced great disruption in their lives. I am particularly
concerned about children leaving care and those up to the age of 21.
Often they have experienced such disruption that everything breaking
down at the point when they move on can sometimes mean the end. It can
determine their future and their transition to successful adult
life. In
a memorandum to the Children, Schools and Families Committee, on which
I serve, Dr. Roger Morgan, OBE, the children’s rights director,
drew our attention to the views of young care leavers who had had
various care experiences. They described having to wait in bed and
breakfast accommodation for months before any flat or suitable
accommodation became available, but many of them—almost 300
young people were interviewed—were worried that their
accommodation after leaving care was unsafe. They did not feel safe or
secure when they were there.
It is telling
that many of them had been put into accommodation shared with people
whom they would never have been encouraged to be with while they were
in care. That seems ridiculous. Some were given flats that were
completely unsuitable or even dangerous. The majority felt that
insufficient time and regard were given to their future welfare and
that they had almost been disposed of—moved on and regarded as
no longer a problem. One young person said that she had been living in
a hostel with “a load of fellas” and drug addicts, and a
group of three young women reported that when they left care, they were
placed in a hostel well known for prostitution.
A variety of
safe, secure accommodation is vital for that age group. Protocols with
housing authorities are necessary to handle appropriate
accommodation
applications and there should be arrangements to sustain young people in
accommodation, including assistance with simple things such as
reporting repair needs and getting into those systems. Often, the
unsuitability of the property and the young people’s inability
to deal with making it suitable makes the whole thing break down
again. The
Bill is important, and the clause is an important part of it. However,
if we are not careful, we will miss a trick in extending safe and
secure accommodation to such young people. Risking their success risks
their safety. The protections that we want for young people must be
extended to the older age group. That is why I support the comments
made by both my hon. Friends. I hope that the Minister will
take my considerations on
board.
Kevin
Brennan: We have had a good debate on clause stand part
and on the new clause. It emphasises the fact that, as hon. Members
have said, the Government are introducing an important new duty in
clause 10.
Clause 10
places a general duty on the local authority to take steps to ensure
that, as far as is reasonably practicable, there is sufficient
accommodation in its area to meet the needs of the children it looks
after. That is a reflection of our ambition to enhance the range and
choice of suitable and quality placements for looked-after children,
and goes hand in hand with our commitment to ensuring that more
children are provided with accommodation in their local area, and are
placed in a different area only if the reason for their being placed in
a different area is to meet their particular needs. To take the point
of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, in fulfilling this duty, local
authorities do not need to take into account those children for whom an
in-area placement would be inconsistent with their welfare.
By requiring
local authorities to consider the benefits of having a number of
accommodation providers as well, the clause makes it clear that they
cannot fulfil this duty simply by presuming that they can provide
sufficient accommodation entirely by themselves. In addition, the
clause highlights the need to have a range of accommodation that it is
sufficient to meet the different needs of children who, as we know,
have very diverse
needs. The
new clause does say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West
appropriately, astutely and typically pointed out, that
“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.”
As my hon. Friend
pointed out, the drafting may be a little vague for the purposes of
legislation, but I understand the intention behind the new clause and
the hon. Gentleman’s purpose in proposing
it. I
will return in a moment to the point about care leavers aged between 18
and 21 made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and my
hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. The aim of the amendments made by
the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 is to ensure that all care leavers
between the ages of 18 and 21 have a personal adviser to provide
ongoing advice and support, and the Bill extends that personal adviser
beyond the age of 21, for as long as a young person continues in
education or training started before the age of 25.
The personal
adviser will work with the young person to develop a pathway plan which
sets out the young person’s needs, including for accommodation
and any assistance that they require with that. Importantly, the focus
of the pathway plan and any local authority assistance is to enable and
support the young person as an adult to arrange and secure their
accommodation, rather than just to do it on the young person’s
behalf. We
recognise that there is a lot more to do in relation to care leavers
over the age of 18. As hon. Members will be aware, we recently
announced—last week, in fact, with my hon. Friend chairing the
meeting of the lobby by the foster carers alliance—the 10 local
authorities that we have selected to pilot the “Staying
Put” 18-plus family placement programme. The programme is
designed to enable young people to remain with their former foster
carers when they are adults, so that they can leave home in a way more
typical of other young people, whose average age when they leave home
is around 24, rather than 16, 18 or even 21. If the pilot demonstrates
improved outcomes for care leavers, as we expect and hope it will, we
are planning to take action in the next comprehensive spending review
period to ensure that any care leavers who make that choice can
reasonably expect to remain in a family placement beyond the age of
18.
10
am In
addition to the “Staying Put” pilots, we are taking
forward a range of proposals from the White Paper to improve support
for the transition into adulthood. For example, those who have been in
care and who go into higher education will be eligible for a personal
adviser and a bursary of a minimum of £2,000, in acknowledgment
of the fact that care leavers face greater financial difficulties than
others.
Too many
young people are pushed into independent living too early and without
proper support. The “Care Matters” White Paper included a
comprehensive set of commitments to improve the quality of care
provided to looked-after children and care leavers. The Bill already
contains a provision to ensure that local authorities can move
looked-after children from foster care or children’s homes into
unregulated places such as supported lodgings, which hon. Members have
mentioned, only after a full review of the care plan. That will involve
determining whether the child understands the implications of any
suggested move and whether they will be provided with the support that
they need.
We expect the
legislation to reduce the numbers of looked-after children leaving care
at 16 or 17, and that is desirable. It is therefore not sensible to
require local authorities to develop long-term strategies to build up a
stock of accommodation for what we expect to be a diminishing group of
young people.
| 
