|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us have considerable sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde? I believe that the matter is worthy of consideration at
However, is she also aware that many noble Lords are not as satisfied as she appears to be about the way in which the matter has been handled in the past? Many of us can recall arguments in the last Parliament when Private Notice Questions were turned down, in the view of many of us, entirely unreasonably. Finally, is she aware that many of us take the view that, if the Leader of the Opposition tables a Private Notice Question on a matter of considerable public importance, it should be allowed?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am not sure that I necessarily agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris; nor am I sure of what precisely he does not accept. If he does not accept that this House has a different way of dealing with Private Notice Questions to another place, that is an issue which should be dealt with under the organisation of the procedure of this House. If he is concerned about the particular circumstances of today, I hope that in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I drew attention to the different position in which the other place is dealing with Foreign Office questions. It is simply a question of where a particular issue--I agree of seriousness--is taken in that context.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness. My understanding is that the Government have deliberately used a procedure which exists in another place to avoid the necessity of either making a Statement to the House or, indeed, answering a PNQ. The authority I have for that is taken from page 291 of Erskine May, which states:
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said to the noble Lord when he made the point earlier. The Private Notice Question in another place was refused by Madam Speaker. It is the case that it is Foreign Office Questions this afternoon. The decision was taken to use this procedure. As I understand it, though his information may be slightly different to mine, as may his sources of information, that was done to make it possible to discuss Chechnya without it dominating the whole of Foreign Office Questions.
If we are being pernickety, I would point out to the noble Lord--I would not do so except that he has returned to a point which I thought was satisfactorily answered--that I understand that he tabled his PNQ one minute before the deadline this morning. Indeed,
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further. Can she confirm that it is the intention of the Government to make a Statement on the situation in Chechnya in this House tomorrow?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords, I cannot. As the noble Lord will be aware, matters concerning the operation of Business in this House are always decided through the usual channels. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt, from the Dispatch Box, any decisions about the Business of the House in that way.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the Minister referred to the fact that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde tabled a Question one minute before the deadline. It is, therefore, within the deadline. How many minutes, hours or days before the deadline does the Minister think is acceptable to take Private Notice Questions?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Earl makes an insubstantial point. I simply pointed out that if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, felt this to be an extremely serious matter, as he obviously did, his Question could have been tabled earlier. That would have enabled more time for discussion. Indeed, as I have said, he could have discussed it with me personally. That was my only point.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House keep an open mind on the possibility of a Statement tomorrow, particularly when she has read what has been said not only by the Foreign Secretary but about possible revelations concerning Foreign Office contacts with what one might nowadays call "dissidents" in that country?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an entirely relevant and important point about the substantive nature of the issue we are discussing; that is, the serious issue of what is happening in Chechnya. Of course I keep an open mind. My response to the earlier question was simply to abide by the normal understandings that these matters are not decided by one Minister or the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box, but through the usual channels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Two years ago this Government published the Report of the Review of Safeguards for Children Living Away From Home. That review was conducted by
I remind noble Lords of some of the statistics lying behind this drive to improve standards for children and young people in and leaving care. As many as 75 per cent of children leave care with no educational qualifications. As many as 50 per cent are unemployed. Twenty per cent experience homelessness within two years of leaving care. An increasing proportion of young people leave care at 16 to fend for themselves. In 1993, 33 per cent of those leaving care between 16 and 18 were aged 16. In 1998 that figure had risen to 46 per cent. Compare that with the average age at which young people leave home in this country, which is 22. Is it any wonder they struggle to cope?
There are complex underlying reasons, but one of the most powerful boils down to money. At 16, young people can claim state benefits so there is an incentive for local authorities to discharge them from care and on to someone else's budget. We need to tackle this sort of perverse incentive. This Bill does so.
In July this year we published a consultation document, Me, Survive Out There?, setting out all these issues and our proposals for dealing with them. We had a very encouraging response. More than 160 organisations, authorities and individuals replied. Eighty-three per cent of the responses supported our proposals. We are grateful to all those who replied. This Bill is the result. It follows closely the outline of the consultation document.
We believe that local authorities' responsibilities towards young people in and leaving care should correspond more closely to those of responsible parents. That means providing support and assistance for children beyond the age of 16. Young people in and leaving care should be able to expect this from their corporate parent. That is why Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill place new responsibilities on local authorities to assess and meet the care and support needs of children aged 16 and 17 who are in their care or who have left care.
For those who have left care, the local authority that last looked after a child will be responsible for continuing support wherever the young person is living. Responsible local authorities will have a duty to keep in touch with these young people wherever they move to; a duty that will apply beyond 18 up to the age of 21. No longer will local authorities be able to forget their responsibilities to the young people who leave their care.
It is important that young people are helped to prepare and plan for their future to enable them to achieve their aspirations. That is why, from their sixteenth birthday or as soon as they become eligible under the new arrangements, young people in and
The first three clauses of the Bill introduce the duty to provide young people in and leaving care with pathway plans. The duty will apply to all eligible and relevant children aged 16 and 17 who are in care or who have left care and will continue up to the age of 21 (and beyond where the young person is in higher education). The same clauses also introduce a parallel duty to provide these young people with young person's advisers. Currently many young people are unaware of the services that are available to them or how to access them and it is essential that under the new arrangements young people receive the support and assistance they need in a co-ordinated and accessible way.
The young person's adviser will provide a single point of contact for the young person, easily contactable in times of crisis or whenever advice is needed and able to put the young person in contact with other specialists such as careers advisers. The adviser will also be responsible for overseeing the pathway plan and ensuring that the young person receives the advice and support to which he is entitled. For young people who have left care, the adviser will be expected to fulfil the local authority's new duty to keep in touch.
Education and training is one of the best ways to improve a young person's life chances, and we believe that local authorities should encourage and help care leavers continue in education. That is why Clause 4 of this Bill gives local authorities new responsibilities and powers to make support available for care leavers in higher education. Currently, local authorities can assist care leavers with the costs associated with education or training up to the age of 24 only if they start the course before the age of 21. Clause 4 will get rid of this restriction. Young people in this particular group are often ready for higher education later than their peers, so this provision allows local authorities to provide assistance whenever the young person starts the course.
One of the disadvantages faced by care leavers in higher education is having no family to return to for vacations. That is why Clause 4 of the Bill also places a new duty on local authorities to assist a care leaver in higher education with vacation accommodation where this is needed.
All these new arrangements for young people in and leaving care will be underpinned by a new financial regime, the foundations of which will be laid by Clause 6 of the Bill. Currently, too many children leave care before they are ready to do so. The proportion of 16 and 17-year olds leaving care at the age of 16 increased from one third in 1993 to a little under one half in 1998. This trend is alarming and we
The funds from income support, housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance to which these young people are currently eligible will, therefore, be transferred to a new budget, to be allocated to local authorities to support these young people properly. This budget will be based on local authorities' existing spend on this group, drawing in additional resources from the children's social services special grant, making extra money available to ensure that local authorities are able to fulfil their new duties to this vulnerable group. We want to see local authorities act more like responsible parents towards the children in and leaving their care.
We recognise that at present certain 16 and 17 year olds--such as disabled children and lone parents--are eligible for income support even if they live at home with their parents, recognising that they have special needs. The new financial arrangements will continue to recognise that these groups have special needs. Clause 6 contains provisions allowing the Secretary of State to exempt certain groups from the new financial arrangements and we intend to use this power to ensure that disabled children and lone parents keep their present entitlements to income support.
Taken together these measures add up to a substantial package of support, both personal and financial. We believe that it will make a significant difference to the life chances of these young people, helping them to grow into independence and a rewarding adulthood. But it would be naive to assume that it will always be sweetness and light. Inevitably there will be disagreements and failures.
We anticipate that the involving and empowering aspect of pathway planning will minimise disputes but nonetheless we have to have a robust, swift and sensitive means of dealing with complaints. The Bill provides for regulations to describe the complaints procedure for these young people. We anticipate using the existing machinery but building in additional sensitivity, such as an advocate for the young person. We shall also be monitoring closely how quickly complaints are resolved. Young people do not have the leisure to put their lives on hold while bureaucracies grind slowly through processes. Again, we hope that most complaints will be settled amicably and quickly, but, again, it would be naive to assume that this will always be the case.
There have always been troubled young people who run away from local authorities and it is wise to assume that there always will be. For these young people, we need to make sure that there is emergency provision to pick them up and a support system which is flexible enough to encourage them back on terms which they can accept. For emergencies, these young people will still be eligible for emergency help from any local
Our new arrangements are designed to be as responsive as possible to young people disaffected with their local authority, for whatever reason. They can live wherever they choose in the country, and their authority will still be responsible for maintaining them. So there will be no more disputes between authorities about whose budget the young person belongs with. The main point of contact will be the young person's adviser. If the young person wishes, that contact can be minimal and it can be the only contact he or she need have with any local authority. And should that relationship be the root of the problem--even though the young person will have had a major hand in choosing the adviser in the first place--there will be scope for making changes. These measures are intended to ensure that no young person needs emergency support for long; and that where there are problems a solution can be reached as quickly as possible.
This Bill is mainly about provision for young people aged 16 and 17 in and leaving care. We know that there is a strong lobby to extend support as well to those aged 18 and over. In our response to the Utting report we said that the Government are minded to extend this duty until the young person reaches the age of 21. However we will first study the costs, limitations and affordability of doing so.
The Bill makes young persons' advisers and pathway plans available to care leavers up to the age of 21, or 24, as I said, if they are being supported in education or training. Authorities can provide support for education and must provide vacation accommodation for higher education if it is needed. The Bill places a duty on local authorities to keep in touch with these young people. Local authorities already have a power to assist, in kind or in cash, and we have made provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations about special groups in respect of whom that power would be converted to a duty. We are determined to maintain support for young people leaving care and to help them--not to push them--into fully independent adult lives.
In conclusion, we believe that young people in and leaving care have not been getting a fair deal; their life chances have been unacceptably restricted and too many end up socially excluded, without qualifications, without jobs and without homes. Too many are forced to leave care before they are ready. As the corporate parent of this vulnerable group, this Government recognise their special responsibilities and duties. All local authorities must act as responsible parents would towards their own children, supporting them in the transition from childhood to adulthood. They must ensure that, on leaving care, these young people are not isolated but participate socially and economically as citizens.
The Children (Leaving Care) Bill will provide the statutory framework through which the Government can change the local authority care and support system to give these young people the support that they need and deserve.
Earl Howe: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I should like to express my thanks to the Minister for his very clear and helpful introduction to this Bill. It is a Bill that we greatly welcome. Ten years ago the passing of the Children Act represented a landmark in the level of legal protection afforded to young people. The Children (Leaving Care) Bill extends and brings up to date the provisions of that Act, as they apply to perhaps the most vulnerable group of children in our society; namely, children in care.
If we wanted a reason to justify the importance of this measure, we need look no further than the sobering statistics associated with care leavers; indeed, the Minister has already given us some of them. Of the 5,000 children who leave the care system each year, whether that care has been provided by foster parents, by a residential home or by others, more than three-quarters have absolutely no academic qualifications. Between 50 per cent and 80 per cent are unemployed. Some 30 per cent of single homeless young people have previously been in care, as have no fewer than 23 per cent of adult prisoners and 38 per cent of young prisoners. If these figures do not resonate with sufficient clarity, we should perhaps reflect on the statistical base line. Care leavers account for less than 1 per cent of their age group, yet they comprise a vastly greater proportion of those who are in some way disadvantaged. It should not surprise us that care leavers have been shown in recent studies to be an especially unhappy, vulnerable and dissatisfied group of young people who feel rejected by the system.
Yet the system ought to be looking after them. The statutory duties of local authorities to prepare children for leaving care and to support them afterwards were laid down in the Children Act 1989 and in associated regulations. These duties, combined with a number of discretionary powers, enable local authorities to provide for the well-being of young people who leave the care system. However, experience has shown a woeful degree of variation in the level and type of pre-care and post-care support given by local authorities around the country. Some authorities are models of excellence. But, all too often, budgetary constraints lead to the opposite result; for example, the amounts paid under leaving-care grants vary from £2,000 down to just a very few pounds. Similar differences are evident in the financial assistance provided for further education and training for employment.
What we are talking about here, of course, is that most important ingredient in the life and expectations of any young person; namely, opportunity. For those who begin their adult lives without the love and
The system, too, contains some perverse incentives. A local authority may be tempted to look for ways of discharging a young person from care early, because in doing so it will enable the burden of maintaining that individual to be shifted away from itself and onto the benefits budget. Increasingly the figures show that the average age at which young people are being discharged from care is coming down--in many cases to as low as 15. The Minister rightly alluded to that fact. This is an extremely worrying trend.
If we think of what happens in ordinary families where, quite typically, parents continue to provide support for a child until he or she reaches the age of 22, we can see better what kind of a deep end we are pushing these young people towards. That push, it must be said, often comes from the children themselves, who find the care system oppressive and cannot get out of it soon enough. But the world that they move into, frequently with high hopes, can be a world of disappointment, characterised by dependence on benefits, seedy accommodation and a lack of any kind of emotional support.
It is these difficult issues that this new measure sets out to address. I shall not go over the Bill's detailed provisions that have already been covered so well by the Minister. Let me say though, at the outset, that we believe them to represent in broad terms a very decided step forwards. In particular, we welcome the emphasis in the Bill on treating care and after-care as a continuum rather than as two discrete stages in a child's life. We welcome the attempt to remove any perverse incentive that a local authority may have to discharge children from care at too young an age. We very much support what I venture to say is the Bill's underlying theme, which is that each and every child leaving care is an individual whose wants and needs are different from those of the next child and who deserves the kind of support that he would receive had he been brought up in an ordinary family.
However, two things will make or break these proposals. The first of these is resources, sufficient to enable them to be delivered properly. The second requirement is that the whole process of needs assessments, pathway plans, personal advisers and ongoing support must be one that the children themselves can trust and take ownership of. One of the themes emerging from published research is that children do not feel sufficiently in control of what happens to them as they leave care. They want to feel as independent of social services as it is possible to be. The close involvement of the child in the preparation and review of pathway plans, and conveying the feeling that his or her wishes are taken account of, is absolutely essential if each plan is to work as it should.
I hope that the Government will take these concerns on board by the time the Bill comes into force. As regards resources, I understand why Ministers have been minded to consider ring-fencing the budget for care leavers. But I confess that I have considerable doubts about the wisdom of it. The problem with ring-fencing is that the more it occurs, the more pressure builds up on other local authority core services. It leaves absolutely no room at all for flexibility. Important as care leavers are, the ring-fencing of funds sends a message to local authorities that somehow they are not to be trusted and that all they are really good for is to act as agencies for delivering the Government's policies. I wonder whether the Government should look again at this aspect and find another way round the problem, perhaps by setting minimum standards.
As an aside to this, I have seen the concern expressed that the money from the "Quality Protects" initiative has already been allocated and will not, at least for the most part, be available for the purposes that the Government now intend for it under this Bill. What is the Minister's comment on that? Can he say how much money overall the Treasury is budgeting to fulfil the provisions of the Bill, and how much of this is new money?
Under the heading of "resources", I feel that I must express a concern over the ability of local authorities to deliver the sort of service that will be expected of them when, in manpower terms, many of them are already stretched to the limit. What role do the Government see for voluntary agencies in this field? Do not the Government envisage practical difficulties emerging for local authorities who find themselves having to discharge their duties at a considerable geographical distance from a young person? Will these difficulties be reflected in the funding formula?
Looking at the Bill as a whole, I think it is unfortunate to say the least that devolution has created some anomalous differences for care leavers north and south of the Border. Scottish care leavers who move to England will not be "eligible" or "relevant" children under this Bill and will, therefore, be treated differently from English and Welsh children. In my view, this can only complicate the lives of such children and place them even further apart from the benefits system than they are at present.
We are told in the Explanatory Notes that English children who move to live in Scotland will continue to be able to claim social security benefits. If a child is in such a situation, will the Minister confirm that it will make no difference whatever to the requirement for his or her local authority in England to continue discharging the various duties that the Bill places on it?
I turn briefly to other, more detailed topics. I think that we shall want to explore in Committee whether the definition of eligible children is as wide or as flexible as it ought to be. For example, there are some particularly vulnerable children who may not have been in care for long, but who nevertheless are deserving of ongoing support. I should also like to ask the Minister whether the Government intend that
I should be grateful, too, if the Minister could say what special provisions will be put in place for disabled care leavers. Local authority statistics of 1998 indicated that up to a quarter of the looked-after population is disabled. Will the guidance that is issued reflect the specific needs and experiences of those young people?
We shall wish to look at the powers that the Bill gives to local authorities as distinct from duties. We shall wish to ensure that the balance between the two is the right one. Under that broad heading can the Minister say whether the Government intend to stipulate in regulations a minimum baseline rate of financial support for care leavers? It seems to me that unless that is done--whether or not the budget is ring-fenced--young people will find themselves subject to a similar sort of lottery from different local authorities, as exists at the moment.
I understand why the Government have chosen to remove care leavers from the scope of the social security system, but concerns arise from this. A blanket exclusion from benefits could leave the most vulnerable children without any source of financial support--for example, children who become estranged from their personal adviser and from the care system. Will the Government consider whether a discretionary right to claim severe hardship allowance could continue for the small minority who find themselves in need of a financial safety net? In that context we should remember that short of a 100 per cent robust and watertight system--which no system can be--there will always be some care leavers who are in danger of falling through the cracks.
The Government's consultation document proposed that an independent mediation and appeals mechanism should be established to cater for those children and young people who are in dispute with their social workers over their pathway plan. An independent review panel would allow care leavers access to independent representation at appeal, and also serve, by virtue of its very existence, as a guarantor of local authority obligations. Can the Minister say why these important proposals have not been incorporated in the Bill?
These are only some of the issues that we shall wish to explore in Committee. For now, let me say this. This is a Bill which addresses the needs of a special group of young people--special in that their ability to reach their full potential and then go on to lead fulfilling lives is dependent on their not being short-changed by society. The former Secretary of State, Mr Dobson, observed in the consultation document that the duty we owe to them is exactly the same duty as we owe to our own children, and that the support we provide should, as far as possible, be the same support as young people receive who have been looked after by their families. Let me add a wholehearted "Amen" to that. We look forward to playing our part in putting a
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in thanking the Minister for his clear exposition of the provisions of the Bill. The Bill is the result of a long campaign by the voluntary sector to improve life and life chances for care leavers.
I want in particular to pay a tribute to Tory Laughland, the founder of the Who Cares Trust, the caring organisation for young people in, and leaving, care. I first met her in the early 1990s when she was campaigning for young people in care and leaving care. I was sponsoring homeless projects through Kingfisher plc's community involvement programme. It was clear that a totally disproportionate number of young people leaving care became homeless and ended up sleeping rough, as indeed they still do. She inspired the company to work with caring organisations to try to develop independence training for young people leaving care, and linked to job opportunities.
However, it was an uphill battle getting politicians to wake up to the way in which society was failing these vulnerable young people who were effectively thrown out of care at the age of 16. I am just sad that Tory Laughland is not alive today to see her campaign come to fruition. The reason Tory was so effective in her campaign for and with young care leavers was because she applied the kind of tests to corporate parenthood that we do not think twice about in relation to our own children. Above all, she believed in listening to young people in and leaving care and asking them what they wanted.
What caring parents would want their own children to have to fend for themselves totally once they reach the age of 16? Yet it is a horrifying fact that even now half of all care leavers do so at 16, despite their lack of maturity and life skills to enable them to cope adequately. However, as has been pointed out by Utting's children's safeguards review, the government response and the subsequent consultation paper, the current care system gives a perverse financial incentive to local authorities and young people to terminate care early, as the Minister pointed out. That is why so many of us welcomed the tone of the consultation paper which stated:
In addition, although the Government appear unwilling to accept the point, we believe that consistency between local authorities as regards levels of financial support is vital, particularly with regard to the care-leaving grant, and that regulations should provide for that. At the end of the day, however, if these new duties are to operate properly, adequate government levels of funding need to be provided for local authorities. Can the Minister give an assurance that that will be the case?
We also welcome the duty to develop pathway plans for each eligible young person about to leave care. However, when will these start to be prepared? It should be well before potential care leavers reach the age of 16. The young person must also be closely involved, and consulted, in the process.
We also welcome the introduction of young persons' advisers. I hope in particular that the role of the voluntary sector--I agree with the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in this respect--in providing advisers will be a strong one. I welcome the Government's statement that young people will have a choice as regards who their adviser should be.
We also welcome the statement that grants to local authorities to support care leavers will be ring-fenced. We welcome the adoption of educational guidelines and the adoption of targets for the attainment of GCSEs and GNVQs for looked-after children and those leaving care in 2001 and 2003. I know that the equal chances programme has already had a major impact.
More generally, we on these Benches welcome the introduction of quality protects action plans in January 1999, but the Social Services Inspectorate showed in the document Someone Else's Children? that however good the policies and safeguards adopted, they will be a failure unless backed by proper checks to ensure that they are applied. But do we yet have evidence that these action plans are making a difference?
Along with a great many voluntary organisations in this field despite the Government's very best intentions, measured by the loyal support test to which I referred earlier, we have concluded that the contents of the Bill, as it currently stands, are not good enough.
First, there is the major issue of support for those aged 18 to 21 years. In their consultation document, the Government were "minded" to extend duties not only to 18, but beyond that to the age of 21. Did they receive a single response against that? Why is the proposal not in the Bill? Have the Government now decided that that is not now affordable? Is this not
Secondly, there is the issue, already referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as regards the 13-week threshold for eligibility. As currently drafted, it may be too hard and fast. The major voluntary organisations say that local authorities should be bound to review the cases of those with less than 13 weeks eligibility since there are numbers of young people who have not formerly been in care but in residential schools, health service provisions and so on, who may need to be treated as though they were care leavers under the Bill. Understandably, local authorities have a rather different perspective. That needs to be resolved in debate on the Bill at Committee stage.
Fourthly, I refer to the power to assist those between 21 and 24 years of age who have left care and are in higher education. If they have left care--irrespective of when they started--is not that power inadequate? One of the key areas where we must improve outcomes for care leavers is in the field of education. Should not that be a duty? There have been some extremely hard cases of local authorities denying responsibility even for loans, let alone grants, and as a result young people have been unable to take up the offer of a place in higher education.
Fifthly, there is the question of an independent review panel, either nationally or in each local authority area. It is vital that there is some route by which a young person can question the initial pathway plan and its subsequent review. On occasion, there may be differences with his or her personal adviser which need to be resolved. The young person may well need an independent source of advocacy. The question is asked in the consultation document but, sadly, the answer is ducked in the Bill. I hope that we can obtain clarification from the Minister on that.
Finally, we need to ask whether there will be explicit reference in regulations under the Bill to guidance on the specific needs and experience of disabled young people leaving care. That is an area which also needs urgent clarification. However, I welcome the Minister's clarification on the scope of Clause 6.
In principle, we on these Benches support this Bill. Outcomes for care leavers are a national scandal. But if we are going to change the Children Act for the first time since it was enacted in 1989, we need to get it right. We on these Benches will work at Committee stage to do just that. We need a system which will really meet the needs of all care leavers and where the duties of corporate parents are aligned with those of natural parents; a system where these young people can finally have the opportunities in life which have been denied them for so long and which the rest of us take for granted.
Lord Laming: My Lords, perhaps I may also express my gratitude to the Minister for the helpful introduction to this important Bill. May I also say what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones? As I have the honour to be the president of the Who Cares Trust, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the warm tribute that he paid to that organisation which I believe does excellent work. I am grateful for his support of it.
Last night I had reason to express marked reservations about the Local Government Bill, so this afternoon it gives me particular pleasure to say how delighted I am to welcome the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. I believe it is great credit to the Government that they have demonstrated a priority to improve the protection and quality of care and life opportunities for young people in public care. The work of the interdepartmental ministerial group, the Quality Protects initiative and the consultation document are all clear indications of the Government's commitment and concern for these young people. In this Bill the Government have gone beyond that to set out a framework to support young people at a critical time in their lives when they leave public care. That is very important because for too long society has expected far too much from young people who have the least in every way in terms of resources, education, family support and social help.
Most of these young people have had traumatic experiences which have scarred their young lives. Many will have been let down by the very adults they had the right to look to for their care and protection. Many will have had severely disrupted education which leaves them ill equipped to take their place in society.
But all of them have the right to expect local authorities to be a "good parent". I support the points that have already been made about the standards that we should set to judge the notion of a good parent. Many authorities, ably supported by some excellent specialist voluntary bodies, try to achieve very high standards of care for the children for whom they have a particular responsibility. That should be acknowledged and praised where it occurs. But, alas, that is not always the case. Too often young people are encouraged or allowed to leave care at the earliest opportunity. For the reasons set out by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, it is no wonder that many of them finish up in bad company or in bad practice. Too many of them end up in young offender institutions.
The Minister said that the generality of young people in this country leave home at the average age of 22. That is so, but they do not leave home finally and for ever. They leave home but have the continued support of their parents. They can fall back at any time on their help and support; a word of encouragement or consolation. They can have that support in a continuing way for many years. Young people leaving care have no such security as they face an uncertain future.
It is for that reason that I would like to raise a number of points for consideration by the Minister and which he touched on his helpful opening statement. First, I so much welcome new Section 19B of the Children Act which places on local authorities the duty to assess the needs of 16 and 17 year-olds and to continue to provide a personal adviser for them until the age of 21. But would not it be better to make that a duty to assess and meet the needs of all young people up to the age of 21?
Secondly, can the Minister assure your Lordships that the resources exist to ensure that local authorities will not seek ways to avoid their responsibilities which are now set out in the Bill? It would be helpful if the Minister could give an assurance that the performance of local authorities will be monitored in that way.
Thirdly, would the Minister consider making it a duty to assist young people who are now in further education, or who may be, up to the age of 24 years? Being a good parent is about having ambitions for one's children and supporting them through higher education so they can live up to their full capacity, realise their full potential, take their place in society and become useful and fulfilled citizens.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, indicated, we have had already experience of young people being denied the opportunity of further education or having it cut off at a most unwelcome time. So will the Minister consider making it a duty to assist young people in further education up to the age of 24?
Fourthly, will the Minister consider that as regards appeals the local authority should have a duty to give a young person access to an independent source of advice and advocacy? Many young people feel suspicious, to put it mildly, concerning the motivation of local authorities. Access to an independent source of advice and advocacy is an essential part in helping them to present their position and to achieve what they believe to be a reasonable outcome.
Fifthly, although I support entirely the requirement that a local authority must retain responsibility for each young person wherever that young person is living in England and Wales, is the Minister aware that some local authorities have dispersed young people in their care across many authorities and often at great distance from the home authority? Will the Minister ensure that this responsibility to be placed on local authorities will be rigorously monitored? In many instances I fear that there has been an element of out of sight, out of mind.
Finally, perhaps I may refer to the phrase "keep in touch" in new Section 23B. That phrase has a rather casual sound to it and could amount to no more than a Christmas card sent once a year. Does the Minister agree that it would be advisable to find a stronger form of words to ensure that contact is not only maintained but that it is effective, reliable and robust?
Having said that, I believe that the Bill is much needed and offers greater security, well-being and new life opportunities for young people leaving care. I hope that it will command the support of all parts of your Lordships' House.
Baroness David: My Lords, I give a very warm welcome to the Bill and thank the Minister for his clear exposition of it. This Bill completes the unfinished business left by the Children Act 1989. As one who took an active part in the whole passage of that Bill, I am delighted that support for 16 to 18 year-olds, which a number of us--Lady Faithfull, that doughty campaigner for children, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I--fought, is now to be provided. These children will have the financial, educational and pastoral support and help we knew to be essential.
I would be grateful for clarification on a few points, which I hope the Minister will be able to give when he replies to the debate. The first is: exactly what defines an eligible child? The Explanatory Notes suggest that it means children who have been looked after for a prescribed period after their 14th birthday. This could exclude children who may have had a few episodes in care up to the age of 14, returned home for two years, then suffered the break-up of their family. They would still be subject to a care order, but ineligible for the support and assistance provided in the Bill. Others in the care of a local authority are those in residential special schools or local authority boarding schools. Will they be covered by the Bill? I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about that.
My next point is the definition of a "responsible authority" as the last one that looked after the child. It is good to pin down the responsibility, but there could be problems. A young person seeking either education or a job could move around the country quite a bit and it could be quite difficult to keep in touch with him or her. Suppose that a young person in pursuit of employment moves from Hull to London. The responsible authority will still have a duty to carry out the needs assessment, prepare a pathway plan and appoint a personal adviser--all at a distance. If the funding is to follow the child, will it be the case that in practice the London authority will assess the young person's needs, prepare the pathway plan, allocate appropriate accommodation and provide the personal adviser--all funded by Hull? One would have thought that the sensible thing was for the responsible authority to be the leaving care team of the social services department of the London authority. I hope that the Minister can clear this up.
Let us consider young adults between 18 and 21 who up to a point are covered by the Bill. Will local authority duties still include the provision of suitable accommodation even though they could be eligible for housing benefit? Perhaps that is covered by Clause 6. The requirement to provide vacation accommodation in new Section 24B for those up to the age of 24 applies only to those in higher education. Would the Government be willing to think again about that and include those undertaking further education and other educational training courses, in view of the often difficult educational history experienced by these young people--frequent changes of school, for example--and often the resultant gap between their schooling and later return to education or training?
I very much like the idea of the personal adviser who will be the liaison between the local authority and the care leaver--a very important person in the child's life. Is this adviser to be a trained social worker from within the authority or someone from the voluntary sector, who may perhaps be more independent? He or she will be a very important ally for the young person who may be disillusioned by the care system. There must be a genuine partnership and trust between them. Will there be training for the social workers or advisers? Will there be necessary qualifications? What relationship will there be between them and the youth support service which is to be set up by the learning and skills Bill which will soon be with us?
I have mentioned the pathway plan. I have a few doubts about the exact plans proposed which are to start following a young person's 16th birthday. That seems a little late. I believe that another noble Lord made that point. Would it not be more sensible to start at 14, when a number of decisions are made at school about subjects to be followed leading up to GCSE and the sort of career or job that will suit the pupil? Also the plan should have clear links to the young person's care plan. What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that the services outlined within the plan--which could include a place on a further education course or the provision of continuing medical care--will be delivered? The Government may have good reasons for starting at 16, but I would like an explanation of the justification for that.
There is one class of young person not mentioned in the Bill--the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to this--but it was in the consultative document, Me, Survive out there? on page 41. These are the unaccompanied refugee children. They are likely to fall within the responsibility of the local authority but may well not fill the eligible children requirements. Will the Government expand the eligibility requirements to include these young people who might otherwise be left without family, without employment, without accommodation, without financial support and possibly not even able to speak the language? So they really would suffer social exclusion. In April 1999 there were about 2,500 asylum seekers aged 16 and 17. Currently--I do not vouch for my figures: they came from the consultative document--there are about 400 such children being looked after by local authorities, sometimes placed in isolated bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They should be treated as "children in need", as described in the 1989 Act. A recent Amnesty International report states that,
On finance, I can understand why Clause 6 was put into the Bill. There are good reasons for making funding the responsibility of one agency. But there must be adequate resources. This is essential if the Bill
My final point involves the Care Standards Bill, which is to have its Second Reading on Monday next. It is vital that that Bill works and I hope that it is implemented at the same time as this Bill, where one will be dependent upon the success of the other. We are all too aware of the crises and scandals that there have been in our children's homes. It is imperative that children should have a happy experience, loving relationships and a good education, even when they are in care. That has certainly not been the case up until now, or only in certain places. The plans for their future, making sure that they go on at 16 to further education or training for a job, in suitable accommodation, which this Bill provides, should make a far-reaching change to these very vulnerable children's future. I congratulate the Government on bringing the Bill forward. I hope that it will work well and that it will have the support of all Members of this House.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I first became conscious of this problem about six or seven years ago when I was asked by the Who Cares Trust to take a group of young people to hand in a petition at 10 Downing Street. They were a selected group but I found them extremely convincing. They then came back to the Palace of Westminster and spoke very well about their problems.
I congratulate the Government on addressing this issue. It might well have been addressed before by previous administrations, but it was not. This Government have taken it on, and hats off to them for doing so. The Bill sets out, subject to one or two issues that were raised by earlier speakers, what needs to be done. I wish to speak for a few moments about my doubts that it will be done. It is easy to set out a list of things that need to be done but there are one or two things about which we ought to be concerned.
The first, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear, is the question of money, to which a number of speakers have already referred. I have the social services performance indicators 1998-99 for local authority expenditure on children in care. The gross weekly cost of placing a child in a children's home varies from a minimum of £163 to a maximum of £4,832 in another authority. I have to say that the figures are very odd. Greenwich spends £269 while Lambeth spends £1,815. Kingston-upon-Thames spends £335 while Waltham Forest spends £2,141. It would be interesting to know whether those figures have any meaning at all. If they do, they suggest that some local authorities take their responsibilities more seriously than others.
That leads me to a question. As local authorities already have discretionary powers to do most of these things, and as it is obvious that these things are desirable, why have all local authorities not been doing them? I have thought of two answers. The first is that
Have the Government made an estimate of the gross costs of implementing the Bill? Will the Government provide all or part of that cash? The noble Lord indicated that they will provide part of it. Is it realistic to expect local authorities to provide the other part, given that they already appear to be unable to do what they are supposed to be doing? I support the necessity to ring-fence the cash because otherwise local authorities will spend it on lamp posts or kerbs--expenditure which attracts more votes.
The next issue is people. Who will implement the Bill? From where will the people come? I was told that in Tower Hamlets about seven or eight weeks ago 32 children were "at risk" who had not been appointed a social worker. One social worker, who has been known to us at Toynbee Hall for a very long time, has a case list of 80. One can imagine that a good many of those children will not be seen at all. A case list of 80 is absurd. I am asking the Government to be realistic about the situation and either help local authorities to find the money to implement the Bill or give them some more money to do it. It is no use making laws if nothing is going to happen.
On the question of people, in Tower Hamlets we found in regard to the Government's arrangements for learning mentors--I mentioned this point during the debate on the Queen's Speech--that the local schools had been advertising for learning mentors at some £3,000 to £4,000 a year above the salaries being paid to local youth workers, with a nine-to-five job and full school holidays. As youth workers are expected to work on a great deal less money all the hours that God made, youth workers are simply applying to become learning mentors. All the Government are doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul: leaving us with a greatly enfeebled youth service but a learning mentor service that will work. Will the same happen in this case? Will people to implement this Bill be taken from other services and thereby ensure that there is net additional benefit? The noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned NVQs or diplomas in respect of training. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Caldecott Foundation and Caldecott College. Training is of fundamental importance.
Another issue is care in the care homes. Again we come back to people. Are the Government aware that not quite 10 per cent of people working in care homes have any relevant qualification? Ninety per cent of people working in care homes have no relevant qualifications. Is it any wonder that these children are fairly lost by the time they reach the end of their experience in care? What about therapeutic care? These children have sometimes had frightful emotional experiences, abuse and so on. Is there provision for therapeutic care and for support while children are in the children's home?
Finally, I should like to refer to a subject which I raise as often as I can and shall continue to do so until I have nudged the Government into doing something about it. I refer to families without fathers. In saying this, I am not stigmatising single mothers--far from it. The problem is the fathers. I am not stigmatising fathers, because it is not the fathers' fault; it is our fault. We have evolved a society in which young men have never been taught that they have a responsibility to be a proper role model to their children. We have evolved a society in which our values are individualist. People want to develop their own lifestyle without a proper element of consideration of responsibility to others. In this context, I have looked at the Government's draft PSHE and citizenship curriculum, which is shortly to be published. I should like to ask whether this House will have an opportunity to debate that curriculum. What our children are taught in school about the values of our society is fundamental to the future of our country. The curriculum is quite good. It does not, however, make any reference to the parental responsibility of fathers. Bearing in mind that now 20 per cent of all families are families without fathers, we must look at why so many young men do not want to be, or are not capable of being, responsible fathers.
Baroness Hanham : My Lords, perhaps I can provide the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, with some reassurance that not all local authorities are dilatory as regards their responsibilities to these young people. I am council leader in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and am a former chairman of
The service follows a good parent model. No child being looked after is discharged before 18 years old unless he or she returns to their family or there are other special circumstances. Each care leaver has an individual plan which is prepared during his or her time with the local authority. Just before age 16, those plans are hardened into future progress. The young people can live in supported places until they are 20, and are then given help to find independent housing--when they feel able to move, and not before. Once in independent housing, they are given help to furnish and look after their home and to budget and care for themselves. They also have a key worker or supporter until they are at least 21.
I hope that from this noble Lords will understand that there is at least one local authority that has taken very seriously its parental responsibility for the children who come into its care. With no parents, or no adequate parents, they need to be able to rely on the local authority to provide them with an affectionate and supportive home, practical guidance and advice.
Therefore, I welcome the tenor and purpose behind the Bill. However, one or two areas give me cause for concern. At the danger of being seriously repetitious given the comments of previous speakers, I shall touch on them briefly. I have received some briefing from the Action on After Care Consortium. So as not to bore the House and cover the same ground again, I shall raise only two matters which were put to me by that organisation.
We need to ensure that the recommendations in Sir William Utting's review on children safeguards and in the second report of the Health Select Committee are fulfilled. My council is presently working under discretionary powers in assessing and meeting the needs of these young children. New Section 19B introduces a new duty to do that, but only when the children reach the age of 16 or 17. In our experience, that does not take the situation far enough. Young people often leave home in their 20s. Most of them need our support and care until they are 21 or 22, or well into their 20s. Many need financial support until then.
Our experience is that young people need cash, not help in kind. Most young people need to learn to manage money. If they do not have to manage money and if people feed them in all kinds of other ways, they do not learn to manage a budget and to cope with what is probably not quite enough. Does any young person ever have enough money? They have to learn to cope with what they have. I hope that under the provisions of new Section 24A the Minister will reconsider whether cash should not be the normal way of providing financial assistance. I should welcome it if he would take that idea on board.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I hope that Hansard will correct my name as it appears on the list of speakers and identify me as a female. For some reason, the Whips' Office keeps putting me down on the list as Lord Masham! I expect that I am trapped in the computer as a Lord.
I am pleased to congratulate the Government on the introduction of this Bill. I agree with them that vulnerable young people need comprehensive personal support rather than cash alone. The Bill is the best measure that the Government have undertaken, and this House may be able to make it even better by adding more protection.
For years I was a member of the board of visitors of a young offender institution. The age group at a YOI is between 15 and 21 years. In recent years, the increase in 15 and 16 year-olds coming into the YOIs is of great concern. About 40 per cent of those young people come from care. One could tell which ones came from the care system. They were much more institutionalised. They were classed as homeless. I have always felt that young people who have not had a home of their own--even if the homes were uncaring and problematical--are more vulnerable than other young people. They must feel rejected and so often their self-esteem is understandably low, even though some put on a brave front. When those young people were discharged from the young offender institution, it was no surprise that many returned soon after, simply not having been able to cope.
A Catholic chaplain from the young offender institution at Deerbolt in County Durham and I felt strongly that the young people leaving without family support needed a befriending service in an attempt to keep them on the right road. We held a seminar with the boys, who agreed that that was necessary. It is not easy to get such a scheme working on a voluntary basis. The young, enthusiastic priest was dismayed when he did not receive support from the churches in the localities from which some of the most vulnerable young people came.
It will be interesting to see how the pathway plans develop. I shall not be surprised if local authorities find it necessary to set up some drug and alcohol treatment centres for young people. Drug and alcohol abuse has become a problem among children, but no one seems to realise that, like adults, they need treatment for addiction. Was it not the case that the only treatment centre for young people in London closed last year when the problem was getting worse?
Last year I attended a video screening by Barnado's of the terrible problems experienced by young girls in Leeds, Bradford and Halifax, many of whom had absconded from care and been sucked into a culture of drugs and prostitution. It showed the cunning cruelty of pimps. The care system has let down these youngsters. It has become part of the culture of the underworld to entice teenagers into prostitution--and the younger, the better. I hope that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it will help to stop this degrading practice involving children.
To protect the most vulnerable young people who leave care will need good co-operation and communication from all the care agencies, from the education and employment agencies and from the Police and Probation Services. Looking after damaged and difficult young people needs understanding, experience and dedication as well as adequate funds.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, too often in the past we have had occasion in your Lordships' House to draw attention to the tragedy and scandal of what happens to young people who leave care. The tragedy has been well illustrated this afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others, notably by reference to the fact that about 40 per cent of youngsters in YOIs have been in care and approximately 40 per cent of homeless young people have been in care. The scandal is that these are the products of the system of care for young people. The results can be seen in low educational attainment, inadequate preparation for being ejected into the cold outside world and lack of support after leaving care. All of these factors need to be tackled. It is not just the job, or the fault, of central Government. Local government and voluntary organisations such as NCH Action for Children, of which I am vice-chairman, must bear a large part of the blame and
The fact that we have the Bill before us today shows that central Government have learnt. It is not merely the Bill for which central Government deserve praise. I warmly welcome what the Government have done in respect of educational provision and more generally in the context of the social exclusion programme to tackle the interconnected issues. The proposals in this Bill in effect offer a new deal to care leavers. That is the point of central importance in this Bill. The new provisions will also have the valuable by-product of saving a great deal of money which would otherwise have been spent or, rather, wasted.
This afternoon emphasis has rightly been laid on the need for adequate resources. Every year 2,500 care leavers end up in young offender institutions. If this measure helps only one in 10 of those youngsters to stay out of YOIs it will save society about £7 million a year just for starters. The lifelong benefits to young people and to all of us will be immeasurable. But we must look at the need for resources in the context of what is to be saved. I hope that my noble friend will keep that in mind in deciding whether to target a little extra money on the most vulnerable care leavers in ways that should make a good Bill even better.
I warmly welcome the cross-party support for the Bill this afternoon. I join previous speakers in making a few modest and, I hope, constructive suggestions that perhaps will make a good Bill better. My first suggestion relates to the duty placed on local authorities to assess and meet the needs of all 16 and 17 year-olds whom they have looked after and to continue to provide a personal adviser for them until they reach the age of 21. While this is a considerable advance on the present situation, there is a strong case for extending the duty on local authorities to assess and meet needs up to the age of 21. As NCH projects have emphasised, the most vulnerable are typically those who are most difficult to work with. That was one of the main reasons why Utting recommended that the discretionary powers in Section 24 of the Children Act 1989 should be converted into a duty and that young people should be supported up to the age of 21. To restrict support up until the age of 18 to a hard-pressed personal adviser may simply mean that the care precipice is shifted forward and that young people fall over the edge at 18 rather than 16. It is an improvement but it is not a situation that we want or that we would tolerate for our own children or grandchildren.
My second point relates to the power to provide assistance for expenses related to employment, education and training. The change proposed in Clause 24 would give local authorities power to provide grants to care leavers up to the age of 24 to
One NCH project has drawn attention to the case of a young man who at 17 is still the subject of a care order and is attending a carpentry course. The authority will not help him with bus fares to get to the course which cost him £8.25 per week. All participants on the course have to wear steel-capped shoes. The young lad could not afford the £40 cost and faced exclusion from the course until the NCH project suggested it might contact the local press. There are still problems ahead. In time the lad will need to purchase tools. By that time he will probably be out of care. The local authority has said that it will not help with any further expenses. Many good local authorities are using their powers sympathetically, but unless these are made into duties I fear that some authorities will continue to fail their care leavers.
My final point relates to Clause 6, exclusion from benefits, to which reference has been made. As my noble friend, Lord Hunt, reminded us, there are two possible sources of support at the moment--central Government and local government. Far too often this has led to unhelpful wrangling over which has responsibility. In general I welcome Clause 6, which offers both the establishment of a clear national minimum standard of support and removes the typical entitlements to benefit, except for lone parents and disabled people. This should at least ensure consistency of treatment.
As has been said, it is possible for a care leaver to become estranged from his or her local authority, just as a young person can fall out with his or her natural parents. His or her attitude may be regarded as unreasonable, even bolshie, but it may none the less be very real and totally intractable. I welcome the assurance given by my noble friend Lord Hunt that there will be a fall-back safety net for those who could be among the most vulnerable and exposed young people. Not to provide one could force them to live, as it were, off the land--and we all know what that means in terms of squatting, petty crime, even in terms of prostitution and drug pushing. We know, too, that once a young person has developed a pattern of living of that kind it is extremely hard to break out. I welcome my noble friend's clarification of what will happen if a young person falls out with a local authority and into this trap.
However, like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I should like to press him a little further on this point. What provision will be made in the exceptional cases where a youngster cannot come to terms with even indirect contact with his or her local authority? Will my noble friend consider providing access to the severe hardship
In the debate, emphasis has rightly been laid on the need to listen to care leavers. I am sure that my noble friend and the Government he represents will set a good example by listening to the constructive suggestions that have been made today for--I repeat--making a good Bill even better.
The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, I should like to say something about the Bill from a criminal justice perspective. In so doing, I declare an interest as a serving police officer in the Thames Valley, where I am currently head of youth justice for the force.
It is well known that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by young people, especially by young males. The 1994 Audit Commission report, Misspent Youth, records that about a quarter of all known offenders are under the age of 18 and that together they are responsible for some 7 million offences each year. But it is important in the context of the debate to remember that young people are also more likely to be victims of crime than adults, with 16 to 19 year-olds having, for example, the highest risk of being assaulted.
Although there is no way of predicting accurately which individuals will offend, we know that young people in certain circumstances are at much greater risk of doing so. Those circumstances may relate to the family; for example, where there has been neglect by parents, family conflict or the absence of a good relationship with either parent; where family attitudes have condoned anti-social and criminal behaviour; where there is a parent or sibling with a criminal record; or where family income is low. Young people who say that their attachment to their family is weak are more likely to report that they have committed offences, as are those who have experienced cruelty and abuse at the hands of their parents.
The risk may arise from the young person's relationship, or lack of it, with his or her school; for example, through low achievement, beginning in a primary school; aggressive behaviour or bullying. Young people who truant or who are excluded from school are also more likely to offend. Some 42 per cent of offenders sentenced in the youth court have been excluded from school, while half of truants offend compared to a quarter of non-truants. Research has shown a significant correlation between those young people who experience difficulties of various sorts within the educational setting and those who demonstrate delinquent behaviour.
The risk might develop from the young person's relationships with individuals, friends or from the community more generally. I refer to peer group pressure to offend, unstable living conditions, lack of training and employment, and drug and alcohol abuse, all of which have been shown to be factors which increase the risk of offending.
There is also evidence to suggest that aspects of health are correlated in some respects with offending behaviour. The review by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons in 1997, for example, indicated that 40 per cent of young people in custody presented with some long-standing physical illness, almost double the figure for the general population. This is not to assert that a causal link exists between ill health and a tendency towards delinquency, but the factors associated with the risk of becoming involved in offending may also predispose young people to adopt unhealthy lifestyles.
Those who experience many or all of these risk factors throughout their childhood and teenage years are at the highest risk of getting caught up in a cycle of anti-social behaviour, including offending, which it is difficult to break. The association appears to be a strong one, with over 80 per cent of young males who experience four or five of such influences being actual offenders.
It is only realistic to suppose that many young people in care will have been exposed to such risk factors. For some, those risks will have led directly to the young person's initial placement in care. Evidence of such risks is not difficult to find. For example, local audits taken following the Audit Commission's 1994 study, Seen but not heard, found that nearly half of all children of school age living in local authority residential homes were not attending school on the day the auditor called, and one-third were not receiving any formal education. The main reasons for their non-attendance were being excluded from school or refusing to attend.
Other research in 1989 by Centrepoint suggested that nearly 60 per cent of young homeless people had been in social services care at some point in their lives, while 39 per cent of all male prisoners under 21 have been looked after by the local authority at some stage in their childhood.
At the time of leaving care, such young people are, one might feel, particularly vulnerable. The 5,000 or so a year who leave at present do so at the age of 16 or 17 while, as the consultation document preceding the Bill indicated, the average age for leaving home for the population as a whole is 22. As my noble friend Lord Laming pointed out, the level of support available to those two groups is unlikely to be comparable.
Many continue to move frequently after leaving care-- 40 per cent experiencing one or more moves and 10 per cent making four or more moves in the first three to nine months. Many find themselves living in unstable conditions in temporary accommodation with little support and in areas where the levels of criminality and drug misuse are high.
The measures in the Bill will, I believe, enable young people to prepare more effectively for the future and provide a better degree of support as they move towards independence. The content of the proposed pathway plan, or that suggested in the consultation document, seeks to address directly the very range of risk factors to which I referred earlier: education; employment; health; accommodation; personal and financial support; and life skills. With the young
However, as the experience of a growing number of mentoring projects in this country and elsewhere has shown, high quality staff, careful recruitment and training, and well constructed programmes will be required if the mentoring relationship is to be a successful one. Can the Minister say anything more about the guidance on the recruitment and training of the young person's adviser referred to in the consultation document? In the debate on 22nd November, my noble friend Lord Northbourne--he mentioned it again today--referred in a different context to experienced youth workers being siphoned off into higher-paid posts as learning mentors for which exactly the same qualifications were required. I wonder whether the Minister has any concerns that similar difficulties could arise when the recruitment of young persons' advisers is undertaken.
The success with which care leavers make their transition to independence and the extent to which they are given a more equal chance of a fulfilling life should be of concern to us all since their interests and those of society are in these circumstances so interdependent. For such reasons as these, I warmly welcome the intentions of the Bill.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is a great and somewhat unusual pleasure to be able to offer an unreserved welcome to the intentions of a government Bill. It is a great and even more unusual experience, in particular with the reformation of this House, to be sandwiched between a couple of hereditary Earls younger than myself, both with more experience than I have of dealing hands on with the problems of disadvantaged young people. We are fortunate to have retained their services.
In welcoming the Bill, I acknowledge the debt of gratitude due also to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and his friends in the Who Cares Trust in pushing public concern in the right direction. My interest arises from my interest in juvenile offenders, acquired when I was the Minister responsible for prisons. I have bored your Lordships with that often enough not to repeat it. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, nods--in a rather hurtful way!
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page