| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Clause 37 [Determinations under sections 35 and 36]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 63:
Clause 37, page 18, line 34, at end insert “(subject to any provision as to the time by which such a determination must be made)”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Meacher moved Amendment No. 64:
(1) In exercising its functions under this Part, the HCA must have regard to the duty of local authorities to provide housing for young persons leaving care under section (Duty to provide housing for young persons leaving care).
7 July 2008 : Column 609
(2) The HCA may, in co-operation with the relevant local authority, facilitate the provision of such housing.”
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment and Amendment No. 191 at the request of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who is unable to be with us this evening. He tabled an amendment on the same subject in Committee, but these two amendments are rather new.
I respect the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we should beware of management by legislation. We need to take care about that, but we also need to find ways of protecting the most vulnerable people in our society. I am aware that the Bill has a wide remit. Now that I am listening here today, what I have to say feels as if it is on the edge of that remit. Children leaving care are just one of a number of vulnerable groups of young people. The Minister has made clear her reluctance to single out that particular vulnerable group, and I understand an argument for that approach. I am also aware that she is committed to a light-touch approach with local authorities. I am nevertheless hopeful that she will recognise the importance of these amendments, which offer two routes to achieving strategically planned, appropriate housing for all care leavers.
It is perhaps worth noting the direct link between these amendments and government Amendment No. 46. It says that the HCA may assist in,
It seems very clear to me that the amendments would do more than almost anything I can think of in helping the HCA to achieve that objective. It is worth thinking about that, and I hope that the Minister will consider the relationship between these amendments and her own.
There is a strong rationale in favour of the Government taking a special responsibility for these care leavers. Quite simply, where parents have shown themselves unable to exercise their parental responsibilities, the state takes on responsibility for these children. That is entirely different from the state’s responsibility to other vulnerable young people. Parental responsibility does not, of course, come to an end when the child reaches 16, as anyone in this Chamber who is a parent knows all too well. Our responsibility seems to continue until our children are into their 20s, their 30s and, heaven forbid, even beyond.
I hope that Amendment No. 64 meets the Minister’s wish for a light-touch approach. It requires the HCA to,
It enables the agency—it does not force it—in co-operation with the relevant local authority, to facilitate the provision of such housing in the context of its remit to invest in the provision of social housing.
Amendment No. 191 is a more direct approach to the problem. It places a duty on local housing authorities to plan, in conjunction with children’s services, for the provision of sufficient appropriate housing for young people leaving care in their area. It is very difficult to imagine that local authorities should not be doing just that, yet we know that many simply do not.
7 July 2008 : Column 610
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned to me informally that the needs of children leaving care are not just a matter of bricks and mortar, and of course they are not. That is why the amendments refer to appropriate housing. Most of that should be supported housing; we use “appropriate” to cover any eventuality or special need.
I hope that the Minister will agree that this is not asking anything unreasonable. She may take the view that the amendment would fly in the face of the soft-touch approach. I want to indicate a number of policy areas in which the Government have not taken such an approach, and for very good reasons. I urge the Minister to do what she needs to do to ensure the provision of sufficient appropriate housing for this group of young people—care leavers. I am sure that she will agree that the Government need a careful mix of clear policy direction on the one hand and a soft touch on the other.
The Minister will be aware of many areas where departments already direct local authorities to take much needed action. I do not dispute any of that. There is, for example, statutory guidance from various departments to deal with serious social ills. However, the DCSF and DCLG guidance on these matters is not yet on a statutory footing. Will the Minister bring this guidance into line with other similar guidance in giving it statutory force? I hope that she will consider this.
I point to a number of existing policies which, with minor amendments to guidance or regulations, would help to achieve the objectives of Amendments Nos. 64 and 191. For example, the Homelessness Act 2002 requires the local authority to develop a strategy for tackling homelessness. We should not require care leavers to become homeless before the requirements on local authorities kick in.
I strongly support the National Leaving Care Advisory Service in urging a small change to the guidance to transform the prospects of care leavers. The guidance should say, “This strategy must include a section on care leavers”. Will the Minister respond to that modest proposal, which would enable or encourage earlier intervention to prevent homelessness rather than wait for it?
Another example of a clear government policy directing local authorities in certain ways which could be tweaked is the Children Act. One might say that that has nothing to do with this department, but children's trusts are required to include health, education and social services organisations. Will the Minister consider proposing the additional words, “and housing authorities”? That is to say that the regulations should surely require children's trusts to include representatives from health, education, social services and housing authorities to make sure that the roof over the head of a child with support is considered by children's trusts. If they do not consider that bit, you can be quite sure that the education, health, employment and everything else will simply not happen.
I want to refer to one other helpful way to promote the objectives of our amendments—to provide sufficient appropriate housing for young people leaving care. I want to emphasise that all these proposals are complementary with these amendments. If we had it all we would be making a dramatic impact. If we had
7 July 2008 : Column 611
I have taken noble Lords’ time to explain the purpose of Amendments Nos. 64 and 191 and to spell out other changes to guidance and regulations that could together radically improve the life chances of young people leaving care. I argue that they would radically improve the chances of success of government Amendment No. 46.
I remind noble Lords of one reason why this is so important. Ninety per cent of children in children's homes are as mentally unwell as young people and children entering tier 4 in-patient units, and I happen to know a thing or two about the state of health of those children. That is a truly terrible statistic. Those young people are generally looked after with no medication, not in a therapeutic environment and by unskilled people with maybe an NVQ level 1, and at the end of that experience those children are pitched out into housing, unregulated and unsupported. It is no wonder that many of them finish up in prison—hence the importance of government Amendment No. 46. In conclusion, while some local authorities do well and provide appropriate housing for many of their care leavers, the fact is that many simply do not. You can find good practice if you look for it, but it is surely the responsibility of all of us to deal with widespread failure. I hope that the Minister will respond in her usual positive way to Amendments Nos. 64 and 191. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my name is down to support these amendments. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is not able to be with us this evening. I understand that he is not well and I hope that he is soon recovered.
It always seems amazing to me—but I have been very fortunate with my life—that on almost a day-to-day basis throughout the country children at the age of 16 or 17 are literally dumped on the street. I find it appalling that adults can do that, whether they are official carers, irresponsible parents or whatever. The fact is that it happens. For the individual concerned, that is a total tragedy. I know through work that my wife has done that some have been picked up and literally put together, arriving on somebody's door at 6 pm or 8 pm and saying, “Can you help, please?”.
It is not easy or straightforward. I know of one YMCA that runs a very successful daytime/evening operation, but it has a single-storey accommodation. There was eventually a proposal that it should try to redevelop and, if it could get enough commercial flats for sale into its site, possibly get a few units of accommodation. As the financial equation got worse and worse, the amount of residential accommodation that it had to sell became a greater proportion of the totality. In the end, it was undertaking a commercial
7 July 2008 : Column 612
If these kids can be picked up and rescued—I say rescued but I mean given stability and the opportunity to start doing something worth while—it is remarkable how rapidly they will improve. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, this is a wonderful way of preventing young people falling into crime or prostitution. That is why I support these amendments. This is a very small but very significant sector; it is so small that it is not easy to keep an eye on, but we need to remember it. Anything that the Minister can do to help in this field will be very welcome.
9.30 pm
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who brought me into the Grand Committee debate on the strength of my previous constituency in the Cities of London and Westminster. Homelessness there was so prevalent that clinics were set up by private charities to administer healthcare to the homeless. This went to the extent of having records of 12,000 homeless people, so that if a homeless person turned up in the accident and emergency department of a hospital in Liverpool, the staff there could communicate with a clinic in Soho to get the individual’s full medical records.
In Grand Committee I sympathised very strongly with what the noble Earl said. In addition to making references to those who had been in care, as the amendment had described, I also cited the case of a prison leaver and my correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to check whether the experience I observed as one of the final cases I had as a constituency MP was commonplace. He replied in correspondence that he was sure that it was. I shall not rehearse that argument. In echo and support of what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, I say that all constituents are equal, but some are more equal than others. I remember the case 15 years ago of somebody who had been homeless for a very long time and was desperate to have a home of his own. It took an immense length of time and some effort to secure such a home. I can remember his pleasure, gratitude and joy on moving into it. I remember his handwriting; he always signed his name simply with his initial. I can also remember the absolute tragedy that, within 10 days of moving into that home, he declared that he was unable to cope and would have to give up the home and go back to his previous experience. I mention that because of the noble Baroness’s reference to supported housing, in which young people are given a chance to make their way on their own without being left wholly to themselves.
I congratulate the noble Baroness on her extremely comprehensive and detailed argument on supported housing and how the Bill has just been amended. I am happy to lend her my support.
7 July 2008 : Column 613
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are all sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is unable to be in his place this evening. He has campaigned relentlessly on behalf of these vulnerable young people, certainly for as many years as I have been in this House. He would have been proud and pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, speak.
The noble Earl came to see me last week, and I had a long and helpful conversation with him and some of his expert advisors. He is in no doubt that I share his concern to ensure that care leavers can access appropriate accommodation. The example that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, has just given us was extremely powerful, in suggesting the vulnerability but also the difficulty that those who have not had a home find in adjusting to having one, and the responsibility that follows. I also share the noble Earl’s concern that local authorities should exercise their responsibilities to assist care leavers to secure suitable accommodation, which will give them the security that so many of them lack.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will know that I am deeply sympathetic to these amendments. She also knows that we are seeking the most effective ways of supporting young people. It is not perverse to say that putting a duty on local authorities is not appropriate for the Bill. That is not through hostility to finding a way forward, but my belief that the amendment would not necessarily achieve what the noble Baroness wants. It might also have perverse consequences for other vulnerable people within the range of local authority responsibilities.
I shall come back to the noble Baroness’s specific points at the end. It is important that we set out the context in which we have been working following the Care Matters White Paper. It gives me pleasure that, over the past five years, care leavers and children in care have been given the sort of priority in legislation and government support that they should have had many years ago. We have made it clear that we give young people in care genuine priority in services and support; so we should. Many of them simply do not recover from their traumatic experiences.
Among those initiatives, we have the Care Matters White Paper, which includes a range of commitments to improve the quality of care provided to looked-after children. Primarily, however, we have a vision of moving away from the idea of “leaving care” as a single, cliff-edge event in favour of supporting young people to make a gradual transition from their care placement so that they can take on those greater adult responsibilities that are so difficult for them, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, described.
Through the Children and Young Persons Bill we are introducing a requirement that children in foster placements or children’s homes who move to independent living only do so as a consequence of a review of their care plan. That way, they only move on from their final care placement when it is recognised by all those responsible for their care that they are ready to take that significant step and have been properly prepared to handle it.
7 July 2008 : Column 614
As part of the Care Matters programme, funding has recently been allotted to contribute to the costs of building additional units of supported accommodation for care leavers. It has not been easy to achieve that. The strength of this commitment right across government is reflected in one of the few cross-government public service agreements, number 16, relating to adults at risk of social exclusion. The PSA focuses on four client groups that may be negotiating a difficult transition point, including care leavers.
The two national-level indicators in the PSA target for the care leavers group concern the proportion of former care leavers aged 19, who had left care aged 16 or over, who are in suitable accommodation, and the proportion of former care leavers aged 19, who had left care aged 16 or over, who are in employment, education or training. It is a big challenge to give this group effective priority and provide more support for them and an accommodation pathway. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness that we attach a very high priority to the needs of this vulnerable group.
However, if we placed a specific legislative duty on housing authorities to provide accommodation for young people leaving care, and placed their need for housing over and above the housing needs of other vulnerable groups, we would create additional problems. For example, we would be less able to support other young people who had been the subject of domestic violence and those with physical or learning disabilities who required specially adapted homes. Meeting the needs of vulnerable people across all sections of the community poses a very difficult challenge for local authorities; however, that is what they must do. It is not just a question of providing solely for vulnerable groups and care leavers.
The noble Baroness addressed the fundamental point that we have to increase the supply of homes available for these young people. That is part of the challenge of supplying affordable homes in a society where their price has spiralled beyond reach. The Homes and Communities Agency will work with local authorities to address the particular housing needs in their area. This means delivering new housing that addresses the needs of all vulnerable groups, which, of course, includes care leavers.
The noble Baroness asked me about putting guidance on a statutory basis, amending the Children Act and tackling homelessness in other legislation. I hope she will forgive me if I do not answer those points in detail. I want to read her comments because she referred to four or five very important ideas. I want to give a thoughtful response but it is essential that I do so in writing. I hope that she will take back to her noble friend not only the fact that a consensus was expressed around the House that this group is particularly important, but that across government we are trying to find the most effective way to provide for it. She is right to say that this measure would help us to achieve the goal expressed in government Amendment No. 46, to reduce crime and the fear of crime. There is no more telling statistic than the number of young people who have been in care who end up in prison. For that reason alone, we need to take vigorous action.
7 July 2008 : Column 615
Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that thoughtful response. However, I want to put it on record that when we talk about Every Child Matters and so on we should remember that carers in children’s homes are still unskilled. They tend to have an NVQ1 and are completely unable to provide the therapeutic and medical support that these children need. They therefore leave care needing substantial further support. The Minister referred to the gradual transition of these children. There is a desperate need to adopt a strategic plan to provide this housing so that when young people suddenly need to leave a children’s home there is something for them. That is the point of these amendments. Of course, I understand that other vulnerable groups need housing, but the vast majority of people in those groups have family. That is a big difference. Care leavers comprise a very specific group. Having said that, I again thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Control of subsidiaries]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 65 and 66:
Clause 44, page 21, line 5, leave out from second “HCA” to end of line 13 and insert “engages, without the consent of the Secretary of State, in an activity which the HCA would not be required or permitted to carry on.”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |