---

Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

I echo the noble Baroness’s thanks to the Minister for his very careful response to all the points that we made in Committee; we are very grateful for the lengthy and detailed letters that we have been receiving. I also echo the noble Baroness’s thanks to Jake Vaughan in the Government Whips’ Office for being very patient about what has been going on in the past week or so. We also welcome the Government’s amendments, which bring the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to well-being into line with those of local authorities and governing boards—functions that were set out in the Education and Inspections Act that was passed not very long ago in 2006. Given the importance of the role played by the Secretary of State and his department in dictating the terms according to which education, training and care are delivered in this country, it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should be subject to the same objectives and constraints as those who are on the front-line of delivering those services. We are also very pleased that well-being is being extended to parenting. This recognises the very important role of parents and parenting in the well-being of children. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is in his place today—I think not; he is still on holiday—but we have all played a substantial part in this issue. Perhaps I should declare an interest here as vice-chairman of the All-Party Group on Parents and Families. We are also delighted to see included in the amendment care leavers over 18 years of age, who are particularly vulnerable. Again, this is very appropriate. We do, however, have a number of queries and questions for the Minister about the amendments. First, does the duty of well-being also apply to the Secretaries of State for Justice and for Home Affairs in relation to the children of illegal immigrants, of asylum seekers, of those held in detention centres and of those held in custody? Secondly, are there no equivalent provisions for Wales? Thirdly, does not proposed new subsection (4)(a) on the well-being of care leavers receiving services also apply to care leavers not receiving services? Does it apply both to those who have been actively receiving services and to those who have not? In the letter of explanation of 6 February which the Minister sent to us, he says: "““The Secretary of State now has responsibility for promoting the well-being of all children and young people (and, by extension, their families and those who care for them)””." Can the Minister explain precisely who is implied by ““their families””? Will it be spelled out in guidance? The Minister’s letter also states: "““The clause itself requires the Secretary of State to promote children’s well-being””." The clause explains that this is a general duty to reflect its target nature, recognising that the Secretary of State will be entitled to take a wide range of matters into consideration. The letter continues: "““It also ensures that the activities the Secretary of State undertakes to promote children’s well-being includes activities in connection with parenting””." I have just welcomed that, but it would be useful to know what sort of activities the Government have in mind and what sort of resources are likely to be put behind such activities. In this letter explaining the government amendment, the Minister also points out: "““The new duty will enable the Secretary of State to deliver the Children’s Plan more effectively and to ensure that the expenditure he incurs in certain contractual arrangements is in ""accordance with the government financial propriety rules. This would allow him to form those relationships with providers in the private and third sectors that are the most appropriate to achieve his objectives as he is currently able to do for education services””." What plans does the Secretary of State have in mind? Is there likely to be a conflict between these and the Every Child Matters agenda? For example, taking the analogy with education, can a Government required to promote the general well-being of children and young people justify imposing an academy on a community which has decisively rejected such a proposition? Finally, I should like to pick up on one or two points made by Barnardo’s, which says: "““The Government amendment rightly links the Secretary of State’s duty to promote well-being back to the five Every Child Matters outcomes for children and young people enshrined in law in s. 10(2)(a)-(e) of the Children Act 2004. Barnardo’s does not think that the current support systems fully contribute to young care leavers achieving the five outcomes outlined in the Every Child Matters agenda; and we would welcome steps taken by the Secretary of State through the new duty to address this. The following illustrate how care leavers’ achievement of the five outcomes can be compromised””." First, on physical, mental and emotional well-being, Barnardo’s states that, "““many young care leavers tell us that they feel they have not been prepared for the reality of leaving care and in particular the issues of isolation and loneliness. Leaving care preparation frequently concentrates on the practicalities such as DIY, cooking and budgeting; but does not provide preparation for the emotional impacts of living alone or how to get help and advice””." On protection from harm and neglect, Barnardo’s says that, "““we know that care leavers are vulnerable to many social problems such as substance abuse, exploitation and crime, yet it is too often the case that care leavers are placed in areas of the community where these problems are rife””." On education training and recreation, Barnardo’s says that, "““the measures outlined in Care Matters and in the Bill to improve access to further and higher education are commendable; but we would also like to see proposals for increasing supported employment and believe there is an untapped opportunity to link to the commercial and business sector to achieve this””." On making a contribution to society, Barnardo’s says that, "““we have already commented on the isolation that young care leavers’ experience which can preclude this contribution. The preparation for moving to independent living should include introductions and supports to enable young people to link to social and other networks in their new home area, including appropriate volunteer opportunities””." Finally, on social and economic well-being: "““Barnardo’s welcome the proposal to provide extra money for child trust fund accounts, but recognise this will only impact on a small percentage of the care population, those born on or after the 1st September 2002. Barnardo’s would like older children in care to have similar opportunities to develop assets for use when they reach 18. In addition Barnardo’s believes there should be a minimum level of leaving care grant for each young person, consistent across all local authorities””." As I say, those points have been put to us. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide further elucidation of his proposals.