---

Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

My Lords, it is with a certain sense of déjà vu that I rise to support the Bill, as well as anticipation of working with some old friends across the House on these issues. There have been several Bills relating to children and education, including the one that become the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, in the nine years since I joined your Lordships’ House. I say this not in a tone or spirit of criticism of the Government—perhaps slight weariness—but more as a recognition that we are all involved in a process of development and improvement. We discuss these issues and sometimes we legislate; after a time, we assess to see whether things are improving. The Government have listened—I think—in the intervening years. For the children and young people whose problems this Bill seeks to remedy, these are complex, generational, often very tragic issues, to which there are rarely easy and quick answers. For example, during the passage of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, some of us fought hard for a relatively modest but mandatory policy that children in care should have their educational costs paid post-16 and post-18—they should have a right to that financial support from local authorities. The Government agreed to our modest amendment and we have seen some improvement, but an improvement from 7 per cent to 12 per cent in children in care gaining at least five good GCSEs, as the figure was in 2006, is really not good enough. As we predicted then, and as the 2003 Social Exclusion Unit report makes clear, improvements for this cohort of children and young people are happening at far too slow a rate to reduce the gap in achievement and life outcomes between children in care and their peers. I take this opportunity to thank all those organisations that sent briefings. I declare two interests. I am a newly appointed trustee of NCH, the children’s charity, which has already been mentioned today. It provides services to 160,000 of the UK’s most vulnerable children, young people and their families. I am also an adviser to Rathbone, the largest charity provider of education, training and support for those young people who have struggled to achieve in mainstream schools, many of whom find themselves NEET—not in education, employment or training. NCH advocates—and I agree—that we need to pay attention to the educational aspects in this Bill. I shall be seeking clarification about the responsibility and greater support, financial and otherwise, for those leaving care to pursue apprenticeships and training. I also take this opportunity to say how much I agree with NCH that preventive systems, while not requiring legislation, are vital to keeping children out of care, as is support for those families who are struggling, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Walmsley, have mentioned. For too long, children in care have been let down by the state. This legislation, along with other measures set out in Care Matters, offers a real opportunity to deliver much needed changes to the care system. These reforms must improve the quality and experience of those who enter the care system. Both the legislation and the implementation plans must realise the radical reforms to the system set out in the Care Matters White Paper. I have a few comments and detailed questions about the Bill. It is important that the proposals in Part 1 for independent social care practices—SCPs—stem from a desire to tackle many of the perceived weaknesses of the current social work system by placing the needs of children at the centre of all that it does. While there may be potential benefits of SCPs, we must acknowledge that change does not always bring better outcomes. I share some of the concerns expressed by the Local Government Association about the development of SCPs. For example, SCPs may restrict a local authority’s flexibility in allocating resources and introduce yet another layer of bureaucracy to the system. Furthermore, there is no evidence that SCPs will resolve the issues of recruiting and retaining social workers or for this model being better than empowering foster carers or key workers in children’s homes, who are already much closer to the children and young people. The solution, which is important—it has already been mentioned today, as well as in many of the briefings that we have received—seems to be for this idea to be closely tested, with the roles and relationships clearly defined in unambiguously outlined boundaries and goals. Part 2 of the Bill addresses care plans and how they can best be implemented. We know that children and young people enter the care system from various backgrounds and circumstances. The majority of children in care—62 per cent—are there because they have suffered abuse or neglect, and 42 per cent of children in care return home within six months. Thus—and I am glad that the Bill acknowledges this—the care plan and its implementation are crucial to meeting the individual needs of each child. Clause 8 imposes a new duty on local authorities to place children in accommodation that is within their own local authority area except where accommodation consistent with the child’s welfare cannot be provided. In placement decisions, the welfare of the child should of course come first; the reassurances given by the Government that this will be the case are welcome. However, it is important that there is not a disincentive for local authorities to keep a child within their own local authority area when their needs could be best met accessing provisions such as specialist education in another authority. In addition, new subsection (7C) inserted by Clause 8(2) states: "““Where a local authority provide within their area accommodation for a child whom they are looking after, they shall secure that (where the child is not accommodated in his home) the accommodation provided is near his home””." I would like further clarification of what is meant by ““near””. Clause 9 builds on the requirements set out in the Children Act 2004, placing a duty on local authorities to give, "““particular attention to the educational implications of any decision about the welfare of””," any child whom they are looking after. It expects that care placement decisions should not normally mean that a child has to change school unless it is for the child’s welfare and that any school change should normally come about due to educational needs. In addition, this clause places a new requirement for children in school years 10 and 11: the circumstances must be exceptional to justify a care placement that is not near the child’s school. I support the strengthening of the duty on local authorities on placement stability when looked-after children are studying for their GCSEs or equivalent qualifications. However, should not this duty also be extended to cover other critical periods of a child’s education? Those of us who are parents know that, in particular, transition from primary to secondary schools is a time of great stress and importance in a child’s education. I welcome the extension of the group of looked-after children for whom the independent person must be appointed to visit, befriend and advise. I agree with NCH’s view on this. It runs a number of independent visitor programmes working with more than 20 local authorities and, in its experience, independent visitors are a good idea. It is keen to see them promoted and revitalised. However, it makes the important point that many young people do not want their independent visitor to be their advocate because they do not want them to know more information about them than they are prepared to share. In addition, many independent visitors work full time and the extra responsibility could be enough to dissuade them from volunteering, so the separation in the roles and functions must remain within these reforms. Finally, I turn to education and training. Clause 17 requires the governing body of a school to designate a member of staff to have the responsibility of promoting the educational achievement of looked-after children who are registered pupils of the school. Having a designated member of staff in each school has the potential to ensure that children in care have access to the educational support that they need. I would like the Government to clarify that the designated member of staff will be a teacher. In addition, for this position to make a difference, the member of staff must have the ability to ensure that any recommendation is implemented by the school, so resources and training should be available to the designated member of staff to effectively discharge the responsibilities. Clause 18 adds a duty on local authorities to pay a fixed sum to former relevant children who go on to pursue a course of higher education. Regulations will set out the amount, which will be exempt from income tax. This measure will make a difference to former relevant children who enter higher education. Such support should not be restricted to higher education and financial support should also be made available for further education provision. This is of particular importance because 30 per cent of care leavers aged 19 are not in education, employment or training. Indeed, I will be pressing the Government on why these resources are not going to be made available to young people in further education, apprenticeships and vocational training. I seek assurance that there will be a link and a read-across to the forthcoming Education and Skills Bill and its proposal to raise the age of participation in education or training from 16 to 18. What support will children in care need to achieve the new goals that the Government are setting? The Minister is almost certainly in the best possible position to ensure that this necessary joining-up takes place. Clause 20 enables local authorities to appoint personal advisers for certain groups of young people up to the age of 25 and to give assistance with expenses incurred through education or training up to the age of 25. I welcome these proposals, but they will not necessarily guarantee that young care leavers get the level of support that they need. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I would like to see statutory transition status for young care leavers entitling them to priority access to mainstream services and continued help from the local authority. When compared with their peers on almost any measure, people who have been in care come out severely disadvantaged. They continue to have educational outcomes way below their peers; they are disproportionately represented in the NEET group; they have a higher incidence of substance abuse and mental health issues; and they find themselves locked up in young offender institutions more frequently than their peers. They come into care as a most vulnerable group and they leave care to start their adult lives in an equally disadvantaged position. Some progress has clearly been made since the implementation of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, but still too many young people are leaving care at too young an age with insufficient preparation. In 2006—four years after the Act came into force— 21 per cent of young people had left care by the age of 17 and only 1 per cent remained in care beyond their 18th birthday. Apart from anything else, what does that say about the experiences that they were having? The average age for leaving home in the UK has now risen to 23 or 24—those of us who are parents know that that age will probably rise—and most young people will continue to have the support of their family well beyond that age. Young people leaving care have the right to ongoing support from their corporate parent. This is an opportunity to make improvements in the lives of these children and young people and to enhance their life chances. The generational aspects, the tragic costs to individual lives and the cost to society make not succeeding a price too high to pay. We have to get it right this time. I look forward to working on the Bill with noble Lords.