Grand Committee Report of 10 February 2000

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Children (Leaving Care) Bill [H.L.]
Thursday, 10th February 2000 i
The Committee met at four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard.
The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, an unlikely event this afternoon. The Committee will adjourn as soon as tile Division Bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Further duties of local authorities towards children whom they are looking after]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("seventeen") to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: First, the Minister will notice from the number of amendments tabled to the Bill that they are very sharply focused. This is not the kind of Bill on which we have adopted any kind of scattergun approach. The amendments all deal with matters about which a number of organisations in the voluntary sector feel most strongly, so there are few probing amendments before the Committee today. I look forward to hearing the Minister's replies to a great number of these issues.
Amendment No. 1 pertains to eligibility and the duties of local authorities towards children whom they are looking after. All eligible children are in fact looked after children for the purposes of the Children Act. Consequently, all the provisions of the Children Act apply to those children in any event—provisions such as the duty to promote the child's welfare, consult
CWH2
with him or her, make plans and review those plans in accordance with the Arrangements for Placement Regulations 1991 and the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 and to maintain and provide accommodation. Any child who is excluded from the definition of "eligible" child will be covered by the provisions of both the Act and the relevant regulations.
There is a requirement under paragraph 8, schedule
2 of the Children's Cases Regulations and in Section
24(1), which is now reproduced in paragraph 19A, to
plan for a time when the child is no longer looked after
by the authority. The purpose of 19B is to strengthen
the duty of the local authority to plan for children
when they leave public care and to do so by means of
an assessment and the provision of a personal adviser.
Those in this sector who have spoken to us believe it
to be wrong in principle to exclude any "looked after"
child from a duty to plan properly and effectively for
his or her aftercare needs.
In this amendment, we propose that all 16 and 17 year-old looked after children should have a pathway plan, which is a development of the usual review process under the Children's Cases Regulations. The regulations should be amended to reflect this. We would also suggest that these regulations should specify that the pathway planning process starts at an earlier age—say 14 or 15—so that it does not interfere with study for GCSEs and the plan is in place by the age of 16. The Minister will, however, appreciate that there is no amendment to that effect.
Paragraph 19B(7) and (8) state that regulations may be made in relation to assessments. We propose that these should be mandatory and that the existing Children's Cases Regulations should be amended to incorporate these new regulations. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I should like to lend my strong support to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It seems to me that the Government have a duty to justify the 13 week criterion that they intend to prescribe under this subsection. I question whether eligibility should be defined in the way that the Bill defines it. Nobody would argue that care leavers, who have had a relatively brief contact with social services departments and whose future obviously lies with their own families, should be included in the support arrangements.
I am entirely behind the Bill's general direction, which is to pick up the principles of the Children Act and current family support policies, which reflect the aim that, wherever possible, children should be brought up in their own families. On the other hand, how is it possible to say that a 16 or 17-year old child who happens to have been in care for 13 weeks should be eligible automatically for support? Why 13 weeks? Some would argue that this is too short a period, because many family crises take at least three months to resolve and it is surely not desirable in those circumstances to encourage parents to believe that they are no longer responsible for the child's future.

CWH3
By contrast, there may well be cases where 13 weeks is too long a period. For example, a young person may have been badly abused at home and is, as a result, particularly vulnerable. The chances of that youngster returning to his or her family may be nil in those circumstances. Is it right that we should deny that child the support that the Bill envisages?
I suspect the Minister will say that no cut-off point can be perfect and he may say that the Bill must strike some kind of balance. I am not sure that that approach looks at the issue in the way that it should be considered; namely, from the point of view of the needs of the child. Rather than have an automatic cut-off point which determines eligibility, yes or no, is not the right procedure to give every child in care an entitlement to a needs assessment and a pathway plan, and only on the outcome of that assessment determine his or her eligibility for a personal adviser? In whatever form, some flexibility needs to be built into the system if deserving cases are not to slip through the net.
I ask the Minister to explain the basis of the 13 week requirement when, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, already under the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 there is a duty to carry out a review in any case. Can he say what additional burden is to be imposed upon a local authority to widen the scope of the review to consider a pathway plan? I cannot see the point of having two sets of arrangements, parts of which are in conflict with one another by virtue of the 13 week requirement.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that there is a strong case for giving younger children an entitlement to a pathway plan, not just children who become eligible when they reach 16. One has only to think of a child who leaves care unexpectedly at 16 and who does not have a pathway plan prepared. It would be much better to say that the duty to prepare a pathway plan should be imposed upon a local authority as soon as the child reaches the age of, say, 15.
I should like to raise a related point. New Section 24(1) refers to,
"'a person qualifying for advice and assistance—
as being a person who "at any time"—and I stress the words "at any time"—was looked after. In other words, there is no requirement in new Section 24(1) for a prescribed period. The Bill therefore opens up the possibility that someone could qualify for advice and assistance who was not eligible or relevant in accordance with the definitions. The same comments apply if we look at new Section 24(3). Can the Minister explain why these parts of the Bill are apparently in conflict with the principle of eligibility as set out in Clause 1?
Lord Laming: I shall not attempt to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have said, because in my view they have put the case so overwhelmingly convincingly about why we have to have this restriction. The Children Act provides for all children to be looked after. I have seen
CWH4
the regulations that have been referred to and support the amendment. However, my only concern is that it denies the reality of the circumstances in which children become looked after—at whatever age. To place restrictions of this kind will potentially deny some vulnerable young people the right to have a pathway plan, or at least, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, to have an assessment of needs made and to determine why there should not be a pathway plan at this time. I hope very much that the Minister will accept the force of the argument for having this restriction which does not exist in the Children Act.
Earl Russell: In supporting my noble friend's amendment, I should perhaps declare a non-pecuniary interest. In my capacity as a university teacher, I am at present haunted by the problems of finding sufficient financial support for students estranged from their families. That is, of course, a much larger category than the category of care leavers.
Having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I would say that we can safely assume that the vast majority of care leavers, ex officio, belong to that category. Whether I wear my political or my academic hat, I am committed to the ideal that educational opportunities should be open to all on the grounds of merit only—not of parental income. In the case of care leavers, I do not see how we can possibly say that.
It is pretty well impossible for any students now to get through university on the amount of money officially provided for them. The availability of work during the vacations varies according to economic circumstances and geographical location. I remember, for example, one person explaining to me with some eloquence the difficulty of obtaining sufficiently well paid winter employment in Bournemouth, which is not an economy geared to that sort of thing—so it is no good simply saying that they can work. Quite apart from any academic effect, some of them can, and some of them simply lack the economic opportunity. Unless something along the lines of this amendment is done, we are accepting a situation in which care leavers simply are unable to get a proper further or higher education.
I am apprised here of one particular case of someone in further education and doing rather well, from whom the local authority cut off all financial support, instantly, on the day she reached 18. That was the breaking off of what might have been a quite promising career and I am sure stories like that can be repeated over and over again.
Of course, even for those who are not seeking further and higher education—and I think they should have an equal right to it—those who simply go out looking for rented accommodation on the market are faced with restrictions on housing benefit involved in single room rent. According to the DETR study on that, a very large number of those simply cannot meet the shortfall by which their rent exceeds their housing benefit. A great many rely on family and friends to get them through, but of course, again, care leavers

CWH5
cannot. Unless something along the lines of this amendment is accepted we are again condemning care leavers to be second class citizens, by definition socially excluded, in front of whom all doors close as they approach them, rather like one of the automatic doors in shops which begin to malfunction. I hope that the Government will be willing to take this into account and, if so, I should be extremely grateful.
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that these are sharp amendments and I have no doubt we will have a sharp debate. This is a very important discussion. Noble Lords have raised a number of questions in relation to the eligibility criteria and have expressed concerns as to whether that which eventually is prescribed will be sufficiently flexible to meet all circumstances. I understand what noble Lords are getting at. I hope to assure the Committee, first, that in prescribing the eligibility arrangements we will continue to engage in widespread consultation and, secondly, because we have the regulatory provision in new paragraph 19B(2)(b) to make changes if in practice we find that people are slipping through the net.
The new arrangements for young people both in and leaving care are designed to provide proper support for those to whom the Government have a special responsibility as corporate parent. Young people who are brought up in care very often are liable to be less mature than their peers. If they have no family to fall back on it is important that the local authority acts towards them as a responsible parent. This is why the new arrangements are being brought in through this Bill and why we propose that local authorities should be responsible for the support, maintenance and accommodation of these young people.
The other side of the coin is that where young people have responsible families of their own the state should not interfere without good cause. Many young people are in care for only a very short period of time. They may be placed in care for a few weeks during a crisis at home—for example, if a parent has to go into hospital—and will return to the family when the crisis is past. These young people look to their families for support and it is right that they should do so. We do not feel that it would be in their best interests to bring them within these new arrangements if not practical to do so.
The power in sub-paragraph (2)(b) of new paragraph 19B, which the noble Lord's amendment seeks to remove, allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that the new arrangements apply to those children who need this help and do not inappropriately sweep up others who have families to take care of them. One important advantage of dealing with this issue through regulations rather than on the face of the Bill is that this provides greater flexibility. If we find that local authorities are taking action to avoid
CWH6
their new responsibilities under this Bill we will not hesitate to redraft the regulations to ensure that those children who need support receive it.
I ought to remind noble Lords that one aspect of these new arrangements is that it takes children out of the benefit system after they leave care. This has been done for a particular purpose, in tandem with the new duties on local authorities to support them. However, we do not believe it appropriate to place the duty on local authorities to support children who may only have come into contact with them in passing. The Children Act makes other provision for young people aged 16 and over who have spent some time in care. Local authorities can provide assistance to all care leavers up to the age of 21, or in some cases 24, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested. There will still be a safety net for children who need extra help whether or not they have spent the qualifying period in care.
The Department of Health sets target dates for the maximum time that the full assessment process should take for all young people who have been referred to social services and that process alone would bring a young person within a matter of two or three weeks of the three months for which we propose to regulate.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the proposal that young people should have spent a minimum of three months in care to be eligible for assistance. That was set out in the consultation paper Me, Survive Out There? In response to this paper, most voluntary organisations and local government bodies supported the proposal and recognised the need for clearly defined criteria. There were calls for the prescribed period of eligibility to be less than three months or, as some noble Lords have suggested, for it to disappear altogether. There are also calls for it to be set at six months. The noble Earl suggested that I use the word "balance". We believe that, on balance, this is about right.
We also believe that it would not be sensible to include in the new arrangements those young people who may have been looked after as infants and happen to return briefly to care after they are 16. That is why our regulations will set the age at which periods in care will count towards eligibility. Our thinking to date is that that age might be 14, but we shall take advice when we consult on the regulations.
I recognise that further discussions and debates are needed on the most appropriate period in care and the starting age to be prescribed, and I am grateful to noble Lords for raising that issue. I can certainly assure noble Lords that our intention is to consult widely to make sure that this is right. I reiterate that the power that we have to prescribe in new paragraph 19B(2)(b) will allow us to respond to unanticipated problems in the future.
Earl Howe: Before the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, decides what to do about the amendment, can the Minister, after that very helpful reply, throw any light on the point that I raised at the end of my remarks in relation to new Section 24(1) and new Section 24A

CWH7
which appear to conflict with the eligibility criteria as set out in Clause 1 because they do not mention a prescribed period? I do not understand why that is.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: New Section 24 gives general powers regarding aftercare for a whole range of children including children in accommodation; for example by health authorities. We have intentionally retained that in the Bill. In a sense that covers children other than those leaving care, and it is important to retain that ability to provide support for such children.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that considered reply. I am clear that he understands the concerns of those who want to see a greater degree of flexibility. After all, we have received briefings from those organisations which wish to see a higher threshold of six months, which would govern Clause 1, or new paragraph 19B of the Children Act. I accept his argument that the state should not interfere without good reason and that there will still be some kind of safety net under new Section 24. However, I believe that there is still a valid search for a greater degree of flexibility in this respect. There is a strong feeling among those organisations that have spoken to us that 13 weeks or three months is a somewhat arbitrary time, and our search will continue until Report stage to try to find a formula that will find favour.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thank the noble Lord for his constructive comments. Clearly we all want this to work. We do not want people slipping through the net who ought to receive the support that the Bill intends to provide. I should be happy to discuss those concerns with him and any other noble Lords who wish to do so between the Committee and Report stage to see whether we can deal with them. I believe that we have to go in for some prescribed definition and inevitably that may create a boundary so that there may be some grey areas. But the longstop is our ability to change the regulations if we come across that in the future. I should be happy to discuss that further.
Lord Clement-Jones: I appreciate the Minister's points about safety nets, the Minister's power to insert additional categories, and so on.
My noble friend Lord Russell has suggested the possibility of a different form of eligibility which could apply to the period for when no financial assistance has been received from parents. One might be able to mix in that sort of definition. However, rather than think aloud, it would be best for me to withdraw the amendment, although there is a strong possibility that we shall wish to bring back at Report stage an amendment to reflect the concerns that have been raised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("either").
The noble Lord said: I should apologise to the Minister. I am sure this will put his own briefings completely out of kilter, which is certainly not my
CWH8
intention, but it is always good to see how quick the Minister is on his feet in these circumstances! This amendment should have been to page 2, line 33. It was not intended as part of the eligibility discussion on Clause 1. It was intended to form part of the discussion about the additional functions of local authorities, and therefore should have formed paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of new Section 23A inserted by Clause 2.
At short notice, I realise it is extremely unfair of me to expect any kind of sensible reply in the circumstances since Clauses 1 and 2 have different purposes. However, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that disabled young people living away from home or estranged from their families are entitled to access to a personal adviser. There are approximately 360,000 disabled children living in the UK of whom approaching 47,000 live away from home. Local authority statistics for 1998 also indicate that up to a quarter of the looked-after population are disabled children and young people. A significant number of young people would not be eligible to receive services under the Bill as it stands at present.
These disabled and young people are placed in residential schools either on full-time placements or receive Social Services Department respite or health authority care for periods during school holidays, but are not officially looked after. They will spend most of their childhood living away from their families and are unlikely to return to live with their families when they finish their education.
The current transition planning requirements address the transfer from education and children's services to adult services, but there is no requirement for these young people to have an adviser or advocate, and decisions about their future are often made without reference to their wishes and feelings. Frequently, assumptions are made about their abilities and they are not given the opportunity to consider independent living or access to mainstream education and employment services. This is a group of marginalised and excluded young people who are denied rights available to others.
We would argue that this group also require intensive support and guidance as young adults through the transition period and that they are to all intents and purposes estranged from their families in the same way as young people leaving the looked-after system. Young disabled people may easily fall through the net of current transition services. Lack of choices in planning for adulthood can result in failure to achieve any satisfactory transition at all.
Approximately 25 per cent of the disabled people who are formally looked after also need to be considered in the provisions of the Bill. For this reason, Barnardo's among others would wish strongly also to support amendments which would extend the duty to age 21. However, that is for another occasion. In the meantime, I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: I add my support to these amendments even though they have been misplaced in the

CWH9
Marshalled List, for which I am sorry. I believe I know what the Minister will say; that the people who are the subject of this amendment are not the people whom the Bill addresses. If that is what he is about to say, I invite him to reconsider the scope of the Bill. Disabled children and young people who live away from home, in some cases from birth right up to the age of 18, are as much estranged from their families as are children who are looked after by foster parents or in a local authority children's home. They are as much in need of a pathway plan and the services of a personal adviser as those other children, and the duty owed to those children by the state is in no way different from the duty owed to children who, in the ordinary sense, are in the care system.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, these are children who are marginalised by society. All too often, decisions are taken about their future which are not based on any kind of formal assessment of their aptitude or their wishes. They are simply transferred, when they reach official adulthood, from one residential environment to another on the basis, quite often, of sweeping assumptions. What a difference it would make to those young people to have someone assigned to them who could defend their corner and argue for a meaningful choice in where they live and what they do. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the thrust of these amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a specific question about what I consider to be the most vulnerable group of young people of all. I refer to those who go from care, get into trouble and go into the young offender system. They then come out again and go back into care. What is their position when they are in a young offender institution? This group aged from 15 to 21 are the most vulnerable, many of them having been discarded by their families or being classed as homeless.
Lord Laming: I support this amendment and, in doing so, I ask the Minister to consider why a young person needs to be in a residential setting for 52 weeks of the year. Many young people with special needs of one kind or another go to educational establishments but go home during the holiday periods. They do so because they have a home to go to and they have family connections. Many of these young people who are covered by this amendment do not have a home and, when it comes to holiday periods, they are found another residential establishment in order that they may be accommodated during that period. These young people are very much at risk and, were it not for the fact that they are in a residential school, they would need to be looked after by the local authority. In other words, it is only because they are accommodated elsewhere that they are not being looked after by the local authority.
This amendment does not say that all young people who are accommodated in residential schools should be covered by the Bill, but that the Bill should provide for those young people who are placed in a residential school or some similar place for 52 weeks of the year. Just imagine! These young people have no continuing
CWH10
links with members of their family which enables them to be cared for outside a residential setting. As the noble Earl said, when these young people leave school, they will often be transferred to another residential establishment of some kind or another. If there are young people who need to have a proper assessment of need, a proper pathway plan, and the arrangements which this admirable Bill provides for, it is these young people. I very much hope that the Minister will take the force of the argument. This is a group of young people for whom we ought all to have a great deal of concern.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This, again, has been a very important debate and I certainly share the concerns expressed by noble Lords for the groups of children who are placed in these circumstances. When one goes to the heart of this question—because those children will not be defined as children leaving care—the issue is what is the right route to ensure that they receive support in the future. It is my contention that because the Bill is based and solely focused on the definition of children leaving care, it is in fact difficult to develop the concept of the Bill in the way suggested.
I recognise that the challenge is then to ensure that children in that position get the support they require. The noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, particularly spoke about the plight of disabled children and the difficulties that they can face moving from children's to adult services. I accept that more needs to be done for them. Many of them certainly have very special needs and it is important that these should be properly identified and properly addressed. The question is whether the amendment is the best or the right route to improve the experience of this group of young people.
The Bill is about improving the life chances of young people who have been looked after by local authorities. The new powers and duties for local authorities are designed to bring that about. Where, for instance, disabled young people have been looked after, those powers and duties will, of course, apply to them. We must make a distinction between those defined as being looked after and those who are not. Where a child is provided with accommodation by either the NHS or the local education authority for more than three months consecutively, the local authority must be notified. At that point, the social services department must take all reasonable, practical steps to enable it to decide whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while the child stays in the accommodation. It also has to decide whether it is necessary to exercise any of its functions under the Children Act. The placing authority must also notify the social services department when it is proposed to end the child's placement. The current Section 24 duties and powers to provide aftercare support apply to these children if they reach the age of 16 and have been accommodated for at least three months. These provisions ought to ensure that those children who need the full protection of being looked after do in fact receive that support.
The issue then arises where young people have not been brought within the care system in the first place and we do not think it will be helpful to take

CWH11
responsibility for them away from their families when they reach a certain age and give it to local authorities. It is important to recognise that the fact that parents decide to send their child to a residential school does not mean that they have abrogated responsibility for that child. I come back to the point I made at the start. It is absolutely right to suggest that such children—and those in the circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Laming, particularly referred—need more and better support than is available at present. It is here that the Government have set up a number of different mechanisms, which means that we will be able to deliver that support in the future.
First, there is Quality Protects, which is a powerful driver for raising the standards of care for disabled young people. Quality Protects has now been running for a year and has made appreciable improvements to the standard of care offered by local authorities. The next phase of the programme will put the spotlight on disability. All health authorities have also been required to sign up to this year's Quality Protects management action plans. Specifically for young people, just last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced the new ConneXion service, which will provide personal advisers for all young people aged 13 to 19. These personal advisers will play very much the same role as the young persons' advisers which this Bill prescribes for care leavers. We will consider that particular question further, but that would mean the children who have been discussed in this debate would be in line for better support and more well co-ordinated services than they receive at present.
In relation particularly to disabled children's services, our objectives are that those services apply equally to disabled and non-disabled children. For disabled children in particular the objective is to ensure that children with specific social needs arising out of disability or health conditions are living in families or other appropriate settings in the community where their assessed needs are adequately met and reviewed.
Specifically, I might say to the Committee that my officials, in consultation with other departments, are developing the learning disability strategy. That strategy will not be launched until later this year, but in preparation we have been consulting user groups and voluntary organisations. One of the priorities identified by this process is the transition from school for learning disabled young people.
In conclusion, I hope that I have indicated that I accept and understand the points that noble Lords have raised. I do not believe that the Bill is the right mechanism for dealing with those children who are not defined as having been in care or leaving care, but I believe that there is a real challenge for us to ensure that those children receive the right kind of support. We will talk later about the much more stringent monitoring of performance of local authority social services departments which is being put into place, and I believe that that, ultimately, is the right approach.
CWH12
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, as we discussed at Second Reading, that it is intended that these provisions will apply to young offenders.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Has the Minister referred to the Bill on special needs children that the DfEE said it will be bringing in? Will the children who are disabled, referred to in this amendment, be covered by that Bill? We do not yet know what will be in that Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I may need to reflect on that further. In relation to the learning disabled children I was talking about a strategy which is being developed, rather than legislation. The reference to the new ConneXion service was an announcement made by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, which is relevant to the Learning and Skills Bill that we will be debating very shortly in the main Chamber.
Lord Laming: I thank the Minister for that thoughtful and helpful response. From my point of view I absolutely agree that parents who place their children in residential schools should in no way be seen to abdicate their responsibilities for those children. It would be very helpful if the Minister were willing to reflect specifically on the needs of those children who have no continued contact with their families and who spend 52 weeks a year in residential establishments. This is the group of young people for whom we should have particular concern. Other kinds of services to which the Minister has referred no doubt will support parents who have a continuing contact with their children, who have the best intentions for their children, and who are very concerned to care for and protect their children, but there is a group of children who have no continuing contact with their parents and whose only life experience is in a residential establishment of one kind or another. I hope the Minister will be willing to give some thought, within the context of a very thoughtful reply, to that particular group of young people.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am obviously happy to give that assurance, because it is very important that the needs of this particular group of children are considered. I still think there is a debate to be had as to the best way forward. There are real difficulties in relation to those children as against the basic core of the Bill, which relates to looked-after children. I recognise, however, that whichever route one takes, one needs to ensure that those children receive the right advice and support. I would be very happy to reflect further and discuss it with the noble Lord.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister sits down again, perhaps I may ask him about the position of children, say, from a Barnardo's home. Are they classed as children in care, or are they in a private home? How are they classed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That would depend on whether they are defined as looked after. Everything in this Bill, in relation to the main provisions, goes back to that definition.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I want to get this clear, if it is a very grey area. I would have thought that all children in a Barnardo's home would have been looked after—it does not matter how they are looked after, because they are away from their home.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I, too, thank the Minister for his very careful reply to this amendment. As he says, the challenge is there to ensure that these children are properly looked after. I appreciate his undertaking to look at this issue as regards those in residential schools for that kind of period. After all, the amendment does not seek to include children who have a reasonable amount of contact with their parents—children who are 52 weeks in a residential school have very little contact with their parents. As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said, we have no intention of trying to take responsibility away from parents. However, children who are in these residential schools for 52 weeks will have very limited contact with their parents.
The Minister took us very carefully through the Quality Protects programme and talked about the next phase being in the disability area and the fact that personal advisers will be part of that provision. However, the difference will be that the children who are in residential schools for 52 weeks will not have statutory rights. They will have rights under the Quality Protects programme but that is not the same as having the statutory rights enshrined in the Bill. Therefore, I appreciate the Minister's undertaking to look at that issue. This class of children is not huge but it is very important. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call the next amendment, perhaps I may suggest that when Members of the Committee refer to "Clause 24" of an eight-clause Bill, they should make it clear that they are referring to the 1989 Act? I am thinking more about the readers of Hansard than about Members of the Committee, all of whom realise what they are saying.
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert ("in accordance with regulations made under section 26").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 3A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4A and 11A. Amendments Nos. 3A and 4A have the aim of ensuring that there is a provision for review of pathway planning to take place in accordance with existing Children Act regulations regarding the review of plans for looked-after children.
These amendments are from the Children's Consortium. The Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 provide details about how the matter is to be considered on review; the frequency of review; and the people to be involved in the process. Guidance amplifies the process, and the looking after children materials, which are excellent and very widely used, are also very well established and proven.
There is no need, surely, to reinvent the wheel in this case but merely to amend what already exists. If the amendment to paragraph 19B(5) is accepted, this sub-paragraph is unnecessary and wrong. But why should there be a separate review process? Is it not part of the planning process that all matters are considered together?
Amendment No. 11A is closely connected with this. There is no requirement for a regulation to be drafted in relation to reviewing the pathway plan. Pathway planning should be seen as a process particularly for this group of vulnerable young people. Therefore, regulations about review are as important as those about initial planning. I should be interested to hear the Minister's response to whether the review of the pathway planning process is as important as the process for setting it up in the first place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to talk a little about the question of pathway plans which are crucial to the success of what we are aiming to achieve. It is right to be concerned that the reviews of pathway plans are governed by proper procedures set out in regulations. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured when I say that the Bill already contains a specific power to make regulations about the review of pathway plans in Clause 3 at new Section 23E(2):
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about pathway plans and their review".
We shall be making tailor-made regulation in readiness for the implementation of the Bill. Because of that, there is no need to apply other sets of regulations about the review of children's cases or the assessment to pathway plans.
There is another reason against using the mechanism for the review of cases of children who are still looked after, as Amendment No. 3A provides. The idea has always been to give children and young people as seamless a transition from care to leaving care as possible. That is why they will all have pathway plans which will continue, whether they are in care or not. They will all have personal advisers.
If the plan were to be reviewed, as this group of amendments suggests, children who were still looked after might be subject to one kind of review and children and young people who had left care would be subject to another kind. We want to avoid creating such unnecessary distinctions.
As to the content of the regulations, in the consultation paper Me, Survive Out There? the Government propose reviews at six-monthly intervals, or more frequently if necessary, because pathway plans need to be flexible to accommodate the changes

CWH15
in young people's lives. The review would involve the personal adviser and other interested parties. The details have yet to be settled, but drafts will be published for consultation.
It is intended that the consultations over the regulations should be open because it is clearly important that we get them right. We want to discuss them with the people representing children's interests who will have to operate them in order to ensure that we have got them right.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: This is an important issue in an important Bill. When will it come into operation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The intention is that it will come into operation in April 2001, which is not long away. Noble Lords may ask whether local authorities will be prepared for it. Because it has been trailed in advance, we shall make it clear to local authorities that we expect them to have their preparations ready so that it can be up and running on 1st April 2001. Our intention with regard to regulations is to consult over the summer period.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for his helpful and full reply, which I shall take away and reflect upon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—("( ) The local authority shall ensure that any person charged with carrying out the duties mentioned in this section has received appropriate training in child development.").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. I tabled these amendments, because, amidst all the worthy aspirations embodied in the Bill, we must on no account forget that the Bill depends on trained people to make it all work. Untrained social workers or personal advisers, who lack a proper understanding of how children and young people behave and react, are the last individuals we should allow to undertake the responsibilities outlined in Clause 1. Child development is not a subject taught on social work courses but without that primary knowledge it must be well nigh impossible for a social worker to fulfil statutory responsibilities under the Children Act. For example, Section 31(10) of the Children Act states:
"Where the question of whether harm suffered by a child is significant turns on the child's health or development, his health or development shall be compared with that which could reasonably be expected of a similar child".
How would any of us fare if we were let loose as a social worker for a child in care and asked to assess the child's health or development in the context of that clause? If a social worker lacks the detailed knowledge of the stages of development and the types of behaviour that a child can display in a variety of situations, especially unhappy situations, it is not surprising if early signals of abuse are missed, as they may well have been missed in a number of tragic cases.
CWH16
Specialist courses include a module covering the study of child development. However, it is essential that every social worker who claims to be qualified to assess a child in care, prepare a pathway plan for him or act as his personal adviser, should have a working knowledge of child development. It is a basic tool for promoting the wellbeing of all children in care or at risk. I beg to move.
Lord Laming: I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Had we had the opportunity to discuss it, I might have tried to persuade the noble Earl to add a working knowledge of the legislation also, because, I regret to say, specialist workers in this field are not even conversant with the legislation and all that goes with it in terms of good practice, guidance and standards. The main thrust of the amendment is to ensure that the objectives of the Bill, which are laudable, are achieved. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: In supporting the amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there are plans to update the training of the social workers to make them well-equipped for this new legislation. What training will the mentors—the supporters or the advisers of the young people—receive?
5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My noble friend refers to advisers. There are two points here. The first is the general point about training and preparation for the people involved in the introduction of this legislation. That applies both to social workers, who will probably take a primary role in relation to assessments, and to the young persons' advisers who have a crucial role to ensure that the measure works and that young people receive the support they need. The second issue relates specifically to child development but it is important to reflect on the arrangements for training, and so on.
Perhaps I may refer particularly to young person's advisers. I believe that they have a crucial role to play in ensuring the success of the new arrangements. The consultation paper, Me, Survive Out There?, made it clear that this would be a demanding role. The young people's advisers will need to provide continuity of relationships with young people, and those relationships may often be characterised by disruption. They will need to be accessible at all times of the day and at other times in the event of crisis. They will need to have the ability to liaise with a wide range of other agencies and they will need the trust of the young people who they seek to help. They will need a very high level of knowledge and skill, which is why the issue of training is so important.
Many young people's advisers—especially in the early years of the new arrangements—will be recruited from those already working with young people in and leaving care. They might include members of current leaving care teams, and it is worth making the point that, although the record of local government generally in this area has been disappointing, there are

CWH17
some local authorities which have done first-rate work, and that much of what is contained in the Bill is based on good practice in those local authorities.
Young people's advisers could be social workers, residential care staff, voluntary sector workers and, in some cases, foster carers. Many of these people will have a professional qualification or some other form of training, or be qualified in part by their experience in dealing with young people.
However, all young people's advisers will need to be trained in the provisions of the new legislation, and most—especially those with little previous experience in dealing with young people—will need a broader and more ambitious training programme to ensure they have the necessary skills to carry out this crucial new role effectively. We are committed to ensuring that all individuals who become young people's advisers are fully and properly trained and to securing the necessary resources to make this happen.
The issue of training for people concerned must also be considered in the context of the development of the general social care council which we are currently debating in the Care Standards Bill. This new body will set standards of conduct and practice for the whole million-strong social care workforce and is due to be established in April 2001. In time, we expect that those charged with responsibility for successfully implementing the provisions of the Bill will fall under the new body's powers.
I now turn to the question of child development. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised an interesting point. I take this to be a requirement for all those involved in assessing and reviewing young people's progress. Last year the Department of Health issued a consultation paper on a framework for assessing children in need and their families. The paper made it clear that the framework is based on a requirement to gain a thorough understanding of the developmental needs of children. We hope to issue the assessment framework as statutory guidance very shortly and it will make clear that the assessment and pathway planning for care leavers should accord with the framework. At the same time, we shall be issuing practice guidance and a training pack to assist the introduction and implementation of the new framework.
I accept that there has been some criticism that child development has not been adequately covered in social work training courses. Of course, the development of the general social care council and other initiatives will allow us to review that issue.
I conclude by saying that I have sympathy with the noble Earl. I am not at all convinced that placing that requirement on the face of the Bill is the right approach, but I hope I have convinced the Committee that we are committed to ensuring that the people who have to carry out these responsible jobs are properly trained. Of course, that will be the responsibility of individual local authorities. I want also to assure the Committee that the much stronger performance management and framework that we are now placing in local authority social services departments will
CWH18
enable us to monitor local authorities' responsibilities in this area, and to draw to their attention problems if we encounter them.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: Perhaps I may ask a question. Social workers seem to go on leave and on courses a lot. If there is a young person who is very much at risk and needs his young person's adviser. will there be a substitute?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Baroness raises an important question, and clearly we shall need to ensure that there are arrangements so that it the young person's adviser is on holiday or on a training course, the young person will have access to advice. It is very important that at a time of crisis, for instance, there is always someone available. Obviously these are matters that local authorities will need themselves to resolve, but it is an important point.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has said enough about the importance of this amendment and need not add any more; but of course training has costs. When the noble Lord was on his feet I started looking at the Explanatory Notes. The section entitled "Effects of the Bill on Public Sector Finances" says:
"It is intended to implement the Bill by drawing together into a single budget head current expenditure by local authorities
under several different heads. It is a laudable and a sensible ambition. However, I take it that the Minister will agree that this can be, as current terminology, has it, only an "aspiration". There is a large conjectural element in setting out to fulfil what is a perfectly reasonable ambition. I imagine that somebody in the course of preparation of this Bill has given some attention to the question of what happens if these calculations turn out not to be precise? Is there any prospect of any additional help? Is the commitment to doing what the Bill sets out to do a primary commitment, or is the primary commitment to remain within an existing budget?
The Earl of Listowel: Perhaps I may say how welcome the Minister's words are: that there is an acknowledged need to provide for good understanding of child development. I hope soon to be approaching the Minister with a proposal to develop training at Tavistock for residential care workers specifically in child development, so his words are most welcome as he so clearly understands the issue.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl. He is right to point to the financial arrangements. Clearly the last thing we want is a Bill and implementation process which is aspirational but does not deliver for the young people. There would be absolutely no point in going down that path.
I have an extensive speaking note on the issue of budgeting which I would be very pleased to read out. But the point is that work is currently under way to calculate the exact sums of money that will have to be transferred into a ring-fenced budget. That partly comes from the current expenditure by local authorities on relevant young people: it is partly

CWH19
current expenditure on housing benefit, income support and job seeker's allowance for relevant young people; and it is partly the provision that currently exists for the Quality Protects special grant. Our intention is to pull all that together, and we think that that will amount roughly to £250 million in England in the first year. That will be enough money to ensure that the arrangements are able to be put in place and the appropriate support given.
It is always open to local authorities to spend more than the amount of money in the budget, and one would have to say that many local authorities do have a very good record of spending more than the assessment. We shall keep a close eye on this; we want to make it work.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that. Perhaps he will consider amending just one word of his answer. He said that it is "always" open to local authorities to spend more. In the light of capping limits, would it perhaps be wiser to say it is "sometimes" open to local authorities to spend more?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I will always stand corrected by the noble Earl. The point I am trying to make is simply that they have flexibility at local level, in addition to the amount that is going to be ringfenced.
Lord Howe: I thank the Minister for that very reassuring reply. I had not, of course, intended that these amendments should feature on the face of the Bill. However, this has been a useful debate and the point I raised has won sympathy from all sides. I take the noble Lord's point entirely. There is good practice out there; some extremely good beacons of excellence, if I may use that term. There are also what might be described as the exact opposite of that—examples that will be addressed by the provisions of the Bill. The Minister was right to point out in particular the measures currently in train under the Care Standards Bill to establish the general social care council.
I welcome the noble Lord's extremely helpful comments about broader and more ambitious training programmes. No doubt this is an issue to which we can return regularly. The need for proper training is never going to go away and we must be vigilant about training standards. However, it is time to move on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4A not moved.]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall').
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 10. I recognise that in framing legislation all governments prefer the word "may" to the word "shall". If the Minister had an extensive speaking note to an earlier amendment, he will probably have a well-honed speaking note to this amendment, because this is a matter about which
CWH20
governments generally feel strongly. In case the Minister chooses to remind me, I now confess that, in times past, I have advised Ministers on this approach.
This is a special case, however, for reasons to which the Minister referred in a response to an earlier amendment. He said then that the purpose of the Bill is to improve the "life chances" of young people looked after. It is special because, unless the Bill actually secures that splendid objective, we will all have wasted our time. That objective will not be secured unless it is clear that, where there are important elements in the Bill that have to be achieved, they will be achieved by the use of the word "shall" rather than the use of the word "may", which allows far too much discretion. If the Bill is to secure its purpose, it must be supported by an effective and reliable framework of secondary legislation. It is for that reason that I would urge the Minister to look carefully on this special occasion to the benefits of using the word "shall".
Perhaps I may illustrate my point by encouraging Members of the Committee to look at Amendment No. 10, which seeks to amend subsection(6) of new Section 23B. The regulations here cover matters which are absolutely essential to achieving the objectives of the Bill. For example, who is to be consulted in relation to an assessment is very important because it could include foster parents, or personal advisers, or advocates and the like. The recording of results of the assessment—consideration to which the local authority ought to have regard in carrying out the assessment—is a matter of fundamental importance and not one which should be left to the discretion of the local authority. This is not a matter which a local authority might choose, if it so wishes, to consider in accordance with this Bill. It is a matter where the regulation "shall" be made to achieve these objectives.
I recognise that the Minister is likely to say that, of course, these will be achieved, and that they will be achieved under "may" rather than "shall", but I hope that he will agree that in order to achieve the objectives of this Bill, which is very important, for once it may be right to use the word "shall". I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I know that we often have the customary fencing on the words "may" and "shall" in Committee, and on both Bills in which I have been concerned, the Minister and I have had the same argument. However, I have never heard a case put as persuasively for a change in the wording. I suspect that that illustrates the very long experience that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, has had in fencing with Ministers. Therefore, in a sense, he has reversed a number of the arguments that Ministers might well use on these occasions. He has quite an unassailable case. The regulations, in both cases, form the absolute centrepiece of this Bill and without them the Bill would be of no effect. It is therefore important that we include the word "shall", since it is such an essential part of the Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The Minister said he wanted to get the bad local authorities to perform well, but the bad ones may wriggle out of their responsibilities if "may" remains in the Bill. There is a big difference between "may" and "shall".
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We return to a debate that we have had many times. At heart, it is not really a question of "may" and "shall": at heart, it goes down to the actual performance of local authorities. While noble Lords will not be surprised that I intend to resist the use of the word "shall", I want to reassure them that we are intent on ensuring that local authorities do indeed achieve a high standard in implementing the arrangements set out in the Bill.
First, let me talk briefly about the regulation-making powers which the Bill gives the Secretary of State. Those regulations are very necessary to flesh out and give details to the skeleton which is contained in the primary legislation, to make it real and to ensure that it actually happens when it is implemented by local authorities.
I recognise that there are concerns that local authorities may not be up to the task, but let me say in the first place that we intend that the Bill should come into operation next April. Local authorities are already implementing arrangements in order to be ready and prepared for its operation. There is no question that we will not produce regulations which will enable those things to happen.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that the new wording he suggests would also sit uncomfortably with the wording in the Children Act which it amends, and where the formula "may" appears throughout. It is important to recognise the much stronger performance management arrangements that are now in place in relation to local authority social services departments and the development of performance indicators. These will include indicators on the proportion of care leavers in employment, education and training.
From April this year, the beefed up the Social Services Inspectorate will carry out 30 inspections of childcare services every year, so an authority would expect to receive an inspection once every five years. Part of that inspection process will be looking at the service that those local authorities provide for care leavers. The Quality Protects action plans will include information on improvements in services for care leavers, and social services inspectors will monitor progress against national priorities. If local authorities are found not to be performing, powers of direction are available to the Secretary of State. The Local Government Act 1999 also allows for intervention powers.
Looking at the whole package of measures, including the fact that we are able to performance manage local authorities in a much more effective way now than in the past, the regulations and guidance in themselves will give a very clear steer to local government about how we expect the Act to operate.
CWH22
I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord that we are determined that this should be implemented effectively.
Lord Laming: I am grateful to the Minister. I have absolutely no doubt about his determination or the determination of the Government as a whole to achieve the objectives of the Bill. To that extent I go a long way to being reassured. The Minister is right in saying that the Children Act uses the word "may". That is why I moved the amendments. The good authorities who have demonstrated that they go with the spirit of the Act have fulfilled the aspirations of that Act and have set good standards of care for children and young people who are looked after.
However, there are a number of other local authorities which have not demonstrated that they have been good corporate parents to those young people. In my view, they have been able to exploit a weakness in the Children Act from the use of the word "may". It is for that reason that I felt that there was a strong case to make this a special exception to the usual arguments about "may" and "shall" and to leave local authorities, which will have important responsibilities under the Act when it is implemented, in no doubt that they will be required to fulfil the clear guidance that will be sent from the Government in regulation.
I do not want to press the point this afternoon I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful and customary helpful response and there may be an opportunity before we meet again to have a further word about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) Arrangements under this paragraph shall be co-ordinated with provisions in the Learning and Skills Act 2000 for personal advisers for young people. "").
The noble Lord said: I first apologise for the lateness of the amendment. I justify that simply on the basis that I was unable to answer a question that was asked of me by someone else and I hope that the Minister will be able to do better than I did.
This is a probing amendment. As noble Lords will know, in the main Chamber there is, or will soon be, a discussion on the Learning and Skills Bill, which allows for personal advisers for young people in special circumstances. That is to be welcomed. The question that was put to me was whether there would be any co-ordination between the two pieces of legislation to ensure that young people who are looked after will either not be overwhelmed by personal advisers—would that were possible—or fall between two stools, which is more likely. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord raises a most important point. I hope that I can reassure him on this. I have referred already to the announcement on 3rd February by the Secretary of State for Education when he launched the new ConneXions

CWH23
service for all young people aged 13 to 19. The aims of this universal service are to improve the life chances of young people, to reduce the number who drop out of school, who leave with no qualifications, or who too often end up as socially excluded, on the streets or in prison, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, reminded us earlier.
The new arrangements for young people in and leaving care aim for the same outcomes. We want young people who are equipped to take their place in society and play a productive and responsible role.
The ConneXions service will provide advisers for all young people who will give more intensive and specialised support as it is required. In many ways, they will play the same role that we envisage for our young person's advisers.
I fully accept the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. We do not want the situation where young people end up with any number of advisers duplicating roles or indeed, as the noble Lord says, falling through the net. We shall make sure that that is not the case. My department and the DfEE officials are working closely together to ensure that we co-ordinate the two services.
We need some flexibility because for many young people, for instance, who fall under the new arrangements, the young person's adviser will also be their ConneXions' adviser. The two services, therefore, work closely together, operating under the same umbrella. There may be some cases, particularly among older children, where the young person's adviser might wish to work in the background because the ConneXions' adviser might have some special skills to offer.
ConneXions is to be piloted from this April, and we have made sure that one of the pilot areas includes a leaving care team which already offers the kind of support which we expect from the young person's adviser. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord. I believe that the ConneXions adviser is a great advance for many young people, but we will ensure that it works well with the young person's advisers.
Lord Laming: I had no doubt that the Minister would be more persuasive than I could ever attempt to be on this matter. I found his reply extremely helpful and reassuring. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Additional Junctions of local authorities in respect of certain children]:
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 6B:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) In section 20 (provision of accommodation for children: general) at the end insert—
"(12) A local authority shall continue to provide accommodation for any child until he is 18 unless he can demonstrate that he is ready and willing to cease being looked after by them. "").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 6C. The amendments stand in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The purpose of the amendments is to create a presumption that children remain looked after until they are 18 unless they are ready and willing to leave public care.
The arrangements in the Bill make considerable improvements to young people who are leaving or have already left public care. However, the Bill does not explicitly state the Government's intention that children should not be prematurely discharged from public care before they are 18. The amendments reflect the wording adopted in Me, Survive Out there?, the Government's consultation document.
Public care is still the best situation for a young person to be in because it has the broadest duties towards these young people. This is particularly significant in relation to financial support. For children on care orders, the local authority is the corporate parent with parental responsibility. This should continue in all cases until the child is 18 as in a natural family. Members of the Committee will be aware that the average age for children leaving home is 22.
The greatest difficulties in this area arise in relation to those children who are "accommodated". Some children have been accommodated for many years and have no family networks on which to rely. The present law is unclear in this area. The law says that parents cannot discharge their children from accommodation after their 16th birthday. It does not say that these children should be discharged from accommodation when they are 16 but that is the way in which the Children Act is increasingly interpreted by local authorities, usually resource-led because at 16 children can presently claim benefits. The Bill, of course, intends to change that aspect.
Perhaps I may give the example of John, who is just 16 years old. He has been accommodated for several months. His foster placement broke down. The social worker said to John that he had discharged himself because he was no longer living with his carers. He was told that he would have to go to supported lodgings and claim benefits. John felt that he was not mature enough to cope with this arrangement and that he needed more support. With help from his advocate the local authority agreed that he remained accommodated and he was placed with new foster carers.
The new arrangements in the Bill should serve as a disincentive for this sort of practice but there is no guarantee that accommodated children will no longer feel pressurised to move out of public care. It may be that the financial and housing arrangements for those who have left care are less favourable than the broader duties of local authorities for looked-after children. This is something about which we do not yet know the details but about which there are grave concerns on the part of young people. These amendments make

CWH25
explicit the Government's intentions to improve the situation for 16 and 17-year olds. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has made the case effectively. There is, and has been, a great problem with children leaving care prematurely and, even though they are fully entitled to do so at 16, the number leaving care at that age has been rising. This amendment is designed to rectify that and to try to produce some mechanism which will make sure that there is some incentive for them not to leave care at too early an age. We hope that one of the products of the Bill when it becomes an Act will be to ensure that young people do not leave care as early as they have before. I, therefore, support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: It would be good if there were a half-way house system so that children in residential care, when they reached the age of, say, 16, could go into a half-way house where they were more independent and they could be gently weaned into society while still giving them some support.
Earl Howe: I support the amendments. As the noble Earl said, the provisions of the Bill may well serve as a disincentive, worthy as they are, prematurely to discharge young people from accommodation. As I understand it, the new status for such children is not the same as the looked-after status in law. Local authorities do not have parental responsibility for accommodated children and, in theory, planning should take place in partnership with their parents. However, in practice for a number of accommodated children the care authority represents the legal parent.
There are a number of reasons why it is preferable for young people to remain looked after as opposed to transferring to the new system. One is that not all looked-after children will qualify as relevant children. Those who do not will be eligible only for the equivalent of the present limited aftercare support. That means that they will not automatically be provided with financial or housing support. Another reason is the duty to provide maintenance and accommodation to these children is weaker than if they continued to be looked after. A third reason is that there are certain additional duties of local authorities to looked-after children which have not been reproduced under new Section 23B(8) of the Children Act; such as the requirements on local authorities to place children near to their homes, with siblings, with extended family members, and friends. For all these reasons I warmly support the amendments of the noble Earl.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand and appreciate the intent of these proposed amendments because we all share a concern about the way in which too many young people have been obliged to leave care ill-prepared for living independently. As we discussed at Second Reading, the consequences are well known in terms of these young people's vulnerability to homelessness, unemployment and other difficulties.
CWH26
Young people themselves have spoken, often eloquently, about the way in which they did not feel ready to leave care, as the noble Earl suggested. However, the whole thrust of this Bill is to end the practice of turning young people out of care at too early an age and without adequate preparation for a step which many of their contemporaries living at home do not take until they are in their early twenties—indeed, these days sometimes later than that.
We anticipate that as an outcome of the provisions of this Bill many more young people will remain in care longer, and certainly beyond the age of 16 which is when so many are currently obliged to leave.
Besides, the neediest young people will in any case be under a care order which will not expire until they reach 18, unless it is discharged by a court. We are talking here about those who are accommodated voluntarily.
Assessing the optimum time when a young person should leave care is a crucial matter, but it must allow for some choice on the part of the young person, recognising that they cannot be forced to remain in care if they are accommodated on a voluntary basis. That is an important decision which has to be taken as part of the assessment and pathway planning process in which the young person will be closely engaged with the young person's adviser and other significant people such as their foster or other carers and their family if appropriate. Both the young person's readiness and willingness to leave will be at the heart of the decision making process, which we want to be conducted with the greatest sensitivity possible to the young person's needs. As I have indicated earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, these aspects will be covered in detail in the guidance to be issued to local authorities.
There will, of course, be a few—a very few, we hope—who will be determined to leave before they are ready to do so despite the best efforts of all concerned to point out to them that it is not in their best interests. As I suspect many of us know, not all adolescents are prepared to listen to advice, no matter how well meaning. Indeed, some young people may feel that they have compelling reasons to leave; regrettably, possibly based on their experience of care. There is a real problem here in insisting that a child who is voluntarily accommodated remains in care against his wishes and where to do so might make a bad situation worse.
Under the new arrangements, however, even those young people do not step into the streets and disappear. Until they are 18 their responsible authority will be under a duty to support and accommodate them wherever they choose to live in the country. Their young person's adviser will be in touch with them and they will still have a pathway plan, which will be regularly reviewed and updated.
This is an interesting debate, but at the heart of this Bill is the determination to provide the right support for all young people who have been in care. That includes the recognition that while each will have

CWH27
different abilities and requirements which must be met in different ways, all of them need the security of having someone responsible for their welfare. It is my contention that the duties on the responsible authority are designed to provide that security.
I hope that I have said enough to assure the Committee that the provisions in the Bill will enable all concerned, and not least the young people in care, to give very careful consideration to their readiness and willingness to leave care.
The effect of these amendments would be that any child who is looked after by a local authority at any time would be required to remain in care until there was demonstrable evidence of being both ready and willing to leave. This could have far reaching consequences. For example, authorities might be very unwilling to provide short-term care for young children whose parent was in hospital, for instance, and who then came into the definition of the Bill.
I understand the noble Earl's concerns but, at the end of the day, the Bill has the right balance, with the right incentives for local authorities now, instead of the perverse incentives that were there before. Together with the impact of the advice which the young person's adviser can give, and the pathway plan, I believe it is sufficient to provide the kind of safeguards that the noble Earl obviously considers necessary.
The Earl of Listowel: I should like to thank the Minister for his very helpful and full reply, which is extremely reassuring. I shall take his reply away and reflect upon it.
As regards the three or four-year term, we will need more reassurance that once the ring-fencing has been removed the situation will not change.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand that. Ring-fencing is extremely important when introducing these provisions. However, as local authorities gain experience and understand their duties, we would expect them to be able to carry on and ensure that the system works as effectively as possible. I would reiterate that even without ring-fencing the much stronger performance management arrangements that are now in place will enable the department to ensure that local authorities carry out their duties appropriately.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for his helpful replies. I shall reflect on his statements and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6C not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, leave out line 33 and insert—
("(c) is between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 7 and speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 12, 16 and 17 which are consequential. At this stage I do not want to speak to Amendment No. 23 in the name of noble Earl,
CWH28
Lord Howe. In fact, we should like to de-group that and deal with it at a suitable point later in the proceedings. It may conveniently be taken after Amendment No. 22, since this is rather a rogue amendment which has come into this grouping.
Amendment No. 7 would, in particular, ensure that local authorities were under a duty to meet the continuing assessed needs of young people, previously looked after, up to the age of 21. It would ensure a safety net for those young people who leave care only to get into difficulties later on. I hope Members of the Committee will forgive me if I spend some time elaborating on why we believe that this is of vital importance. It is a central part of some of the criticisms which have been made of the Bill which otherwise, in many respects, is a very good Bill indeed.
Paragraph 19B introduces a new duty upon local authorities to assess and meet the needs of eligible young people aged 16 and 17. Eligible young people will include both those who have been looked after for a period of 13 weeks or more and those who meet these criteria but have already left care.
The Children Act 1989 contains a number of statutory duties and associated powers for local authorities to prepare young people for leaving care and to support them afterwards. Despite this, the proportion of young people leaving care as young as 16 increased from 34 per cent to 46 per cent between 1994 and 1998. Provision of leaving care support varies widely and the rights which young people currently hold are often denied.
This is a cross-party matter. The conclusions of the Health Select Committee, Sir William Utting and others, that the discretionary powers contained in Section 24 of the 1989 Children Act should be converted into duties, have been very strongly supported. The Health Select Committee, in its report on looked-after children, recommended that this duty,
"should extend to young people up to and including the age of 21",
and that,
"the Government should ensure that the resources necessary to achieve this end are provided".
At Second Reading, the Minister reiterated the Government's commitment, originally made in November 1998, to extend the new duty until the young person reaches the age of 21. Significantly, he added that the Government,
"will first study the costs, limitations and affordability of doing so".—[Official Report, 7/12/99; col.1159.]
What is the case for extending the duty to 21 years? Young people leaving care have to cope with the challenges and responsibilities of major changes in their lives at a far earlier age than other young people. They may be the victims of abuse or neglect or have parents who are overwhelmed by problems and unable to cope. Although the present Bill should ensure that children between the ages of 16 and 18 have better access to support and protection, limiting the proposed new duty to 18 will mean that many young people, for whom the local authority has had parental

CWH29
responsibility, will continue to be refused help and told to leave home, just as other young people of their age are about to sit their A levels.
Perhaps Members of the Committee will allow me to refer to a case history. First Key recently spoke to Avril McGowan, a foster-carer with 25 years' experience, in relation to Melanie, whom she had fostered from the age of 12. Melanie had been in care, on a care order, from the age of 10. When she was 17, Avril fought hard but unsuccessfully for the local authority to allow Melanie to stay with her for an extra year while she finished a Foundation Course in Health and Social Care. Melanie had previously been picked on and bullied at school. Despite her previous bad experiences, she was keen to take up a place at the local FE college last year. According to Avril, this was "the best thing to have happened to her". Melanie loves the course, which gives her lots of confidence. She has never missed a day and receives numerous credits for the quality of her work.
However, local social services not only refused to let Melanie stay on with Avril but rang to ask "for a date when she would be leaving" and cut all financial support once Melanie was 18 last September. No support was provided by social services to help Melanie find alternative accommodation. Avril believed that Melanie would be "eaten alive by bullies and drugs" in the hostel the social services department were recommending. Avril found Melanie a flat near to herself, her daughter and the FE college and paid the deposit out of her own money.
Melanie has still not received her leaving care grant and is now being told by the local DSS office that she must leave the course and get a job. Her housing benefit has been reduced, leading to a build up of rent arrears. Avril is concerned that Melanie may not only have to give up a course which she loves but that she is now at risk of homelessness. She is angry, as she believes Melanie's present problems were avoidable, had the social services department agreed to Melanie staying with Avril while she completed her course. Avril continues to support Melanie but has resigned as a foster-carer out of frustration and anger at the way that Melanie has been let down.
As presently drafted, the Bill would afford no additional protection for Melanie. Young people leaving care, because of the problems they have experienced, may take longer than other young people to get their lives back on track.
Perhaps I may refer to another, shorter, case history. John Russell, who is 20 and was in care since the age of three, recently wrote to First Key to say:
"I am one of the lucky people. Northamptonshire leaving-care department have supported me to come back into education and help financially with my rent and weekly income".
John explained that when he was younger, he was very disruptive and at times uncontrollable because of the many problems he experienced. He missed out on a lot of education and left school without any qualifications. But he added:
"I am now several months into my GCSE course and I strongly believe this is a big step to achieving a good future career".
It is important that the new framework provides mechanisms to enable young people like John to catch up on the opportunities they have previously missed.
Comprehensive data on the cost of extending the new duty to 21 are currently unavailable. One can, however, illustrate the cost-effectiveness of providing good quality leaving care support from independent research and evaluations. In a recent report by the Audit Commission, Getting the Best from Children's Services, the commission identified both Manchester's leaving care service and Westminster's independent support team as providing good value for money. Research into the outcomes of leaving care schemes concludes that they work,
"particularly well in respect of accommodation and life skills and to some extent in furthering social networks, development relationships and building self esteem".
Positive achievement in relation to educational outcomes is closely linked to placement stability and particularly to foster care placement. There is additional, convincing evidence that focused leaving care support may also contribute to reducing potential future offending and that this could be a cost-effective response.
Nobody can put a price on pride, confidence and self- esteem. Those are qualities that young people gain successfully by holding down a first job, maintaining a home, friends and family or gaining an educational qualification for which they have worked hard. It cannot be right that children and young people leaving care have to fight for financial and practical assistance to stay on in a course, in a job or a home where they feel secure and happy. The cost of eradicating social exclusion manifested in problems like homelessness and unemployment is enormous. By comparison, early preventive support is both affordable and effective, as well as socially just. That is what the amendment is designed to do.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Laming: I support the amendment and I hope that the Minister will have found the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as compelling as I did. The case illustrations powerfully brought home to us all the force of why the amendments are essential to achieving the agreed objectives of the Bill.
On Second Reading we spoke about our shared concern about the poor educational attainments of many young people who have been looked after and who need care, the poor skills that many of them have to survive independently in society, our concern that many of them fall into criminal behaviour, drug abuse or prostitution. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has reminded us on many occasions of the young people that she has come across who have fallen into crime and ended up in young offender institutions, simply because they have not had the certainty of support on leaving care.
We need to acknowledge that as a society we expect the most from the young people who have the least. They have the least by way of family support and by way of education or other resources, and yet we expect

CWH31
those young people not only to become good managers in being able to survive on small amounts of money, but to make their way in society with nothing to fall back on.
I hope that the Minister will agree with me that it is greatly to the credit of the former Secretary of State for Health, Mr Dobson, who on a number of occasions spoke with great feeling about his concerns about what happens to young people who do not have a family to support them. He illustrated what we would expect normal parents to provide for their children. Some children in their twenties or even their thirties understandably turn to their parents when they have had a bad experience, a set-back in life, difficulties that have undermined their self confidence or have caused them to be upset. They can talk things through with their parents and seek guidance and support.
Perhaps I may illustrate that point further and add to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I came across a young person who had been looked after for most of his young life. He left care at the age of 16 and when he later fell into difficulty he went back to the local authority which was supposed to be a good parent, only to be treated as "a new case", to be sent to the back of the queue and regarded as somebody for whom it had no continuing responsibility.
I hope that the Minister will agree to two amendments. Amendment No. 7 is, I believe, essential to the success of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we have had assurances of a commitment of this kind since 1998. If we miss this opportunity to extend the duties to the age of 21, we will not only fail this generation of young people in care but also will fail succeeding generations. Do we really want to miss this opportunity to ensure that young people looked after will have help and support available to them up to the age of at least 21? There are good examples that this is already happening and I can see no reason why this extension should not be agreed to. I hope that, if for no other reason than as a tribute to Mr Dobson, the Minister will agree to this amendment.
Earl Howe: I add my strong support to these amendments. When Sir William Utting published his report and recommended that the duty to help care leavers should be extended until the age of 21 the Government said that they were minded to accept that recommendation. They need to explain why they seem now to have slid back from it. My understanding from what the Minister said at Second Reading is that it is purely a question of funding. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any argument about the principle.
The question appears to be "when" and not "whether". However, if we believe that the state has a moral duty towards care leavers that stands foursquare with the moral duty of a parent towards his or her child, to postpone the raising of the age to 21 under the Bill is merely to consign another generation to disadvantage.
CWH32
Incidentally, of those who are most disadvantaged, there are few more deserving individuals than disabled looked-after young people. Evidence shows that disabled young people remain in care longer than their non-disabled peers and, while the Bill encourages young people to remain in care until they are ready and willing to leave, there are implications for young people whose impairment may make it difficult to ascertain how willing they are to leave. These people need to know that the support will be there regardless of when they leave care. As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said, I believe that now is the moment to say that the duty should be extended to the age of 21. Far be it for me to enhance the present Government's standing in the opinion polls but the tide of public opinion and public interest is undoubtedly in favour of such a move. If it is not done now when, if ever, will it be done?
I now raise a technical point on which I would be grateful to receive the Minister's comments. The requirements to satisfy for being a relevant child are that the child was eligible at the time of ceasing to be looked after, is now not being looked after and is 16 or 17. An "eligible child" is defined under paragraph 19B(2) of the Children Act as a child who is aged 16 or 17 and looked after during the prescribed period. I wonder, therefore, why the additional requirement that the child must be 16 or 17 has been included. It would appear to be a duplication of the age requirement. By imposing what seems to be a duplicate requirement there is an even greater limit upon who would be included within this definition. The child must have been 16 or 17 when looked after during the prescribed period and then must be 16 or 17 on ceasing to be looked after. The obvious way to overcome this is to remove the requirement in subsection (2)(c), or, as the amendment proposes, to substitute a different age; namely, 21.
Earl Russell: My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones very kindly has drawn to my attention that some of my remarks on Amendment No. 1 might have been more properly applied to this amendment. I can only say that if the Minister would be kind enough so to apply them, it would relieve me of any temptation to repeat them.
I refer only to one other thing. The Children's Society Report, which was debated in this House on the 20th of last month, is still running. I will not go into what happens to care leavers; clearly the Government are well aware of it, and if they were not they would not have brought this Bill forward. However, the other point in the study that struck me very forcefully is that children who go into care, very often by the nature of the circumstances which brought them into care, arrive there with a considerable distrust of authority. Easing that distrust is an important part of making them into useful citizens. This amendment addresses that need, and the emotional need here is perhaps quite as urgent as the material.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I support the amendment, but the case of Melanie was so good, so typical of bad local authorities; for instance, inflexible

CWH33
and jealous. However, I wish to ask a question. If that young person had a young person's adviser, the young person's adviser might have told her to stay with her foster parents and to finish her course. What happens if the local authority turns round and says, "No", and there is a conflict?
6 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I recognise that this is a very important matter and I should wish to be as encouraging to Members of the Committee as I can. However, I suspect that I shall not be as encouraging as noble Lords would like. I understand that there is a very strong feeling that young people whom this Bill is designed to support are likely to need help beyond their 18th birthday. There is no doubt whatever about that, which is why the Government share this conviction and why we are committed to taking the existing power which local authorities have to support young people over 18 and converting it into a duty in respect of care leavers who have been "relevant children". The Bill contains a power for the Secretary of State to do just that.
There is no disagreement between us about the desirability of extending this support. The only question, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, is one of timing. It is when, not whether. A new duty would impose new financial burdens on local authorities and we believe that it would be entirely unreasonable of us to take such a step without providing the resources with which to meet it. I go back to the point that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made in our earlier debate.
Members of the Committee will not be unaware that the Government are in the process of conducting a new spending review, which is not due to be completed until the summer. The relative timings for this Bill and that review cause us some problems in relation to the new duty, which is why the Bill is drafted as it is.
I hope noble Lords will accept my assurance that the drafting does not reflect any softening of the Government's resolve to extend the support available to this group of young people. We fully intend to use that regulation-making power as soon as possible. At this stage, I cannot go any further in relation to the exact timing.
It is worth making the point that even as the Bill stands, it will offer support to young people who have been "relevant children". A young person who will have qualified to have a young person's adviser and a pathway plan will keep that entitlement until he is at least 21, or until he is 24 if he is being helped with education, training or employment. If in higher education, his responsible authority must provide him with vacation accommodation if he needs it.
I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who spoke eloquently. As regards the case of Melanie, there is no reason why the local authority would refuse an extra year of foster care. Again, under the new arrangements, the pathway plan would have addressed a number of those issues.
CWH34
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, there is a process of negotiation between the young person, the young person's adviser, and the local authority. If, however, there were a situation where agreement could not be reached we have made provision for there to be a complaints system so that the young person would be able to make a complaint. Of course, I hope that it does not come to that because the whole purpose of having a young person's adviser is to enable a proper agreement to be reached between the young person and the local authority concerned.
In conclusion, I hope noble Lords will realise that I accept everything they say about the need to extend this Bill. I should very much like to say that we would do it, but it is the subject of discussions concerning finance and I am afraid that I cannot go as far as noble Lords would wish at this stage.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I can picture young people queuing up with their complaints, with their advisers on their side. If an adviser is good, he will know what will be good for that young person and they will work their pathway plan out together. However, if the local authority says, "No, you cannot do that, because we do not have the money.", then it will be difficult.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: These arrangements will be better than the present situation. Part of the role of the young person's adviser is to help as an advocate. Equally, a young person's adviser is there to give advice to the young person on what it is reasonable to ask for.
The combination of that, and the skill of the people we wish to see appointed as young persons' advisers, should ensure a sensible conversation between the young person and the local authority. If that does not happen, then there is a complaints system as a longstop.
Lord Laming: I believe the Minister has deployed the same argument as the poor local authority deploys: that we agree with you, and we would like to help you, but we do not have the money. That is precisely why we need to have this amendment in the Bill If this amendment is not included in the Bill, as earlier speakers have said very persuasively, we will let the poor authority which is not a good parent off the hook and not require it to carry out what ought to be its duty.
It is no good saying that we agree with all of this in principle but, until we have the money, we cannot do it. That is the counsel of despair and it encourages the local authorities about which we are concerned to do precisely that. They will follow the Government. I regret to say that they will hold the Minister as an example to be followed who they can call in aid of their position.
The reality is that none of us knows how much this will cost. In my view, it is a poor argument to say that we cannot put a figure on it at this stage. None of us can know how many young people will take up the offer to have support until the age of 21. My own view

CWH35
is that we could wish that more of them would do that but, unfortunately, many of them will feel that getting away from a local authority is a considerable advantage, and then get themselves into difficulty.
I do not believe it is possible to predict the cost. Even if we could, however, this would not be the first piece of government legislation that has been phased in over a period of time. It is absolutely essential that we get this right this time round, even if it takes the Government a year or two to implement it fully. If we do not take this opportunity, when will there be another to get this on the face of the Bill?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may say in reply that there is no argument about the principle. The Bill allows us to extend provisions to the age of 21 when it is decided that it is appropriate to do so. The issue is not "whether"; it is "when".
Lord Clement-Jones: I have little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, so passionately expressed; I entirely agree with him. The Minister used very consensual, conciliatory language, but in a sense he managed to incite us all to further efforts at Report stage. He used a mixture of Treasury and Augustinian arguments which were very attractive but nevertheless unconvincing for people who wish to see the good parent concept extended across the Bill. The element that must be there is that it must run the gamut from 16 to 21. It cannot be a matter of short term financing; it must be there on the face of the Bill. It would leave a huge hole in the Bill, despite the Minister's assurances that at some future date a comprehensive spending review might mean that this would be brought within the Bill.
The reason has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. The Melanie case history showed that the Social Services Department—and the Minister said it himself—could have given assistance, but it did not, and it is because local authorities in cash-strapped times make a huge distinction between powers and duties, and they look first of all to finance their statutory duties.
In conclusion, while withdrawing the amendment, the Minister can be certain that we will bring this back at Report stage and keep arguing for the Bill to be good in every respect, not just in some respects. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—
("(1) It is the duty of the responsible local authority to use their best endeavours to establish or maintain contact with a relevant child or young person at such times as are reasonable with a view to discharging their functions under this section, whether or not that child or young person is within their area.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 19 and 20, and I look to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to see whether he would like to speak to Amendment
CWH36
No. 18A. I can reassure the Minister that accepting the amendment would not cost any additional money, and I hope that he will skip that part of his note.
This is a matter of English and meaning of words. I take exception to the use of the words "keep in touch" with a young person. It is right that each local authority should have a duty to take reasonable steps, but not to keep in touch. I hope that I am not the only person who keeps in touch with a large number of people, but sometimes I do it by means of a Christmas card and feel guilty that I have not kept in touch with them rather more effectively during the year. Sometimes I keep in touch with people when I feel that I have the time to do so and, sadly, because of evenings like this, the time goes by all too quickly.
I hope that the amendment flows with the aims of the Bill which is to require local authorities not to keep in touch on the basis of an aspiration but requires them to use their best endeavours to be able to demonstrate that they have done something positive to establish and maintain contact with a relevant child. I hope that there is nothing between Members of the Committee on these objectives, but the means needs to be rather stronger than "keep in touch". I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has made an effective case. I call this a "disc jockey" amendment—keeping in touch in that informal way, "Hi, guys, we're on air!". It really has to be something rather more maturely considered than just "keep in touch". The words of the amendment, "maintaining contact", is a far more effective way of expressing what we all know we are talking about. This is not a matter of not understanding the underlying essence of what we are talking about, but it is basically the language that is being used in these circumstances. At the end of the day, if we do not use the right language, it can affect how people carry out their duties. This is an important amendment in that respect.
Earl Howe: I support what has been said by both noble Lords. I should like to speak to Amendment No. 18A, which has been grouped with these other amendments. This relates to a separate issue and it also has no financial aspect attached to it, at least so far as I know. It is intended solely as a probing amendment.
I should like to hear from the Minister what the force of the word "first" is in the subsection that the amendment addresses at page four, new Section 23C(3). The word "first" is applied to one of the duties set out in the Adoption Act 1976. My understanding is that its meaning there has been interpreted as first on the list—it does not mean that it is more important than any other duty. What is the meaning in this Bill? If it is intended that the duty in new Section 23C(3) is to be the most important duty, then there needs to be some qualification added to the word "first". In any event, I am not sure whether the word "first" adds anything to the clause at all.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There are two issues here. One is whether we have the wording right and the other

CWH37
is how local authorities are to keep in touch. I will try to cover both those areas because this is clearly an important part of ensuring that this works effectively.
I have already emphasised the importance of the flexibility of these new arrangements to take account of the needs and wishes of each young person as an individual. I set out the importance of the responsible authority in simplifying support arrangements for young people who wish to move around the country, for whatever reason—including disaffection with their home authority. The new duty to keep in touch is intended to ensure that local authorities cannot duck out of their responsibilities when someone moves away.
It has been phrased slightly differently for relevant children of the older age group, again to underline the fact that young people's needs change as they grow older and each one must be seen as an individual. Clearly, in the performance monitoring that we will undertake we will wish to ensure that local authorities take this responsibility very seriously.
I turn to the phrasing. I know that noble Lords feel that "keep in touch" appears rather too slight and too casual, just meaning "let us keep in touch and meet up every so often.". Just as "maintaining contact" can mean different things to different people, so "keeping in touch" can also have different meanings. It is very difficult to come up with a phrase that fits the circumstances we are discussing completely. The dictionary expression suggests that the phrase "keep in touch" is a simpler way of saying to maintain contact. It is just a question of plain English in that respect. No doubt the noble Earl will correct me.
Earl Howe: No, I want to ask whether there is a precedent in law for this phrase occurring in an Act of Parliament.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am informed that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a requirement on offenders who are subject to a drug treatment and testing order to keep in touch with their supervising officer. I gather that there are other examples, but I do not have those with me. Returning to the more substantive point, as to the different circumstances and the different hierarchies of keeping in touch, there will be cases where only a very light touch will be required from the young person's adviser. One can think of a young person perhaps aged 20, who has just got married and is holding down a job, who may neither need nor want his responsible authority to keep "interfering"—as he might see it—in his affairs. His needs and wishes should certainly dictate the level and the type of contact he has with that adviser. That minimum level of contact will keep the door open for more intensive support should it be needed. On the other hand, as we have discussed already a number of times, there will be young people who need a much higher level of support. For them, the adviser will need to be in contact more frequently. We consider that the new duty allows for both extremes and for everything in between.
CWH38
The absolute bottom line is that the responsible authority must keep in touch as needed. If it loses touch, it must try to re-establish contact. At one extreme, if a relevant child were to go missing at 16, the responsible authority would have to keep trying to find him until his 18th birthday had passed. The language used does not in any way detract from what is a serious and onerous new duty.
As regards the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, it simply means "first"—that is, it is the first thing that should be done—and nothing more than that. I am happy to look at the wording again to see whether it needs further explanation.
Lord Laming: I am grateful to the Minister. I have to say that the word "first" seems to have a distinctive quality. There is only one position that can be described as "first" and "paramount"—as the noble Earl has said—emphasises that point. We are saying there that we are emphasising the importance of this matter. I have to admit to disappointment at the response of the noble Lord to the question of keeping in touch. This is not because I want people who are capable of living independently to feel that they are being oppressed because of this piece of legislation and having help forced upon them that they neither want nor need. It is because the greater danger is for young people who are vulnerable to be lost, one way or another, to the system and for local authorities for a variety of motives, not all of which are worthy to go through the motions of keeping in touch. Frankly, however, if really tested on that, they would not be able to demonstrate that they had used them best endeavours and behaved reasonably.
I do not doubt the sincerity of the noble Lord's intention. However, I hope that the Minister would be willing to look again if not at this form of wording at some other expression which would strike a slightly more robust, pro-active tone than "keeping in touch", with the element of casualness which that evokes. I would be happy to be guided by the Minister on a different kind of phraseology which would have that extra energy about it, rather than "keeping in touch". On the basis that I would be happy to withdraw the amendment, I hope that the Minister would be willing to meet me at least halfway across the divide between us and perhaps have some discussion in the meanwhile. If he smiles and nods, as he has just done, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert—
("(e) the provision of independent advocacy assistance for children and young people").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I shall speak also to Amendments No 25, 26, 29 and 31.
The amendment aims to ensure that there is regulation and the availability of independent advocacy for young people who are looked after and who are leaving care. As the Minister said earlier—and

CWH39
I agree with him—young people looked after are generally less mature than their peers. We have already expressed concern about their general poor educational standards and limited resources for living independently.
Many young people who are looked after feel that they have had a lifetime, or at least too many years, of having other people make decisions about what is supposed to be good for them. Sometimes they feel that they are up against a vast bureaucratic organisation and they even feel intense anger towards those who are there to help them, whether justified or not. There needs to be another way of ensuring that young people have their voice heard. Often the situations are complicated. In an earlier discussion the Minister referred to the complaints procedure that is available for young people, and that is to be welcomed. However, they need to have available to them adequate advocacy arrangements, which need to be required so that the local authority is capable of being evaluated against the standard and availability of provision.
I hope that the Minister will see that the amendments are intended to ensure that young people leaving care will have available to them adequate advocacy arrangements so that if they feel unable to present their concerns to the authorities satisfactorily there will be somebody to stand alongside them, to assist them, and represent them as and when needed. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 25. Children often tell us that they are not listened to, proper explanations are not given and decisions are taken over their heads. They say that they feel powerless in those circumstances. I associate myself with the analysis of the problem given by the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
Child law is complex and the practice of social services departments is variable, to say the least, and frequently now resource led. Advocacy is the means whereby the law can be properly implemented on behalf of children. Not only that, public care itself fails many children and there has been a plethora of reports detailing abuse and neglect in the care system, as we all know. Without a legal right to advocacy, the rights and welfare of children are not being properly safeguarded.
The experience of young people using an advocate is that it makes a significant difference to what happens to them. Obviously they do not get exactly what they want on every occasion, but 85 per cent of users of advocacy services say that the outcome achieved most of what they wanted and they felt that the advocate made a difference.
I have here some comments from young people about the impact of advocacy. One said:
"She was able to communicate for me in a way that made those in authority listen in a way that I couldn't".
Another said:
"My advocate did in three weeks what I had been trying to do for three years".
CWH40
The third said:
"She was the best, I would recommend her to everyone".
The need for independent and confidential advocacy services for children and young people looked after by local authorities has been clearly illustrated and endorsed by the findings of Sir William Utting in his review.
This has been picked up by the Government in their Quality Protects programme and in November 1999 it was stated that,
"particular attention should be given to … enhancing [young people's] voices, for example through the development of individual advocacy services".
The provision of these services to date has been on a fairly ad hoc basis, with great variations in regional and local availability and the quality of service. At present there is no statutory requirement for local authorities to fund, or even to permit, advocates to visit children who are looked after by them. It is not right, in principle, that the provision of advocacy should be dependent on the whim and/or financial support of the authority with whom the young person may be in dispute. Those practices are discriminatory and, as I understand, in breach of Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Turning briefly to Amendment No. 25, this is a much more straightforward amendment. As the Bill stands at present, there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to make any regulations at all. Although the 1991 regulations are under review, it seems sensible that they should form the basis for the complaint system under this section. At Second Reading the Minister said [at col. 1158 of the Official Report] that it was anticipated that the existing Children Act complaints procedure would be used. If so, I believe this should be reflected on the face of the Bill. The significance of this complaints procedure as distinct from the procedure under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is the requirement of an independent element in both the investigation and panel review hearing. Young people are not confident in using complaints procedures and this is why the independent element is so important, together with the provision of independent advocacy support.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise briefly to support both the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in putting his amendment and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Independent advocacy is an instrument whose time has come. There is no doubt about that. We had a number of debates about this in the Care Standards Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, the Government have accepted that independent advocacy is desirable but nowhere do we see that reflected in either the Care Standards Bill or, indeed, in this Bill. It is something which service users of all descriptions are now seeking.
I was at a mental health service users conference and one of the key things they wanted was independent advocacy, because if you are up against the public

CWH41
services, if you are up against the big battalions, that will provide the kind of reassurance and assistance that is really needed. Nowhere is it more important than for these vulnerable young people who are faced with some very important decisions being made and people who appear extremely powerful in relation to their own lives.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, but it is far from clear whether the Government are complying with that convention. One way of making clear that we are observing that convention is to provide independent advocacy for these young people. Therefore, while I recognise that there may be financial constraints about which we will no doubt have further discussions, in principle this must be the right way to go. This will provide the right kind of protection for these young people and I urge the Minister to consider the matter.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The element of independence is very important and, if I might mention it again, in young offenders' institutions there is an independent body—the Board of Visitors. So many issues can be sorted out while they are little molehills and before they become mountains. This would help when there are problems in giving support to the young person's adviser, and the sorting out of the complicated forms for benefit. We have talked about disabled young people within the Bill. Their benefits are so complicated that they have a citizens' advice service to help them sort out those complicated forms. Many of these people will not have had good education and some of them cannot read or write. The issue is important.
The Earl of Listowel: I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, drawing attention to the lack of educational qualifications of children in care, currently leaving with one minimal paper qualification. We are talking about people who are not trained to express themselves well. They are not trained to think carefully and analytically—skills we take for granted but which they lack.
I should also like to point out another difficulty these young people face if they feel they have been rejected by their previous carers, whoever they may be. Faced with new carers those young people feel a tremendous debt of gratitude to those people. That makes them vulnerable to anything those carers suggest. That is another reason that the support of independent advocates is so important to these young people.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to noble Lords for returning us to a matter that we have already discussed in the Care Standards Bill. Many of the same arguments are being deployed today as have been deployed already in that Bill. I should be the first to acknowledge that advocacy can be a very important part of the armoury of ensuring that young people are provided with the right kind of support that they require, particularly in the difficult circumstances to which many noble Lords have referred.
CWH42
It is my understanding that advocacy is grounded in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which assures to children capable of forming their own views the right to express those views freely. It is also worth pointing out that the Children Act includes provisions respecting the entitlement of children to be consulted and to have their views and feelings taken into account.
I fully accept the point made, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that current provision in relation to advocacy is patchy. However, a number of local authorities and voluntary organisations have done very good work in this area. We have a number of excellent national advocacy services which are available to help local authorities in that area. My own department has funded many of these organisations to prepare national standards for children's advocacy services, and these were subject to extensive consultation last year. My understanding is that they are due to be published in the spring.
In addition, listening to children is a major theme of the safeguards review and the Quality Protects programme. Indeed children's participation is a priority area for the special grant under Quality Protects. As part of that, the Quality Protects programme is mapping at the moment current provision in relation to advocacy. This will inform us in terms of our future intentions and will enable greater coherence to be provided in the future. This package of initiatives as a whole to secure advocacy and to ensure that it is of a high standard is a visible indication of the Government's wish and commitment to advocacy, both in principle and practice. It is because of the measures that we are taking that we do not see the need to specify it on the face of the Bill. Perhaps I may turn to the amendments because they raise a series of specific points about provisions in the Children Act and new provisions in the Bill.
Amendment No. 29 introduces advocacy into Section 22 of the Children Act. The amendment would require a local authority to permit a child the assistance of an independent advocate whenever the local authority was engaged in ascertaining the wishes or feelings of the child, or making decisions taking account of those wishes and feelings. I ought to stress the word "whenever" here as the decisions that could relate to it could be both great and small. There are obviously a great many minor decisions to be made about a child in care. While the Government are committed to the principle of advocacy, it is important that we do not intrude where there could be an enormous bureaucratic burden to all concerned.
Amendment No. 11 concerns advocacy as part of the needs assessment process for "relevant children". This would specify that the regulations setting out the assessment process must deal with the provision of independent advocacy for those young people. Members of the Committee are right to recognise the important of the assessment process winch we discussed earlier. It is the vital first step in drawing up the pathway plans and obviously it is important that the young person feels ownership of that. A pathway

CWH43
plan, no matter how well thought out, will not work if the young person feels it is being imposed upon him or her.
We anticipate that the key relationship in ensuring that the plan is properly owned and that it works will be the relationship between the young person and the young person's adviser. That is what the Bill is all about. The adviser will not be an advocate in that sense, because it will not be the adviser's role to put the young person's case uncritically, right or wrong. However, it will be very much the role of the young person's adviser to negotiate as necessary with the young person about the content of the plan, as we have already debated. Sometimes the young person's adviser will need to inject a note of realism into the aspirations of the young person. For other young people, they will have the opposite task, which will be to ensure that they have sufficient ambition in order to realise their potential. Clearly, the reason we are here today is that so many young people in the past have not had the ambition, they have not had the support and have not realise their potential.
Once that relationship has been established and the essentials have been agreed, the young person's adviser may well act as an advocate to ensure the right support from the local authority and other key players. The discussion that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised earlier is a case in point, where having gone through the process of establishing a relationship with a young person in developing the pathway plan, that young person's adviser could then well be an advocate for that young person in negotiating with the local authority in the circumstances which the noble Baroness put forward.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: If there were a conflict between the local authority and the young person and his adviser, there might need to be an advocate between the two.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There are two points there. If there were a serious problem between the young person and the young person's adviser, I agree that there could be a role for an advocate in enabling that matter to be sorted out. Equally, it would be appropriate for the young person to be provided with another young person's adviser. Clearly, a part of all this is the relationship between the young person and the young person's adviser. Of course, if that, too, breaks down and there are real problems and we come to the complaints procedure which is the subject of Amendments Nos. 26, 30 and 31.
I hope that complaints will be kept to a minimum and that the relationship between the young person and the adviser, and the support given to the young person will prove to be as effective as we all hope it will be. Inevitably, there will be some complaints. We will set out the complaints procedure in the regulations and we will plan to build in sensitivities such as access for the child to advocacy to pursue his case. Indeed, authorities are already entertaining complaints brought by advocates on behalf of children. If there is
CWH44
any evidence of reluctance on the part of local authorities we shall be happy to revisit the relevant guidance.
Amendment No. 25 would remove the power to make regulations for a complaints procedure for the provisions of this Bill. Instead, the existing 1991 regulations on complaints would apply.
In answer to the noble Lord who raised that point, I am all in favour of avoiding duplication in regulations for the sake of it. We do not intend to set up a parallel system. Noble Lords may well be aware that the existing complaints procedure had been found to be imperfect and is presently under review. This review has involved consultation with an external advisory group, drawn nationally from interested parties, and informal discussion with other groups of relevant stakeholders, including the Children's Society, and the Voice for the Child in Care.
We plan to publish a consultation paper, summarising the issues which have been raised, and proposals for addressing them later on in the year. At this stage, I would not wish to commit myself to any particular set of regulations, especially a set which are under review. I also have to say that, if at any time the 1991 regulations were revoked, we would be left with no regulations at all under this clause in relation to that amendment.
I hope I have indicated that I take the points that noble Lords have raised about advocacy. We seek to address this in a number of ways, as I have described. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel that we have covered this sufficiently.
Lord Laming: I am grateful to the Minister—and I hope I speak for my colleagues—for his very thoughtful and persuasive response. For my part, I would certainly like to reflect on what the Minister said. If matters of this kind are to be addressed in regulation, rather than on the face of the Bill, then for my part I understand that.
I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply and I will reflect upon the issues. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11A and 12 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) Support under subsection (8) may be in cash.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is for clarity and clarification. By inserting this form of words into Clause 2 we are making it quite clear that, in the case of relevant children, local authorities will be able to provide support in the form of cash as well as in kind. Indeed, this clarifies the point raised on Second Reading.
Relevant children are those aged 16 and 17, who have spent long enough in the care of a local authority to qualify for this new package of support but who have now left care. New Section 23B(8) to which this new form of words would apply concerns the new duty

CWH45
on a local authority to "safeguard and promote" the welfare of a relevant child by providing the support he needs, such as accommodation and maintenance.
Each young person's pathway will, of course, map out his or her route into independence and each will wish to develop at his or her own pace. Some, as we have already discussed, will be ready to leave care as early as 16 or 17, while others will simply refuse to stay in care a second longer than they absolutely must. Some will be competent to manage a budget and others will still need help to use money sensibly.
That is why it is so important to set out clearly what support they can expect to receive from the relevant authority. Equally, however, we want to build in as much flexibility as possible and to allow the authority to meet the needs of each individual in the way best suited to his or her capacity and wishes. The pathway planning process will provide the mechanism for all of this to be agreed and reviewed, and revised as necessary.
The amendment avoids any further suggestion that 16 and 17 year-olds who move out of local authority care, but who are eligible for the new aftercare provisions, will be able to receive that support only in kind. I hope that noble Lords agree.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 46, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: Of all the miserable and depressing experiences recounted by young people who have been in care, the one that recurs time and again is the misery caused by bad and seedy accommodation, or worse still by homelessness. Care leavers are over-represented in the population of young homeless people. Research has shown that one third of all young homeless people have been in care at some point, and very often these young people have moved between a whole succession of unsuitable hostels, bedsits and so on before resorting to the streets. At the moment, there is no rule or regulation about the quality of accommodation that young people may move to on leaving care at 16 or 17. They move from foster care or residential care, which is highly regulated, into a world of no regulation at all. Unsurprisingly that leads to inconsistencies in both the availability and quality of safe and supported follow-on accommodation.
In some local authorities a range of temporary and permanent accommodation has been developed which allows young people to have some kind of a choice and to have their needs met in terms of the support that they require. In others, the only available provision is insecure and unsafe bedsits, or else hostel accommodation where youngsters find themselves side by side with older homeless people and offenders on probation.
The other not uncommon feature of the move out of care is that the lack of suitable accommodation forces young people to move away from the area in which
CWH46
they have been living. That can often be very damaging. Someone may well have support networks in that area and perhaps a training scheme to go to, but he has to abandon all that because of the absence of anywhere suitable to live. The authority looking after him not unnaturally insists that he go somewhere where safe accommodation is available.
The revised Quality Protects objectives for children's services contain a very welcome section on what constitutes suitable accommodation for care leavers, but this is only guidance. I firmly believe that we owe it to young people to define suitable accommodation in regulation, and indeed to ensure that the protection afforded to them by virtue of that regulation covers them until they are 21. I do hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee that this is what the Government intend to do. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have sympathy with the points made by the noble Earl. It is absolutely right that young people in these circumstances are enabled to be in suitable accommodation in the circumstances he described. We want to avoid them ending up in very unsuitable accommodation indeed.
Our experience of the current situation is that while some of the accommodation is suitable, too much is not. It is not acceptable that care leavers might end up in poor quality accommodation in red light districts or areas where drug use is prevalent.
We are determined that local authorities will make available a wide range of suitable accommodation for young people in and leaving care and that decisions on placement and accommodation are not driven by financial considerations. There should be a wide variety of places where these young people can live, including accommodation with associated support and training opportunities, supported lodgings, house shares with other care leavers and no-care leavers, as well as independent or semi-independent flats.
I should like to reassure the Committee that we are determined that this will happen and we will, through the performance management assessment and review process, rigorously check the provision of suitable accommodation along with other aspects of the new arrangements. There is no question of the Secretary of State not making regulations relating to accommodation and making them in time for implementation. Therefore, the new wording proposed in the amendment would not make any difference. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassuring reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Laming Lord Laming moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 8, after first ("child") insert ("or young person").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 16 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 17. The amendments are intended to illustrate a concern about the Bill as a whole which I hope the Minister will find a way of addressing. We are talking about young people leaving care and we refer to them throughout the Bill as "children". Bearing in mind that we are hoping that these young people will maintain contact with the local authority through adolescence and beyond, I hope that the Minister might think it wise to find ways, wherever possible, of referring to "a child or young person" in order to encourage young people to recognise that we are not patronising them as children but are recognising that they are in a transitional stage between childhood and adulthood. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Laming. The amendments can be treated as consequential amendments on Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, but they also give rise to a useful debate about how we should describe those young people who are the object of the Bill. I wince every time I have to describe the Bill as a Children (Leaving Care) Bill. We are talking about young people, in some cases up to the age of 24. It would be useful if the Government could change the title of the Bill and describe young people in the Bill differently. I recognise that the Children Act is called the Children Act, and in legislation there may be an extended meaning to the word "child". Nevertheless it is increasingly offensive to have to describe people above the age of 16 as children. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: "Children and Young People (Leaving Care) Bill" runs quite well.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may abuse Committee procedure and say that those people, by and large, may start having pathway plans prepared for them at 14 and 15. However, those leaving care at 16 are not children but young people. I recognise that there may be a move to compromise but I should like to get rid of "child" and "children" altogether in the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Bill refers to children as being 16 or 17; and young people are 18 and over. It could therefore be argued that it is consistent with what noble Lords have suggested. I am happy to look at the matter again and write to the noble Lord to clarify it for him. I accept the points raised by noble Lords. Equally, I believe that the terminology used in the Bill relates back to the Children Act and we need to have a measure of consistency. However, I shall be happy to discuss that with the noble Lord.
Lord Laming: I am grateful to the Minister. With that thoughtful reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert ("save for the following exceptions—

(a) where the relevant child or young person is estranged from his parents, support shall be given by the responsible local authority without reference to the means of either of his parents; and

(b) any award made to the relevant child or young person by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority shall be discounted").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22. New Section 23B(11) of the Children Act establishes that financial assistance is to be means tested. These amendments would ensure that the means of children and parents are disregarded in certain circumstances in the best interests of the child. The thought that lies behind the first part of these amendments is quite straightforward. It is that any means testing of support where a young person is estranged from his or her family may militate against restoring relationships. It cannot be right that the system that we put in place to support care leavers should contain a provision that stands in the way of something that could be of immeasurable benefit to the child. In the circumstances I have outlined, therefore, it seems right that contributions from parents should be disregarded.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment deals with a different issue. It takes its cue from a number of cases where local authorities have taken into account awards under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority when assessing financial support entitlement for care leavers. One example illustrates the point. Susan was subject to a care order and at the age of 14 was sexually abused by a worker in the residential unit where she lived. The abuser was successfully prosecuted and Susan received a substantial payment from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The payment was placed in trust until Susan was 18. She obtained a university place and asked the local authority for financial assistance but was told that no finances would be forthcoming as she could use the compensation money for this.
It really does seem grossly unfair to treat compensation income in this way. It is also entirely contrary to the purpose of the compensation. As a matter of principle, any awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to a young person should be automatically discounted. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to both the points that I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Laming: I support absolutely the noble Earl, Lord Howe. As regards criminal injuries, we need to go to enormous lengths to avoid a situation where children have been awarded compensation for events that have actually taken place while they were in care and that compensation then considered in relation to

CWH49
their financial support. I very much hope that the Minister will see the force of the argument behind these two amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to support both these amendments. Clearly, I support the issue regarding awards by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. That is quite inequitable. However, what we should feel most strongly about, because it potentially affects the young person's life, is the first limb of the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. This is in relation to making sure that where a young person is estranged from his family, parents are not asked for contributions. One seems to be on a hiding to nothing there. For the sake of extracting a few pounds from the parents, there is a risk of gravely damaging that relationship and there is little hope of restoring it. I urge the Minister to look at that again.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I certainly agree with the sentiments that have been expressed, though I am not convinced that the amendments or changing the law in this way is the right way forward. It is going to be perfectly possible for us in guidance to deal with the issues that both noble Lords have raised. I accept that if a young person has suffered criminal injury and has been awarded compensation as a result, it seems mean spirited if he is then denied support as a result and expected to use compensation for day-to-day living expenses. Similarly, if a young person is estranged from his family, relations can be further strained if the family is then required to contribute to his maintenance. Young people in care are often in a very delicate position regarding their families, and their past and future prospects make it vital that the local authority is sensitive to the complex aspects of their lives.
The Bill does not introduce any changes to the local authority means-tested aspect of support for young people in and leaving care, and we are not convinced that it ought to do so. It seems right that the local authority should be sensitive to the relationships between young people in care and their families and not do anything which would make the difficult relationships worse. Equally, it is right that they should expect some contribution towards the costs of looking after a child in care if the family's means permit. This could even be a way of rebuilding a family relationship by emphasising the responsibilities family members have towards each other.
For this issue and for the question of how to treat awards from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, the Government believe that sensitivity is needed rather than changes to the legislation. Current legislation does not oblige local authorities to require parental contributions for children they are looking after. They may only do so if it is reasonable. Similarly, local authorities are not obliged to seek contributions from families for any assistance they provide under Section 17 for children in need, or Section 24 for aftercare support.
We are applying the same provisions for aftercare assistance to the new arrangements as presently apply to Section 24. These provisions state that, before
CWH50
giving any assistance, a local authority is to have regard to the means of the child concerned and to each of his parents, and that no one has to repay an assistance if he is receiving certain social security benefits. We believe that this should be enough but we are happy to look again at the guidance to see whether it needs to be strengthened and, in particular, to ensure that it covers the kind of continuing support which the Bill introduces.
If a child receives an award as compensation for a criminal injury, in our view that money is capital which should not be taken into account when considering day-to-day expenses. We would expect local authorities to be reasonable about what capital might be expected to be used for and to treat each case on its own merits. Again, I am happy to revisit the guidance to make sure that it is adequate to cover the effects of the Bill.
I take the point that these issues have not been handled sensibly by some local authorities. I am not convinced that it is the law that is at fault. I believe it is the management processes and decisions within local authorities and I am happy to advise noble Lords that I will revisit this issue in guidance.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. As he said, these are matters which are extremely sensitive, almost by definition.
If it is the management processes at local authority level that have led to the unfortunate incidents such as the one I recounted, it is necessary for the Government to look not just at the way in which the guidance is phrased but the binding nature of that guidance. There is guidance and guidance. Some guidance is clearly binding on the recipient and other guidance is not. I take it from what the Minister said that this would not be binding guidance, because there always needs to be an element of discretion. Nevertheless, it is hard to see how the failures in the management process to which he referred will not be prevented in the future unless something is considerably strengthened somewhere along the line. I hope that the Minister can come back at a later stage, or perhaps write to me, to amplify the comments that he has made in light of the further thinking in his department. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18A to 20 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Advice and assistance for certain children and young persons aged 16 or over]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 44, after ("Authority") insert (", Primary Care Trust").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor consequential amendment relating to the Health Act 1999 which established primary care trusts.
Under Section 24 of the Children Act 1989, which this Bill restates with amendments, persons qualifying for advice and assistance include children accommodated for at least three months by a health authority, special health authority or local education authority. Further provision relates to the existing requirement for an authority, on ceasing to accommodate a child aged 16 or over, to notify the local authority for the area where the child will live.
As many noble Lords will be aware, under the Health Act 1999 some primary care trusts—level 4 primary care trusts—will be able to run hospitals and community health services. Their functions will include the provision of children's services and the accommodation of children.
As a result, the aforementioned provisions of Section 24 of the Children Act need to be extended to include those children accommodated by those primary care trusts. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.22 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: The format of this amendment substituting "shall" for "may" is all too familiar, but I make no apology for it. It serves to focus our minds on an aspect of the Bill that is for me one of the most important of all; that is, the need to ensure that young people leaving care are given the best possible opportunity to make something of their lives by pursuing their education or gaining a vocational qualification, or finding a job.
New Section 24B provides local authorities with a power to give assistance to care leavers up to the age of 24 by contributing to any expenses that they incur in living near their work, or place of education, or training, or by making a grant to help with the expenses associated with education or training. This provision is perfectly fine except for one thing: it is discretionary and not mandatory. Already in the Children Act local authorities have an absolutely identical power to provide assistance to care leavers for the purpose of education or training or employment, the only difference being that the age limit in most cases is set at 21.
However, these powers are hardly ever exercised, and referring to the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we all know that if a local authority has to make a choice, as most of them now do, between spending money where they must and spending it where they may, then there is no real choice at all; they spend it where they have to.
The lack of additional money for education or training expenses would not be such a disaster were we not dealing with a group of people who, more perhaps than any other group in society, desperately need all the educational opportunities they can get. We need only go back to the consultation paper Me, Survive
CWH52
Out There? to remind ourselves why. Seventy-five per cent of care leavers leave school with no educational qualifications whatever compared with 6 per cent. of all school leavers. Shocking as that figure is, perhaps it should not surprise us too much when we bear in mind the sorts of experience that brought them into care in the first place and the frequent changes of home and school that many of them have to put up with while in care. Care leavers are highly disadvantaged in educational terms and it is no wonder that about 50 per cent. of them find themselves unemployed when they leave school.
Of all the requests we can make to the Government to re-examine the provisions of the Bill, this is one of the most pressing and deserving. Of course it is a question of resources—I understand that—but in the end, what is this Bill to be? Is it simply to be window dressing, or will it really make a difference to young people leaving the care system? If we mean business with this Bill then we should ensure that, where young people are trying to improve their employability and skills, they should not have to fight for the funds to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-JonesThe noble Earl, Lord Howe, has put the case for this amendment most effectively. It is one of the key amendments which we on these Benches would certainly wish to see added to the Bill. I am so sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not here, because some of his earlier remarks were directed towards this amendment. With his enormous experience of his students and the problems they face, he made out an extremely good case for it, although he was speaking to another amendment. When one has such authority as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has, that does not matter.
As we have heard today—and this is one of the crucial issues in the Bill—unless local authorities are under a duty they will not necessarily produce the right results. That is why this is so important.
I shall beg the indulgence of the Committee and read a short case history, which illustrates some of the issues.
"Heather is 20. It took her a little while after leaving care to get herself sorted out and settled. Once she had done so she began to think about qualifications and studied for a GCSE. The local authority was approached by the NCH Action For Children Workways project to provide the £27 for the exam fee. They refused. They said that by 20 Heather should already have got her GCSEs. They seemed to have forgotten that one of the main reasons why she didn't take her GCSEs at age 16 was because the local authority had moved her from one care placement to another one week before she was due to take her exams".
Heather would like to obtain more qualifications but she cannot. The local authority would never consider supporting her while she did so and, because the qualifications she would be studying for are not advanced, she would not qualify for state benefits. That provides the classic illustration of these situations, and there are so many cases like that. That is why we so strongly support this amendment.
Lord Laming: I also support this amendment, which I regard as the most important we are considering this

CWH53
evening. As we said on several earlier amendments, many young people missed out on education at an earlier stage and they have a long way to catch up. Some of them will come to education rather later, older than their peers, as the Minister implied earlier.
It is essential that we encourage all young people to have as much education as possible, to help them achieve their full potential. That is particularly important for this group of young people, many of whom in earlier life experienced quite severe gaps in their education for a variety of reasons. Now is the time when we should encourage and support them to make up for those gaps which occurred earlier.
That will involve some resources, but, sadly, it will not involve a great deal. Although the Minister may feel hesitant about committing himself to this amendment because of the fear over resources, I regret to say that experience seems to show that in reality relatively few young people from this group will stay in education until the age of 24. That is a matter of concern, but it is a concern which ought to enable the Minister to agree to this amendment.
I hesitate to pray in aid the sayings of a fellow called Tony Blair. However, the Minister may be helped if I read a foreword to the Bridging the Gap document. I remind him that the Prime Minister said:
"The best defence against total exclusion is having a job, and the best way to get a job is to have a good education, with the right training and the right experience".
The Prime Minister, if I may say so in a purely non-party political way, is entirely right. It is our responsibility to try to ensure that young people, who for whatever reason have missed out on education at an earlier stage in their lives, now have the opportunity to carry on with their education. Where young people have the potential to go to university, we should do everything possible to ensure they complete their courses. I hope that the Minister will feel able to support the amendment which seems to many of us to be one of the most important amendments that we are considering this evening.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: There are so many people who do not want to carry on with education, particularly those from care for the reasons that have been said. It is bad for their self-esteem to be turned down. For that girl not to have been able to take her examination is bad for her self-esteem. The Secretary of State for Education—I watched his recent programme on television—spoke strongly about giving these people education. The matter is very important. The local authorities need a big push.
The Earl of Listowel: When young people—they have dropped out, failed, and have been told by their teachers that they are hopeless—take their A-level later in life, it is like climbing Everest. For them it is the stamp that they have turned the corner and started to make something of their lives. It is important, and I am sure the Minister will give an interesting and satisfactory answer to it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Noble Lords are always inviting me to commit extra resources. How I wish I
CWH54
could wave the magic wand! I accept that education and training are the best way of helping these young people secure the life chance that they need and that we wish to give them. I have no doubt about that, and I could not disagree with the Prime Minister's words.
We understand the frustration and concerns that many noble Lords have about the current record of local authorities in this area. We certainly would wish local authorities to use these new powers and duties to assist care leavers in education and training wherever appropriate. I can reassure noble Lords that the inspection and review processes that we shall be instituting will look very closely at the education and employment outcomes of care leavers up to the age of 21 and beyond.
I shall be happy to consider the matter further. However, I must say that just as with the parallel discussion on the general duty to assist care leavers beyond the age of 18 there would be some financial burdens. It clearly would be unreasonable to take steps to make this a duty on local authorities without providing the resources with which to meet it. As I have said, I am willing to consider the matter further.
Earl Howe: That is a helpful reply. I thank the Minister for it, because I know all too well that an amendment of this kind presents difficulties for the Government in terms of funding. I welcome his undertaking to look at the issue again. He will know the strong feeling of the Committee on this matter— and not just in the Committee, but more widely I hope that something can be done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 4, at end insert (", Primary Care Trust").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Representations]:
[Amendments No. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exclusion from benefits]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) This section does not apply to a person who falls within subsection (2)(a) or (b) where that person is estranged from his responsible local authority.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment picks up an issue raised by several noble Lords, including myself, at Second Reading. Its purpose is to ensure that young care leavers who do not have or who do not want contact with their local authority—who are estranged from their local authority—will continue to have the safety net of the right to claim income support of some kind.
I support the proposal that local authorities should have primary responsibility for the financial support of young people leaving care. The proposal that temporary emergency support will be available when

CWH55
things go wrong is also one that I welcome. However, I feel that a blanket exclusion from benefits could leave the most vulnerable young people without any source of financial support. In the small minority of cases where young people are irrevocably estranged from their corporate parents, I believe that young people should continue to have the discretionary right to support from the benefits system via the severe hardship allowance.
Failure to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable young people will mean only one thing; that the Bill will weaken the level of protection offered to young people leaving care. That cannot be right. Research has shown that many young people who have experienced the care system are highly suspicious of local authority social work services, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out earlier, and they do not make use of through and after-care services, even when they exist.
I have already said today that young people previously looked after by local authorities are particularly vulnerable to homelessness. Research shows that between one-fifth and one-half of young homeless people have been in care, while 26 per cent. of rough sleeper initiative service users have a care background.
There is a distinct risk that scrapping entitlement to benefit in its entirety will increase the threat of homelessness for some young people leaving care. I believe that we should do all we can to avoid that eventuality. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise briefly to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. By and large, we accept the general principles laid down by the Bill. In this case, however, unless there is a safety valve, there could be injustices. This matter was raised at Second Reading by a number of noble Lords and it is a matter of considerable concern. The wording does not let a coach and horses through. It is a specific set of circumstances, and I urge the Minister to consider it carefully.
The Earl of Listowel: I remember having a case described to me of a young girl who went into prostitution, or clipping, which is to offer a man sex and take the money, then to run away without providing a service. That might be one destination for a young person who had no money and was completely estranged from her local authority. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: These are the most at-risk people because if they have fallen out with their local authority it might well be because they have been abused. Why else would they fall out with the local authority unless with a breakdown in relationships with social workers? It might be something serious like that and the only option then would be to do something like go on the streets.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We return to a discussion that we had at Second Reading and I understand the concerns of noble Lords. The problem with the solution being put forward is that there are some real practical difficulties and, ironically, it might provide perverse incentives for local authorities to give up on disaffected young people. In that sense, it could undermine the principle of the Bill as it now stands.
We are, of course, concerned with some very vulnerable young people and we try in the Bill to put arrangements together that are robust and straightforward and which will inspire confidence in the young people whom it is designed to help. The important element here is removing the perverse incentives that have driven local authorities to discharge people from care before they are ready and able to do so. That is why we are replacing the current arrangements with a duty to assess and meet the needs of all eligible and relevant people.
We are deliberately taking this group of young people out of reliance on the benefit system in order to simplify the arrangements for supporting them. The duties on local authorities include supporting and maintaining them until they are 18 in order to guarantee that they receive what they need and we have introduced the concept of a responsible authority so that it is quite clear about which authority is there to support the individual young person. In doing so, we want local authorities to behave more like responsible parents towards these children.
The problem is that if disaffected young people are still able to claim benefits what is to encourage local authorities to continue to work with the difficult and most vulnerable when they might have a back-door through which to push them?
There are also other issues. This particular group of young people are likely to be especially vulnerable, alone on the streets. I wonder whether their interests are best served through the financial help offered by benefits. Surely the experience we have seen in the past few years suggests not.
I recognise that, in certain circumstances, emergency support will be required. Under Section 17 local authorities can provide that support and these young people will be able to claim support. Local authorities also offer out-of-hours services, as so many people needing emergency support do so at night or at weekends. That is why we have been at such pains to introduce flexibility into the system. We have tried to take account of the fact that some young people will want nothing at all to do with their responsible authority or, indeed, any other authority. Young people are mobile but, again, they need support and stability just as they would expect from a good parent. That is why the responsible authority will provide support wherever the young person moves and it is why we are setting up a system whereby the only contact a young person need have to receive his support is with the young person's adviser. I have already referred in earlier debates about the various backgrounds from which young persons' advisers can

CWH57
come. I have also made it clear that, in circumstances where the young person is unhappy with a young person's adviser, it will be possible for another adviser to be appointed.
When one thinks about the estrangement of a young person from a statutory authority, all the young person has to do is keep in touch with the young person's adviser and that young person will have, if he or she wishes, very little contact at all with the statutory local authority.
I recognise the strength with which noble Lords have expressed their concerns on this matter, but I do not believe it will be helpful to make separate benefit rules for disaffected young people. The best way forward is the way that we have chosen, with the availability of emergency support in certain circumstances.
The Earl of Listowel: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask how emergency hardship payments figure in this, if at all. Furthermore, does the Minister recognise that children who have been abused or had bad experiences have difficulty keeping relationships? To have a good relationship, therefore, with a special adviser may be very problematic for large numbers of young people in this group.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: On the first point, perhaps I might write to the noble Lord on hardship arrangements and how these would come into play and the kind of emergency support that would be available. Of course, I recognise the issues that the noble Lord has raised. I have tried to explain that the very existence of a young person's adviser, together with the statutory responsibility of the responsible authority, ought to ensure that the young person can receive proper support, not just from benefits. They need proper support with the minimum of contact with the local authority and with the sensitive support of a young person's adviser.
In considering this, we have to compare and contrast the previous situation. For so many children and young people these new arrangements will be wholly better and much improve the situation. I accept that there may be, one hopes, in a very limited number of cases, people who might become totally estranged from the system as a whole. We hope, however, that by the very nature and existence of young persons' advisers and the ability of a young person to change the adviser through the operation of a complaints system, it ought to be possible to alleviate most of those concerns.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister sits down, I should like to agree with him and say how important it is that the young people keep in touch with somebody. So often they just disappear and they can then become sucked into this terrible underworld, which we ought somehow to be tackling but which nobody seems able to tackle. Keeping in touch is paramount.
Earl Howe: I entirely understand the argument that the Minister has advanced. We are probably all agreed that in so far as is possible, perverse incentives for local authorities to default on their obligations should be done away with. However, this Bill brings about a whole new raft of duties on local authorities—legally enforceable duties—and those are not duties from which local authorities can simply walk away. That is unlike the present situation where the powers are simply permissive in many cases. It is a new situation. It worries me, despite all that the Minister says, that inevitably there will be a small handful of people who will slip through the net. I am troubled about what we are to say about those people and to them. There may well be no answer. I sense from what the Minister says that the Government are set on the course upon which they have embarked, for perfectly good and understandable reasons. Nevertheless, I am left with a nagging worry. There may be nothing more that can be said or done between now and Report stage but I shall certainly reflect further and consider in some depth what the Minister said.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: In response, I do not disagree here in principle. I am happy to meet noble Lords before Report stage to discuss the matter further.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9, line 13, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) Regulations shall provide that national minimum standards are established to provide for the essential weds of those persons falling within subsection (2)(a) or (b).").
The noble Earl said: New Section 23B(8) establishes local authorities' responsibility to provide support for those young people who are eligible. Support in this context includes financial assistance, suitable accommodation and other personal support. Clause 6(7) provides for powers to make different financial provision for different areas. Many Members of the Committee will know—and indeed it was a point made by a number of noble Lords at Second Reading—that the level of support currently received by young people in or leaving care varies very considerably both within and between local authorities. Young people living in the same local authority area report receiving significantly different levels of financial and in-kind support. Amounts paid under leaving-care grants vary from a few pounds to £2,000. Often, young people and professionals are unaware of the criteria for different levels of support and therefore support systems appear to be discretionary.
This Bill provides an excellent opportunity to establish a level playing field for young people in the care system, and leaving it. National minimum standards for financial support should be set for the

CWH59
level of overall support for care leavers. Those minimum standards need, at the very least, to improve on current levels of support in local authorities where care leavers have been found to be living in poverty.
A national minimum standard for financial support would not require the Government to be over-prescriptive about the nature of financial support offered. Indeed, there should be some flexibility to allow local authorities to respond to individual circumstances.
At Second Reading, the Minister stated that as they progress along their pathway plan,
"some young people will be given a budget and will be independent. Others might start with pocket money".—[Official Report, 7/12/99; col. 1189.]
I welcome those comments, but perhaps the Minister will confirm that cash payments will be available for young people. I take it that that was the tenor of his earlier amendment—not only in exceptional circumstances, as new Section 24A(5) states. It is clearly important that young people develop the ability to manage their personal finances. Research points to money management skills as the most often cited source of support requested by care leavers.
My own view is that some element of the financial support should be made in cash, but I fully accept that it would be inappropriate to standardise the balance of cash payments for all young people. The main objective must be to establish an overall minimum standard of support in all its forms, to prevent the equalities that currently exist.
There is another reason why the Government should look favourably on the idea of minimum standards, and that is Clause 6. Clause 6 removes benefit entitlement for most 16 to 17 year olds in or leaving care, as we have just been debating. That in itself removes a minimum entitlement for young people, many of whom are of course vulnerable. The establishment of a minimum standard of financial support for all young people who are in contact with their young person's adviser is vital to ensure that the protection of these young people is not weakened by this Bill. It would also strengthen the role of the young person's adviser by linking the clear entitlement to a level of financial support to contact with that adviser. I beg to move.
Lord Laming: I support this amendment. It is helpful that we have just had a discussion about the virtues of removing young people from the benefits system. This amendment looks at the other side of that coin. If that is to be the unequivocal position of the Government, it seems to me that national minimum standards should be included in regulations.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, we have all been surprised and deeply concerned by the evidence that was put before us about the range of financial support
CWH60
available from different local authorities to young people. This is one of the grounds that young people present as being a source of great concern and annoyance about the current arrangements. If the new arrangements are to be satisfactory it seems clear to me that there will be considerable advantage in having national minimum standards prescribed, with the right of local authorities on the basis of assessed need to go beyond national minimum standards but not to fall below.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support Amendment No. 28. By this stage of the Committee most of us can begin to speak in code and still be understood. In a sense this follows on from the kinds of discussions we have been having about the difference between powers and duties. The argument that has been made on many amendments is that if local authorities do not have the duty to do something, even though they may not be falling down or acting in bad faith, they simply may not have the resources. They have a certain number of priorities which they have to take into account and they will, by and large, treat as higher priorities those matters that they have in law to undertake. We are back to that argument in this case. Unless there is a minimum level of financial support that local authorities are required to give in those circumstances, the temptation will be in many cases to under-provide. One recognises the danger: if one puts a floor down it may well become a ceiling. But one hopes that that will not necessarily be the case.
We need a clear sense of the level of financial support appropriate in the circumstances. We believe that that is best enshrined in our amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may assure noble Lords that we intend through guidance to issue minimum standards. The consultation Me, Survive Out There? and subsequent comments from young people raised a great deal of concern about the levels of support that they could expect from local authorities under the new arrangements. I suspect that some of that concern goes back to the inadequacies of many local authorities under the present circumstances.
It is important that children in care have confidence in the new arrangements and realistic expectations of what they can expect from the local authority by way of support. We are working on a number of minimum standards in a number of areas, such as foster care, and we shall build on that experience to define the standards that young people can expect under the Bill's provision. Those standards will set a benchmark for a decent level of service. I agree with the comment about floors and ceilings. We want to do more than simply guard against inadequate support. We want to ensure that those young people have a decent chance in life. That means ensuring that they receive a good level of support.
We believe that it is best handled through guidance. We shall certainly cover in that guidance services and financial support. It needs careful handling. We may need to identify a suitable benchmark for the package

CWH61
such as the standard of living a young person might have expected from state benefits. I very much take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that one of the great strengths of the arrangements is that each young person has to be treated as an individual.
Another point raised at Second Reading was that one of the skills that all young people need is how to manage a budget. Everyone will come to that at a different pace. One young person might be perfectly competent to manage his own money, while at the same age another might be barely able to cope with pocket money. I am sure that parents would recognise that point. We are asking local authorities to behave more as a responsible parent would towards a child. Minimum standards would need to take account of the range of needs and abilities of the young people we are aiming to help. We should certainly be able to ensure that young people cannot be short-changed under the new arrangements. I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords on that point.
Lord Clement-Jones: Before the noble Earl responds, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I do not know whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Laming, or the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who said earlier that there is guidance and there is guidance. It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain what the legal effect of such guidance would be. What is its status? Does it have the status of a circular? Is it something that is binding on a local authority? It may be that the Minister already knows the type of guidance and the legal status it has. It may be something that he may wish to consider and come back to us on at Report stage.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord is right: there is guidance and there is statutory guidance. Statutory guidance means that the local authority has to act in accordance with that guidance or, if it does not do so, it must have a good reason. Guidance is rather less prescriptive than that. In relation to minimum standards in the area to which noble Lords have referred, in other words in relation to finances, we have not made a decision as to which kind of guidance that should be. The debate today helps me to reflect on that particular issue.
Earl Howe: Once again, I thank the Minister for a helpful reply. I am glad that he and his colleagues in the department are ready to embrace the concept of minimum standards and I take on board what he said about finding some sort of suitable benchmark to arrive at an appropriate sum of money, or at least an appropriate level of support in either monetary terms or in kind.
On that practical question, I am perfectly happy to trust the Government to reach an equitable result. What I find more difficult is to rely on local authorities to implement the guidance once they get it. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said about
CWH62
that. It really will make a difference how that guidance is framed. This has been a very useful short debate and no doubt this will be considered further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 28A:
Page 9, line 18, at end insert ("and the Scottish Parliament").
The noble Earl said: The bulk of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill relates solely to England and Wales. However, Clause 6, which removes entitlement to income-based jobseekers allowance, income support and housing benefit from 16 and 17-year old care leavers, applies to Scotland as well. The intention is to transfer DSS resources to local authorities along with unspecified duties to support care leavers. No account is taken, it appears, of the different legal status of young people in Scotland. None of the positive measures included in the Bill relates to Scotland. Instead, the Scottish Executive has announced the establishment of a through-care and after-care working group to advise Ministers how unified resources might operate for the good of young care leavers.
In a debate in the Scottish Parliament on 12th January, the Deputy Minister for Children and Education, Peter Peacock, stated:
"When we implement the changes will be entirely at our discretion".
In the light of that, I believe the Government should undertake that Clause 6 of the Bill should not come into force in Scotland until the through-care and after-care working group has reported and the Scottish Parliament has considered the new arrangements.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify the respective responsibilities of the UK and Scottish Parliaments where benefit entitlement, which is a reserved power, is being replaced by new local authority arrangements, which are a devolved power. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Earl returns to Scotland. Perhaps I may first say that social security is a reserved matter under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. For that reason it is not appropriate to lay regulations on social security before the Scottish Parliament as it would not be competent either to amend or confirm them.
That raises a wider question about the inter-relationship between Scotland and England. We are absolutely determined that there should be no gaps in provision. The Bill before the Committee provides that English and Welsh children who move to live in Scotland will be able to claim social security benefits in Scotland, and that Scottish children who move to England or Wales will not become eligible or relevant children, but will continue to be able to claim benefits.
Should the Scottish Parliament decide to legislate for these children, which we hope that it will, subsection (7)—which another amendment before the Committee earlier sought to amend—gives the

CWH63
Secretary of State power to make regulations in respect of these children, to ensure consistency of outcome across Great Britain.
Apart from the question of social security benefits the issues which the Bill addresses are devolved matters for Scotland. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested colleagues in Scotland are considering what new arrangement they might themselves adopt—and the working group meets today—and it could be that it will decide to enact similar legislation.
Whatever they decide, we have been careful to take account of the implications of there being, potentially, different arrangements in place on opposite sides of the Border. In particular we have been careful to ensure that no child moving across the Border, either before or after these new arrangements come into effect, will find himself without the means of support.
Existing legislation means that it is not possible for local authorities on either side of the Scottish Border to take on responsibility for each other's looked after children.
Transitional arrangements, before any Scottish legislation is enacted, will be that English children will remain eligible for benefits if they move to Scotland and Scottish children will remain eligible for benefits if they move to England.
Different arrangements will be needed when Scottish legislation is enacted, and the benefits rules in Clause 6 of this Bill come into effect there. That is why this Bill includes a provision at new Section 23A(5) for the Secretary of State to prescribe that children who have been looked after in Scotland but who move to England would have a responsible authority based on where they live in England. This power would be used once Scottish legislation was in place. We anticipate that any Scottish legislation would include a similar provision in respect of English children who move north.
I hope that reassures noble Lords that we have ensured that there will not be a gap. Obviously we hope that Scotland will move to similar legislation as quickly as possible.
8 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, and it is good news that what one might term reciprocal arrangements are at least at the planning stage. Do I understand correctly, therefore, that Clause 6 could be brought into force south of the Border at a different time from it being brought into force north of the Border? Is that the consequence of what he has just said?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Certainly, that is so in relation to Scotland, if it decides not to legislate and therefore continues the current scheme whereby benefits are available to young people. Clearly in
CWH64
relation to English children and young people who will be affected by the change in the law by April 2001 when the new regime comes into being, you will have a different situation. You will also have a different situation where English children and young people who move across the Border into Scotland will continue to be able to receive benefits, because the law does not allow the responsible authority concept to extend over the Border; so the noble Lord is quite correct.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister. I was clearly concerned that there might be a situation in Scotland where for a period at least there would be no provision whatsoever for support of care leavers.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. It is quite clear that there will be provision; it will just be different provision. English children going over the border will have to receive the provision as it now is, rather than under the provisions of this Bill.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28B not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Interpretation, commencement, extent, Wales and short title]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 10, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (7) does not affect the power to make further Orders varying or omitting that reference.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical matter arising from Welsh devolution. As noble Lords may be aware, all of the Secretary of State's functions under the Children Act were transferred to the National Assembly for Wales by a transfer of functions order which was made last year under the Government of Wales Act. The question which then arose was how to deal with subsequent amendments to the Children Act, which confer new functions which are intended to be exercised in Wales by the national assembly and in England by the Secretary of State. To cut a long and rather technical story short, in the end it was decided to make it absolutely clear that the reference to the Children Act in the transfer of functions order was to be treated as referring to the Children Act as amended by this Act. That is now reflected in Clause 8(7) of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): The Question is that the Title be agreed to?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I think that the Title of the Bill should be changed. We have been talking all evening about young people. I hope that the Minister
CWH66
will take it away with him and look at it because "Children and Young People (Leaving Care) Bill" sounds far more appropriate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Earlier, I said that there were reasons why we have used language that appropriates back to the Children Act, but I did say that I was persuaded to have a look at this point.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
The Committee adjourned at three minutes past eight o'clock.