|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to make clear the Government's intentions. As he said, and as my noble and learned friend said in winding up the debate, Amendment No. 1 torpedoes the Bill. The passing of that amendment effectively has killed the Bill. As amended, it no longer represents government policy. Of course, the original Bill remains an important element in the Government's programme to modernise criminal justice and to reduce the unnecessary delay which causes such distress and inconvenience to the victims of crime.
Shortly, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will make the Government's position clear, but I am now in a position to tell the House that we shall not proceed with the Bill. We shall introduce a No. 2 Bill in another place this Session.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall, of course, agree with the Motion that has been put. However, does the noble Baroness recognise that what she has just said will be met with a great deal of horror up and down the country? The noble Baroness herself said that, under the rules that now exist in this House, when there is a combined majority against the Government they will accept that and listen. She has just said that this Government, with their overwhelming majority in another place, will seek to push through another Bill under the Parliament Act against the voice and the wishes of this House. That in itself is a great pity.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: In responding to the noble Lord's final point--and, of course, I respect the opportunity to speak of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank--I say simply that the overwhelming majority in another place is the democratically elected majority on which the programme will proceed.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I believe that that is an inadequate reply. Given that the debate has taken place, I put it to the noble Baroness and particularly, through her, to the Home Secretary, that in the course of his winding-up speech the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said very reasonably that he believed that he should not continue for too long because of the entrenched views that existed. Of course, in that respect he is right. However, should it not be recognised that if the Home Secretary proceeds without further thought and reflection, that will show that he has precisely the kind of entrenched views which, I understand, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General was regretting?
There are occasions when this situation occurs. Therefore, would it not be wise for the Government to pause for a moment, to put up with the obvious comments about their defeat, and not to regard this matter as a humiliation but something from which they might learn? If they so wish, on the next occasion they could include a commitment to such a Bill in their manifesto. If they do that, it might pass much more readily.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I have no wish to prolong the debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that I am sure my noble and learned friend in no way suggested that entrenched views persuaded him of a different argument. He has said publicly on many occasions that on this particular debate the Government have won the argument, and I, of course, agree with that.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill have been curtailed, the time available for this evening's Unstarred Question increases from one hour to one-and-a-half hours. The time limits indicated on the published speakers' list no longer apply. However, all noble Lords taking part in the debate should limit their speech to 15 minutes, as recommended in The Companion to the Standing Orders.
We have just been discussing those who may receive an inadequate defence. I now try to direct the attention of such of your Lordships as remain to some who are without any defence at all: children under the age of 16 who run away from home. My occasion for drawing attention to this problem is the report published by the Children's Society, Still Running--a piece of research carried out by the Children's Society in conjunction with the Social Policy Department of the University of York. It is a major piece of research with a very large sample. It has been carried out extremely thoroughly and, as far as I can see, with exemplary care.
A great deal of attention has already been given to the problem of children who run away. Although a number of small studies have not done so, this report has brought out the scale of the problem. I have been well aware of the problem for many years but I had no idea that it was on the scale that this sample has found. The calculations show that in one year at least 129,000 children under the age of 16 run away. Of those, at least 77,000 are running away for the first time. From that, one quickly derives that 42,000 in a year are running away for the second or subsequent time. The authors say that 46 per cent of their sample have done so more than once and 12 per cent more than three times. That is why the report is entitled Still Running.
Those occurrences are not, as we used to believe, single episodes of a childish tantrum. At least, if some of them are, it is in the minority of the cases. These are continuous underlying problems to which a return home does not produce a solution. It is estimated that 11 per cent of the whole age group run away at least once. That is an awful lot of children.
The other significant finding of the report is that of the sample of children who run way, 19 per cent do not leave home voluntarily; they do so because they are thrown out by their parents. The estimate is that some 14,000 children a year are forced to leave home before the age of 16. That is one in every 50 children.
Perhaps I may, for a moment, step a little outside the immediate context of the report. That is why I have felt for some time a considerable sense of misgiving about the Home Secretary's parenting orders, because I fear that the process of subjecting parents to those orders may lead to an increase in that number. That would not be good.
The research method of this study is basically one of self-reporting. The children were asked for their own accounts of why they did what they did and what happened. Probably the biggest single category reported by the children was cases of violence inflicted on the children by both parents, not just by their fathers, and of violence between the parents themselves.
In general, those problems are not just about parent-child relationships but problems of the functioning of families as a whole. There were controls over the self-reporting by checking what general problems the children were aware of in the household and seeing what correlations there were; by checking questions about situations and seeing what correlations there were. It was found that 10 per cent of the sample had step-parents--that is, the whole sample, including runners and non-runners--but 20 per cent of those who ran away had step-parents. Clearly there are difficulties in the job of running a step-family, as has been known to literature for many centuries. One does not gather where the responsibility lies within the family but there are clearly stresses which have not been dealt with.
However, certain matters are clearly under-reported. The survey itself believes to have under-reported problems of children forced to leave home either because they are gay or because they take drugs. All of us, whatever our inclination on the matter, should take pause from the child who said he was thrown out for "ordinary things like cannabis".
What does emerge from that is that returning the children back home does not solve the problem. The instinctive assumption has been that if there is an under-16 run-away, he should be returned back home to live happily ever after. It does not seem to work.
One of the questions in the survey was the open-ended question, "What happens in the end?" One child gave the bleak reply, "Nothing changed; it just got worse. So I took an overdose. Unfortunately, it did not work". So clearly we need to think beyond simply returning the children home.
There are very severe legal problems in the way of helping any run-away child under 16. If you take them in, you are guilty of harbouring them. That is a crime. That means that the children avoid advice centres, social workers and any responsible adult who may be in a position to help them. Typically they tend to go in for what the report describes as "sofa searching". But of those who are away for more than
Some of those are probably quite significantly under-reported by the survey's method. It is an interesting comment on our present values that the children seemed to be far readier to report stealing, when it was the only way they could get food, than they were to report either selling drugs or sex. That is not the first study which has found that sort of thing happening but it is the clearest and the largest. It reaches the point where it compels attention.
There is a legal remedy on the statute book for handling this sort of problem. It is in Section 51 of the Children Act 1989. For that I must pay tribute both to the Children's Society, which did a great deal of the work which placed it there, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Under that Act, it is lawful to set up refuges where the children can be taken in for up to two weeks without anyone facing any penalties for harbouring them which allows thought about what should be done for them. Of course, in some cases where it is appropriate to return them home, some negotiation with the parents is necessary before they are returned home, where there is a problem with the whole family function which needs to be addressed before they can be safe.
But at present there are only two such refuges in the whole country. In 1996, when my party first committed itself to a policy of increasing the number, there were three. Now there are two. So it is not true that things can only get better.
We do not need new powers. The powers in the Children Act are right. But we need more money. The cost involved is not overwhelming. We were advised that we could make a significant difference to that problem, if not solve it, for £5 million per year. I am extremely grateful to Centrepoint, which runs one of the refuges, for a great deal of detailed advice on the costings.
There is always a cost in doing nothing. A great many of those children started taking drugs while away. As one of them said, "I took drugs in order to stay awake for the burglaries", which were necessary to get him something to eat. Others become involved in crime because there is no visible legal means of support. They need to get something to eat somehow. Others who do not complete their education do not acquire skills for the labour market and end up on benefits, which, of course, cost a great deal. A few who sell sex will end up contracting AIDS, and the cost of one case of AIDS goes a very long way compared with the cost of providing the emergency help which is needed. A great many others, simply because they become dysfunctional, depressed, upset and withdrawn do not become earners.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on instigating this debate on a very important subject. It is an important subject but it is often as neglected as the children about whom we are speaking.
I remember, on my first visit to Rio de Janeiro, driving to the hotel from the airport. We encountered a minibus full of children who were being let out of the bus by the woman in charge of them near the Copacabana beach. I was informed that they were some of the thousands of street children in Rio. They attend a refuge run by a charitable organisation in the evenings but refuse to stay during the day for education and other worthwhile activities because life on the beach is so much more exciting for them so long as they do not get shot. There are shadowy elements allegedly connected with the law enforcement agencies who are involved in the shooting of street children.
It is a great blessing that the sort of things that happen in Rio do not happen here and that we are more caring towards children who fall through the safety nets. Certainly, we do not shoot them! However, the evidence of the excellent report from the Children's Society and other organisations is that we do not care nearly enough. In relation to our wealth and highly developed social provisions, we are not doing at all well in caring for our street children.
Some years ago, in connection with my work at the time, I met in a hostel for homeless young people in Coventry a young man. His stepfather said, "On your 16th birthday you leave this house"; he meant it. As a birthday present to his stepson, he threw him out. With his mother's connivance, for a few nights he climbed back in and slept at home, escaping before everyone was up. But eventually he was discovered and had to go. He slept for quite a few nights in the park before being found by the social services and accommodated very well at the hostel where I met him. He was lucky; many are not so lucky.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, told us of the 100,000 children who run away every year, 18,000 under the age of 11 running away for the first time. Another 18,000 are thrown out, as was that young man, by their parents. Some keep running away. So we must assume that when they go back things do not get better for them. It is important therefore to take note of the recommendations in the report not just for a network of refuges but an interview by an independent person for each returning runaway and a coherent response across government departments.
The proposals in the report should be considered on grounds of common humanity for the sake of the individuals and the common good. We must also take note of them because, by ignoring them, we are in danger of ignoring our international obligations. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which defines a child as anyone under the age of 18, states that,
I apologise for those rather long extracts, but they serve to remind us what our international commitments are. It is not clear that those obligations are always in the forefront of the Government's thinking when policies on children are being developed. It is therefore in accordance with the obligations to take this report very seriously.
The recommendations the report makes are the minimum we should be doing. It might be said that we cannot afford to implement the recommendations; that £5 million is a lot of money; and that the recommendations must take their turn in the queue with other demands on social spending. I suggest that that is a false economy; we cannot afford not to. The costs of not doing what the report recommends are greater than the costs of implementing it. The costs will come in the future from the consequences of neglect.
It is clear that not all young runaways will get into trouble and end up in prison. Far from it. Some, like the young man I met in Coventry, will go on and do very well. But we know that those young people who do get into trouble and who end up in prison and in mental hospitals, living lives that engender enormous social costs, come from backgrounds exactly like the ones described in the report. The links have been well established. The backgrounds of the young people who run away are the backgrounds that lead to prison. Four out of the five runaways who left home, so the report says, did so to escape family conflict, violence or abuse.
NACRO research on imprisoned young offenders published last November found that 60 per cent of those questioned had come from unstable living conditions. In 1997 the chief inspector of prisons in a survey of young people in prison, found that one quarter of them were homeless or had come from an unstable background. A more detailed report prepared by NACRO in 1998 looked at the backgrounds of a sample of young people in prison. It found that the young prisoners came from a background of family instability and disruption, which included violence, harsh physical punishment and other abuse, imprisonment of other family members, and alcohol abuse by parents. It identified 11 risk factors which made it more likely that crime and prison would be the young person's destination. Those included missing school, friends involved in
The NACRO report was prepared with the involvement of KPMG. It showed that spending money on earlier and better intervention would have been cost effective. An intensive programme to support a family and improve relationships can cost as little as £3,000; when successful, it can save, according to the estimates, £62,000. The Rand Corporation in the United States carried out a similar study in California. It looked at whether it was more cost effective to bring in a harsher sentencing law or spend the money that that would cost on prevention. The study concluded that,
This is hard research by a hard-nosed think tank. It supports the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the point I am making here; namely, that the costs of setting up a network of refuges may seem great, but those costs are bound to be less than the costs of not doing so.
The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, I too begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important report. We also have reason to be grateful to the Children's Society, whose work in developing services for vulnerable children and for promoting understanding through research is so much valued by policy-makers and practitioners alike.
I should like to make one or two observations from a policing perspective. In so doing, I should declare an interest as a serving officer in the Thames Valley, where I currently lead on youth justice issues for the force.
The report's estimate of the scale and prevalence of young people being away from home is, even in the context of what is known from previous studies, disturbing. The associated risks, both physical and psychological, are plainly set out in the report, so I shall not repeat all of them. Although the majority of young people relied on informal support networks to survive while away--not in themselves risk free--for others altogether more hazardous strategies were required. As the noble Earl mentioned, these included begging, stealing, selling drugs and selling sex. One in seven of young people who ran away overnight were either physically or sexually assaulted.
The vulnerability of such young people while they are away is underscored by a recent Police Research series paper entitled Missing Presumed. This reveals the scale of the links between going missing and prostitution in a study where one in seven of young runaways coming into contact with streetwork projects had traded money for sex in order to survive. In a local survey of young missing persons undertaken in Manchester, 20 per cent reported an involvement in prostitution. The paper also refers to the Street and Lanes project in Bradford, whose initial work confirmed the strong link between incidents of sexual exploitation and going missing. In its first year of operation 84 per cent of project users had been reported missing at some stage.
If we are to minimise the risks and build on the positive opportunities to which the young people interviewed referred, some expansion of refuges, street-based outreach work and drop-in centres seems to me to be highly desirable. That such provision is required nationally is surely established by the finding of the report that there is a significant prevalence of running away in all parts of the United Kingdom, however categorised.
In recent years we have heard much about justice by geography and of healthcare standards relative to where one lives. Can it be right that sources of support for young people who run away should be available other than on a national basis? I have heard it suggested that the provision of a national network of refuges might actually encourage young people to leave home. But I find that a somewhat fanciful notion in the light of the experiences of young people that are described in the report. Young people largely run away from harmful situations rather than to the bright lights of the city centre. The report conclusively disproves the idea that they do so for trivial reasons or for fun.
So what of the role of the police? Stereotypically the police service is associated with activity after a young person has run away. This is indeed important, as the longer they are away the more likely young people are to resort to dangerous means of survival and the more likely they are to be hurt. But there are, I believe, opportunities for police officers to be involved in strengthening the protective factors that militate against a young person running away in the first place.
The report identifies that being in trouble with the police can act both as a trigger for running away and form part of the broader context in which such events take place. The way in which the police approach such offending may, therefore, influence quite powerfully a young person's subsequent actions.
Since 1997 our force has been applying the principles of restorative justice in addressing early offending by young people and, in particular, when cautioning young offenders as an alternative to court proceedings. Many such cautions are delivered as part of a community conference in which the victim,
The emphasis is on reparation, restoration and taking responsibility rather than punishment and blame. The conference will also agree with the young person what interventions and support are needed to address the underlying causes of the offending behaviour. It seems to me very likely that some of those interventions will also address the sort of problems in the home, which four-fifths of young people identified as the reasons for running away.
We have also used such conferencing techniques in schools both to deal with incidents of bullying and to help schools address disciplinary issues, using the conference process as an alternative to excluding a pupil. The report highlights the significant link between persistent bullying and running away and a similar link with exclusion where one quarter of children excluded were found to have run away overnight on at least one occasion.
In ways such as these, I believe that the police service can play a role rather more complex than its search and rescue stereotype. But in the end, for those who do leave home and become detached from their families after running away, it is a refuge that may provide the essential shelter, safety and support.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friends have made very clear the deep seriousness of this problem. In my own experience I have talked with young people of about the age of 16 who have run away. They have told me about their problems; for example, distant fathers, mothers who are drunk and who find only fault with all their actions. Obviously, over many years it is a life-sapping experience and one can hardly be surprised when they eventually try to escape. When they do, there should be someone to listen to them and to give an appropriate response to their needs.
I have visited the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Centrepoint refuge in north London. It is a four-storey semi-detached house with a back garden. It is Victorian and its age is comforting. The interior is light and welcoming. The offices are situated in the basement and the next three storeys contain bedrooms, some of which are shared. There is also a television room and an activity room, together with a kitchen. Although there are locks on the bedroom doors, the children are allowed to spend as much time in their rooms as they wish. They are allowed privacy and a space to think, as far as is possible.
The refuge caters for approximately 300 children each year. These are referred by the police, or outreach workers from the homelessness agencies. Each child's arrival is notified to the police who can then inform his or her carer. The refuge can then hold the child for a maximum of 14 days at its secret address.
The primary purpose of the refuge is to ensure that the child moves on to a place of safety. It achieves this by assessing the child's needs. First, the staff interview the runaway. This is followed by consultation with the child's carers, the school, the police and other involved adults. Finally, an assessment report is drawn up. Social services have no duty to act upon this. However, the refuge can directly refer the children on to other services, such as counselling services, without consultation with carers or social services.
The staff are qualified social workers with experience elsewhere, or supervised social work students. Currently, three of the staff are accredited social work teachers. Their work is very tightly regulated by the Children Act. This rightly demanding regulation makes the service particularly expensive for the charities to run, as we heard earlier.
Relations with the social services are generally good. It is often essential to have the child interviewed by a local authority social worker sometime before his or her 14 days have expired. It may only be then that a child can receive the services that he or she will need. However, social services are often under great financial and time pressures. Social workers' decisions can be based on expediency rather than on what is best for the child's safety. They may not be available for interview early enough in the process. How will the Minister ensure that the safety of these children is always the foremost consideration?
In addition, local authorities more often than not refuse to pay for the children's stay at the refuge. Much of the manager's time is spent chasing local authorities. Unpaid accommodation is a further strain on the charities involved. Can the Minister say how local authorities are to be encouraged to meet these costs?
The refuge provides a service to improve relations between runaways and their families. This mediation is provided by Safe in the City and NCH Action for Children through their "Turnaround" project. Its manager and two project workers offer a course of six sessions to work with families on the causes of the child's flight. The service's aim is to prevent further running and street homelessness when the child is an adult.
A service to help young women out of prostitution, Breaking Free, is also provided with funding from the NSPCC. The three-person team advises young women at risk of sexual exploitation on issues of safety. It can also provide an escape route, should the woman want one.
I hope that this description of one refuge has been helpful to this debate. The Centrepoint report Nowhere to Hide drew attention to the fact that many children call Childline each day and those who get through are enthusiastic about the support they receive. However, many young children cannot get through to an operator. The service is much overburdened. Is there anything the Government can do further to support Childline? We must all think that it is terrible for a child to reach out for help only to be frustrated, as they report. They feel angry about that.
I return to the topic in hand. When will this necessary service--the provision of refuges--be extended to all children nationally? Should children anywhere in Britain feel that they have no one to turn to and nowhere to go but the streets?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I agree with every word of the noble Earl who initiated the debate and the three subsequent speakers. They speak with vastly more experience of this matter than I possess. I intervene only to say how glad I am that the Children's Society has produced the report we are discussing and how little it surprises me that the need for more refuge accommodation is at the forefront of the opinions of the children interviewed in the surveys. One sees that at pages 165 and 179 of the report.
I am moved to speak in the debate by a recent experience of my wife. I realise that I may be acquiring something of a reputation for reciting my wife's experiences in debates in this House. I promise not to do so again for quite a time.
Recently, my wife was passing through one of the major Underground stations in London at night. She saw an obviously destitute young man who appeared to her to be sitting in a state of complete hopelessness. He was not begging. She approached him and asked how old he was. He said that he was 16, but she thought that he was rather younger. He had nowhere to go and appeared to have no idea what to do. There was no notice or advertisement of any kind to indicate where someone in these circumstances might seek help.
My wife made one or two inquiries. She tried to ring Centrepoint--I have the greatest admiration for that organisation--but received only a recorded message. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made the point about children not being able to get through to an organisation on the telephone. She tried to phone another organisation and by the time she had finished the young man had gone. My wife considers it important--I share her view--that whatever accommodation is available should be advertised on notices or advertisements in such public places as railway and Underground stations. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind and comment on it, either now or in writing. That would be valuable.
Whatever our backgrounds and experiences of happy or unhappy homes--fortunately, my homelife was enormously happy--we can all still be aware that as regards the children in the age groups with which the report deals, and especially as regards younger children, their horizon is about six inches in front of their nose. If something goes wrong at home--the place, above all, where security is most important and most needed--there is nothing beyond that in the hopes, expectations, beliefs and consciousness of the child concerned. It is therefore far from surprising to note that page 165 of the report states:
I have read, thoroughly, Still Running. Like the noble Earl, one cannot fail to be impressed by the depth and breadth of the research undertaken or by the complexity of the problems involved. We welcome the initiatives mentioned in the report. We on these Benches wish to congratulate the three charities on an excellent report which will certainly help to improve the current situation.
As the noble Earl said, it is a startling and worrying fact that each year in the United Kingdom 77,000 children run away for the first time, and around a quarter of children first ran away before the age of 11. Indeed, Childline staff have seen children as young as eight coming to their refuge. These statistics must be of serious concern to all those who place the family, and the welfare of children, as important to a civilised society.
As a parent myself I was extremely disturbed to hear the noble Earl say that 14,000 children--that is a fifth of all runaways--are thrown out of their homes by their parents each year. The noble Earl mentioned "gay" and drugs problems. I believe that there is also a problem as regards children with special needs which needs to be addressed. I was also shocked to read in the report that a small but significant number of children had been completely detached from any form of support--the children whom no one notices when they disappear.
A report produced this year by the charity Safe in the City, paints a picture of young people who are struggling with a multiplicity of risk factors. These include acute poverty, family relationships under strain or fragmented--particularly if arguments lead to hitting--and other experiences of exclusion, such as moving house frequently and being excluded from school.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I draw the attention of the House to the work of the only registered refuge for child runaways in London and the South East, and one of only two nationally. The Centrepoint/NSPCC refuge was established in 1993 as a result of the Children Act 1989. As the noble Earl mentioned, it provides a safe environment for up to eight children and young people in which to tackle the problems that made them leave their parental home or care placement. With staff who listen and do not judge, it helps them to find an appropriate solution to those problems.
The refuge address is never given out. As the noble Earl said, most children are referred by Childline, the police or another agency, and are normally collected by taxi from an arranged pick-up point.
The Department of Health is contributing £50,000 per year for the next three years to help support the refuge, but the Children's Society currently receives no statutory funding for its runaway programme, which costs £1.8 million per year. Can the Minister say whether the Government are proposing to support refuges in any other part of the country?
The Minister will be aware that two years ago Sir William Utting, in his Government-commissioned report, People like us, recommended the development of a national network of refuges and street-work services for young runaways, and that such a development must receive financial support from both local and central government.
The Opposition feel very strongly that we should be dealing primarily with the root causes of why children run away, rather than simply looking at how to deal with the effects after the event. Prevention is better than cure. We need a more co-ordinated national response to children running away from home or from care.
Centrepoint is working to try to intervene at an earlier stage in young people's lives. I should like to mention two specific examples of its preventive work. First, Centrepoint encourages homeless young people to go in to schools to warn others of the dangers of running away. I was told by Centrepoint on the telephone this morning that this has been very successful. Secondly, its national development unit works in 12 areas around the country to bring local agencies, and housing and social services together. They then draw up strategic plans for reducing and preventing youth homelessness.
To prioritise prevention, Centrepoint would like to see more investment in family support and schools-based services at a local level. The schools service is particularly important, as 23 per cent of the children interviewed in Still Running had been persistently bullied at school, a point mentioned by the noble Earl,
I understand that different departments and agencies overlap on this specific matter. However, I should be grateful if the Minister can confirm whether the Government are considering implementing this suggestion.
Finally, in order that a coherent response can be made to the other pressing problems highlighted in Still Running, will the Minister confirm that the Government will consider as a matter of urgency--this is an important point--how different departments and local authorities can co-ordinate their efforts to prevent vulnerable children running away?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, deserves credit for raising the subject of children's refuges. I know that it is one which deeply concerns him. He has a lot of experience in this area and demonstrates a great commitment to adding his strength and assistance to it. I should like to join with other noble Lords and thank him for giving us the opportunity to discuss the many important issues that the consideration of children running away from home raises.
This is a most distressing and upsetting feature of our society. We are greatly indebted to the Children's Society for the research it has commissioned and we welcome the publication of the report Still Running.
We continue to consider carefully whether a national network of children's refuges is the right answer. At the moment we are not persuaded that it is the best way to tackle this dreadful problem. Leaving the safety of home must be seen as a last, desperate resort of a child. It is one that no child should feel compelled to take.
I should like to describe to your Lordships the comprehensive package of measures that we are implementing to try to prevent children getting into a state where they want to run away. We must be careful to ensure that our response is holistic--running away should not be regarded in isolation. The Government's Supporting Families programme, the wider agenda for all government action in the UK to strengthen family life and improve opportunities for children, together with the Quality Protects programme to transform social services for children in need and their families should help to ensure that services are put in place which will prevent children feeling the need to run away.
The Supporting Families agenda includes ensuring that all parents have access to the advice and support they need, including parenting support, education programmes and family mentoring schemes. It also addresses the need for better support for families facing more serious family problems and for early intervention programmes to tackle problems before they escalate into crises. These services--which might include family mediation--will be complemented by
Other developments should also contribute to the prevention of children running away. A child's behaviour at school, or indeed absence from school, can offer indicators of problems elsewhere. It is important that schools are aware of a child's home circumstances and of liaising with other agencies, including social services, and where necessary to identify and ensure a joined-up response to the child's needs. It also includes the introduction of pastoral support programmes for children who appear to have problems or difficulties. The new youth support service for 13 to 19 year-olds will also have a significant effect in this area.
The youth support service will be a unified, integrated and identifiable service for young people. Its function will be to arrange or provide a comprehensive range of services for all 13 to 19 year-olds. It will ensure that young people with problems are identified and given appropriate support.
By making improvements in the care system we hope to reduce the number of children who run away from care. One way we intend to do this is by giving children more of a say in the decisions taken about their care. Children's participation is an important part of the whole Quality Protects programme. Within this context, our main aim is,
Refuges can provide runaway children with a temporary breathing space to talk about and attempt to resolve the problems that caused them to run away. Refuge workers can also undertake rehabilitative work with isolated and distressed children who have become alienated from either their parents or the local authorities looking after them.
The Government do not intend to provide a national network of children's refuges. It is not the role of the Department of Health to provide direct care to children through funding refuges but to provide guidance and assistance to local authorities. Local authorities already provide children's homes and foster homes for children who are looked after. Local authorities may wish to consider whether there is a need for refuges in their areas.
There are two refuges operating which have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords: the Centrepoint refuge in London and another in Leeds, run by the Children's Society. We welcome the work they are doing. I understand that the Children's Society will be using the money it receives from the Millennium Children's Promise final hour appeal to help runaways and to establish more refuges.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page