---

Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords]

I am sure that the hon. Lady is as aware as I am of the fact that the majority of young people move into fully independent living at approximately 24. That is not to say that they are incapable of making decisions or acting to support themselves before then; it simply means that young people do not wish to be alone and unsupported. We should not leave unsupported young people who have been in local authority care and who are vulnerable because of that. I agree with her on the principle. Although we might sometimes wonder whether young people are capable of taking on those responsibilities, none of us is capable of living alone, in isolation—none of us is an island. Independent reviewing officers are registered social workers who are independent of the management of the looked-after children's cases that they review. They chair all looked-after children's statutory review meetings, and from that position they can identify problems in the children's care and any lack of clarity in the care plan. They therefore have a crucial role in promoting the best interests of the child. The Children and Young Persons Bill strengthens and extends the role of the independent reviewing officer by introducing a duty on them to monitor the local authority's performance of its function in relation to a child's case. Amendment No. 18 would place a statutory duty on local authorities to offer the IRO's services in monitoring the care and pathway plans of all young people up to the age of 18, regardless of where they live. That is incredibly important when one considers the young people whom we have identified. They include those who are moving on to independent living and who have lost looked-after status, and those serving a custodial sentence. I want to look at the needs of young people aged 16 to 18 who are moving on to independent living, including those to whom the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) referred. What is happening, in practice, to them? Why do the provisions matter? Why is it essential to the success of a pathway that such young people have access to an independent reviewing officer? At the moment, information on how many children become what is known as ““relevant”” rather than ““eligible”” children is in many ways inadequate, but recent data from the Department for Children, Schools and Families suggest that 26 per cent. of young people leave care in their 16th year, and 19 per cent. leave care in their 17th year. When those people leave care, they are no longer ““eligible”” children, but become ““relevant”” children—children who, if amendment No. 18 is made, would benefit from an independent reviewing officer. That means that more than 40 per cent. of young people in care would not, as the Bill stands, get the considerable benefit of access to an independent reviewing officer, but would if the amendment were made. It is incredibly important to consider what is actually happening to those young people. Young people who leave care at 16 or 17 are likely to be particularly vulnerable. Many of them will have had difficulties with the care environment. They are moving out of support, but sometimes they feel that they are taking a step that gives them some control over their lives. The Rainer ““Home Alone”” report published last year says that housing continues to be a problem for those young people. To reiterate the statistics that we heard earlier, it says:"““Almost one third of rough sleepers have experienced local authority care as a child and 61% of young people have moved more than three times since leaving care…16% of care leavers…were not in suitable supported accommodation. This means that…one in six care leavers assessed were not receiving appropriate support with their housing needs.””" The report gives examples of the severity of the processes. One young person was described as experiencing"““frequent harassment and discrimination from other tenants. The worst example saw her burgled and her pets were killed””." That girl had left care, aged 16, after six and a half years as a looked-after child. There is example after example of young people being placed in inappropriate accommodation that does not support their needs. As a Member of Parliament, I have had constituents come to me who needed help because they were placed in unsupported accommodation. Young people have been placed in homelessness units with people who have drug dependencies and criminal records. Young people have been placed in a residential setting with people with whom, when they were looked after, they would not have been allowed to mix. Time and again, we all hear of examples of failures in the system for ““relevant”” young people. I am speaking of the experience not of most young people, but of a very sizeable minority. However, there are very vulnerable young people who experience extremely difficult—and in some cases dangerous—outcomes. At that stage, what chance do they have to get an education, an apprenticeship or a job? That is the question that the Bill has to address, and this is our opportunity to do so. I hope that in answering the debate, the Minister will give us clear indications about how she will use the Bill and the regulations that support it to make sure that this set of issues is addressed. We have to ensure that every young person who leaves care has a full review that determines whether they are a looked-after child or a relevant child—what category they come into. I hope that the Minister will give a clear indication of how that process will take place and what the role of the independent reviewing officer will be. She has already said—in Committee—that no child would be able to leave a foster care placement or a residential placement for other arrangements without a review case having been held with the independent reviewing officer at which it has been agreed that it is in the best interests of the child to move into the alternative accommodation. In addition to that, we need a clear and categorical commitment that no child can leave looked-after status and become a relevant child without a reviewing officer having decided that that is in their best interests. Furthermore, if there is a failure of accommodation—because it is unsuitable, because it is temporary and permanent accommodation has not become available, because there is some failure in the tenancy or because the young person has problems with family or friends which mean that they need extra support—there has to be a trigger mechanism that enables them to draw on transitional help, or, if necessary, gives them access to looked-after status again. At the moment, a young person does not have access to an independent reviewing officer when they have left care.