Helen
Southworth: Will my hon. Friend specifically address the
issue of whether new section 22C(6)(d) will be included under clause
10? If it is in the Bill, it should be included; if it is not necessary
for it to be in the Bill, I would perhaps accept that it should not
be.
Kevin
Brennan: Yes, I was coming to that, but as my hon. Friend
has given me the opportunity to mention it now, let me say that clause
10 will include the arrangements in new section 22C(6)(d). I hope that
helps my hon. Friend.
Helen
Southworth: Will there be a Government amendment to write
that into the Bill?
Kevin
Brennan: My understanding is that clause 10 does include
new section 22(6)(d) without the need for us to make a further
amendment, but I will return to that if I am wrong. Perhaps I can
clarify the point later in my remarks if inspiration reaches me .
[Interruption.] Indeed, it might well be on its way
right now. Yes, proposed new section 22C(6)(d) is included in clause
10, but perhaps I can clarify the issue further for my hon. Friend
later if I need to. On her other point, provision will have to be in
area, where reasonably practicable.
The whole
point of clause 10 is to give local authorities responsibility for
providing sufficient placements in area, where that is reasonably
practicable. Our aims is to ensure that the days of dumping—as
the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham put it—
looked-after children out of area are over. The Government want not
only to send out the message that such practices are unacceptable, but
to legislate to make it clear that it is the responsibility of local
authorities to provide sufficient accommodation in area, where
reasonably practicable.
The phrase
“reasonably practicable” is not a get-out clause in any
way, shape or form, and it obviously refers to some of the points that
have been made relating to London, provision across boundaries and the
need to take a sensible approach. As for the idea that it is acceptable
to dump large numbers of looked-after children out of area, it is clear
that the clause consigns that approach to history. I am sure that that
will be welcomed throughout the Committee.
Mr.
Turner: I refer—I hope this is the right
provision—to proposed new section 22C of the 1989 Act, headed
“Ways in which looked after children are to be accommodated and
maintained”. Subsection (6)(d)
specifies “subject
to section 22D, placement in accordance with other arrangements which
comply with any regulations made for the purposes of this
section.” At
what age does that cease to
apply?
Kevin
Brennan: I will refer to the hon. Gentleman’s
remarks later, rather than attempting to answer now, just in case I get
it wrong, although I think I know the answer to his
question. New
clause 19 would require local authorities, in considering whether to
place a child in a particular children’s home, to take account
of the location of other children’s homes in that area. I
understand the point that the hon. Member for East Worthing and
Shoreham makes, and his concern. He has obviously come across some
pretty bad practice in his constituency experience and is concerned
about the negative impact that the clustering of children’s
homes could have with respect to antisocial behaviour or criminal
activity. We
recognise that, statistically, children in care are more likely than
other children or young people to be subject to a final reprimand or
warning or to be convicted of a crime, largely because they experience
many of the same risk factors as young offenders, including abuse and
neglect, instability in their lives, poor educational outcomes, poor
parenting and higher rates of mental health problems than the wider
population.
However, it is
important to remember and to emphasise—we should always do so
when we are talking about young people and, in particular, looked-after
children—that the vast majority of looked-after children do not
get involved in crime. The number who are involved in criminal activity
is still small. Nevertheless I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point
and do not want to gloss over it at
all. The
existence of other children’s homes in the area is not the key
issue. What matters is that the placement meets the needs of the child
and that the child’s welfare is paramount in decisions about
care planning. In providing accommodation for children whom they look
after, local authorities must determine the most appropriate placement
on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of each child’s
individual needs. Before taking any decision regarding the
child’s care, they should as far as is practicable consider the
views of the child concerned, as well as those of the child’s
parents or other relevant people. The placing authority should be
satisfied, in making the placement decision, that the placement is
appropriate, capable of meeting the child’s needs and, where
possible, in line with the child’s
choice. Where
a looked-after child has been identified as having the risk factors
that make them vulnerable to antisocial or offending behaviour, the
system needs to work effectively to support them and ensure that the
risk factors are properly addressed. The child’s care plan
should set out how their needs will be met, and that is likely to
include information that influences the type and location of their
placement. Where
a looked-after child is placed in a children’s home, a key role
for the home is to provide a supportive and structured environment with
appropriate rules and expectations about behaviour. All providers of
children’s homes are expected to comply with regulations and
meet the prescribed national minimum standards for the operation of the
home and the care provided. That should and does include the management
of the children’s
behaviour. The
chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills
already has a range of enforcement powers that may be used in cases
where children’s homes fail to meet the standards expected of
them. We are including in the Bill measures to strengthen those
provisions, such as allowing the chief inspector to restrict new
admissions to homes that are found to be performing poorly. We are
funding other steps to improve the quality of residential provision,
such as the development of training and professional development
standards for all residential care staff. It is not in anyone’s
interest for children to be provided with accommodation in homes that
are not properly equipped or organised to manage antisocial behaviour
or to support each individual child to fulfil their potential. As part
of the review of the national minimum standard, we shall consider also
how best to encourage providers to engage positively with their local
communities and with other agencies. It is very important that that
takes place, for the very reasons that the hon. Member for East
Worthing and Shoreham mentioned: often in communities, there is a lot
of misunderstanding about children in care and about the presence of
children’s homes in an area.
Alongside such
supportive placements and good care planning, we need a youth justice
system that focuses on prevention—I commend my right hon. Friend
the Minister for Children, Young People and Families on her work in
that area—and provides appropriate sanctions to steer young
people away from the criminal behaviour that concerns hon. Members.
That is why the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 will
introduce the youth rehabilitation order—a community sentence
for juveniles that can be tailored to meet young people’s
assessed needs—and why we in the Department for Children,
Schools and Families are working closely with the Home Office and the
Ministry of Justice to publish the youth crime action plan this summer,
a central theme of which will be the prevention of youth crime. I shall
move on to make some other remarks, but I hope that the hon.
Member for East Worthing and Shoreham feels that he does not
need to press his new clause.
The hon.
Member for Isle of Wight asked about age: 18 will be the appropriate
age.
Mr.
Turner: The hon. Member for Stourbridge made some
important points, but I got the impression that they were in respect of
post-18-year-olds, so the question is, what is happening to children
post-18?
Kevin
Brennan: The duty to accommodate looked-after children
applies under clause 9 up to 18 years old. I referred to the
“Staying Put” pilots that we are running to try to make
it the norm for children to stay in their foster care placements up to
21 years old. However, many issues and questions—legal,
practical and others—need to be addressed. Of course, young
people can stay with their foster carers beyond 18, but foster carers
have brought to our attention the practical difficulties with such
accommodation, which we considered when developing the pilots. The
right approach is for us to ensure that we understand all the issues
before we roll out such a policy
nationally.
Mr.
Turner: The problem that the Minister cited was
with girls—young women—who had taken up recommended
accommodation and found that it was not foster care but an independent
home because they were post-18. Are we now being told that that cannot
be done? I get the impression that we are.
Kevin
Brennan: I hope that I have not given the hon. Gentleman
that impression at all. Local authority good practice when looking
after the needs and interests of care leavers should not involve
placements in the kind of inappropriate accommodation to which hon.
Members have referred. I cannot emphasise that
enough. I
was saying that the statutory duty in the Bill applies up to 18 years
old, but that we are piloting approaches that will enable care leavers
to stay, for example, with their foster carers beyond 18—with
the appropriate practical support. I am not saying that it is good
practice for any care leaver to be placed and not have the
support of their local authority beyond the age of 18. They should not
be placed in inappropriate accommodation, and it is absolutely part of
the local authority’s duty to plan appropriate accommodation
with the young person after they leave care, at whatever
age.
10.15
am
Lynda
Waltho: I welcome the “Staying Put” pilots,
which were discussed on the Floor of the House when they were
introduced. I would like the Minister to address further a point that I
made then. There is evidence from similar schemes in Northern Ireland,
which have been wonderful and successful. Given that evidence already
exists, are we not hanging back a bit too much? I understand the need
for evidence, but we need to move quickly. Does he have an end date in
mind, or a time by which a decision will have been taken? It cannot be
soon enough for those
children.
Kevin
Brennan: I sympathise and empathise absolutely with the
point that my hon. Friend makes, but I should tell her that the scheme
in Northern Ireland is relatively new, limited in scope and not
universal in application. The evidence is still new and untested in
terms of what has happened in the Northern Ireland context. Obviously,
however, we are looking at it with interest, as we will look at the
evidence from the “Staying Put”
pilots. I
have tried to make it as clear as possible that as soon as we have the
opportunity to evaluate the “Staying Put” pilots, which
are commencing as we speak, we will look to seek the necessary
resources to roll the scheme out nationally, provided that the
evaluation shows that any legal or other practical difficulties that
may have been thrown up can be
overcome. Kerry
McCarthy (Bristol, East) (Lab): Bristol is one of the
cities that have been selected to run the “Staying Put”
pilots. I welcome that because I have been approached, as several of my
hon. Friends have, by foster parents who have been in the difficult
situation of feeling that they have to turn someone who is all but a
member of their family out on to the streets when they reach a certain
age. I
want to press the Minister further on evaluation. I am concerned that
we will not necessarily always be able to assess until several years
down the line whether the arrangements made for young people under the
“Staying Put” pilots were appropriate and what was the
impact on their lives. We cannot immediately arrange for them to stay
with their family and say after several months that that is working
fine. There might be longer-term
consequences. Will
the Minister give us an idea of the time scale for the evaluation, or
will it be a running evaluation with an assessment after six months?
Will the evaluators then stay in touch with the young people to see how
the arrangement has worked out for
them?
Kevin
Brennan: The assessment will not be about whether the
arrangement is suitable for the young person. It will be about the
practical, financial, tax, benefit and other issues that may be thrown
up by the arrangement under the pilot to continue to pay foster carers
for keeping young people in their homes beyond the age of 18, rather
than using the supported lodgings
approach. The
supported lodgings approach is often used, but it often pays a lower
rate, which causes financial difficulty. If there is mutual agreement,
there is no reason why foster carers cannot continue to accommodate
young people leaving care. In doing so, they are entitled to supported
lodgings allowance, but often that is inadequate.
Therefore, the
issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East are not
the issues that we are worried about. Where the young person and the
foster carer both want it, it is often in that young person’s
interest to stay in the placement beyond 18. We are, however, trying to
address the often unanticipated difficulties that making such a change
throws
up. The
Government have occasionally been criticised, possibly rightly, for
rushing to legislate and not trying to find out what the unintended
consequences of legislating might be. It is right that we base our
policy on clear and properly evaluated evidence, although we should do
so without unnecessarily delaying a radical and appropriately
progressive policy change, which is ultimately what the Bill
represents. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend on that
point. Care
leavers over the age of 18 have a sole entitlement to mainstream
accommodation, as do other vulnerable groups of young adults. Housing
services in a local area are responsible for making those arrangements,
but they should work closely with leaving care services to ensure
holistic planning to meet the young person’s needs as identified
in their pathway
plan. I
have half an eye on the green screen up there, Mr. Williams,
so I will try to deal with the rest of the points that were raised
during this excellent debate. In relation to the duty to children
placed out of area, the Arrangements for Placement of Children
(General) Regulations 1991 require local authorities to notify the
local authority for the area where the children are being placed, which
meets the points made by the hon. Members for Mid-Dorset and North
Poole and for East Worthing and Shoreham about local authorities often
not being aware of
that. I
hope, however, that clause 10 will significantly reduce the instances
of looked-after children being placed out of area by providing local
authorities with a legal duty to have sufficient accommodation within
area.
The hon.
Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to a particular case
about an isolated home. Clause 10 is specifically intended to help to
tackle the issues of increasing provision of accommodation within the
local authority area that the children are from, so that they can be
looked after there, rather than dumped away from their
homes. The
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole also asked how that
statutory duty would bite on local authorities. Clearly, local
authorities will be expected, under statute, to assess current and
projected needs for looked-after children in their area, and we will
ensure that it is clear that they have to do that. They will have to
plan and design secure services that can meet those needs, and they
will have to engage with potential providers and service users as
necessary to continue, review and monitor those services. That role
will, of course, be inspected and made absolutely clear during that
inspection. I
will deal with one or two other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for
Warrington, South raised an interesting point that we mentioned
earlier. She will be fully aware that we are reviewing the whole
question of the provision of adequate emergency accommodation, because
she was closely involved in the young persons action plan. We
absolutely acknowledge that children need safe places to go when they
run away from home, until the reasons for their running away are
addressed.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the
review of the existing emergency accommodation is well under way to try
to identify its strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately to address
them. The action plan sets out a further commitment to support the
development of the commissioning and provision of emergency
accommodation for young runaways, including those who are running away
from care. As she knows, we will consult local authority and partner
organisations, as well as young people, to inform all that
work. On
that basis, I think that clause 10 should stand part of the Bill and
suggest that the new clause is
unnecessary. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
10 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
