AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 62 (Hansard, 8 November 1989)

§ Lord Prys-Davies
My Lords, clearly the purpose of this amendment to Commons Amendment No. 62 is to convert the power contained in Commons Amendment No. 62 into a duty to give assistance. I should point out that should that be acceptable to the House the duty to give assistance will be confined to assisting those young people who have left care but who qualify for advice and assistance under Clause 20(3).
I believe that in Committee and again at Report we heard a great deal about the problems which face young people leaving care. They have a very difficult threshold to cross. The vast majority of them have to do so without the support of their natural protectors; namely, their family. Research shows that as many as 70 per cent. of young people leaving care seek to live a life of independence —I am not quite certain whether that is of choice or necessity; it is probably of necessity —but do not have adequate financial resources to do so. Therefore many of them end up on the street. For example, if they are looking for accommodation they are often required to have a lump sum to pay the rent in advance or to pay a deposit to a landlord; or they may want assistance to pay the rent.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand Clause 20(1) if they find such accommodation just before leaving care, the local authority is under a duty to assist; but if they find accommodation after they have left care, the local authority is not under a duty to assist. It has been said that these young people end up on the street because of a misunderstanding between the statutory authorities. But with great respect that brings no relief to young people who have not crossed the right administrative boundaries at the right time.
From figures that I have seen (I do not have them with me this afternoon) some local authorities provide a positive package of support through grants and assistance with accommodation. However, the sad fact remains the other have failed to provide any or adequate assistance. The research shows that the amount of support which local authorities make available to care leavers in different parts of the country varies widely, ranging from the very good to the totally indifferent.
We believe that the assistance should be adequate and should be more or less equally available 747 throughout the country. I am sure that most Members of your Lordships' House will agree with that proposition. The object of our amendment is to enable the local authorities to achieve that end. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 62A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 62, be agreed to. —(Lord Prys-Davies.)

§ Baroness David
My Lords, at every stage of the Bill as it went through this House, we had a great many discussions on this subject of young people leaving care. Although promises were given about monitoring, I believe that the situation has changed. It has become worse during the six months or so since we considered this Bill. Studies have been made and reports issued by the citizens' advice bureaux, Centrepoint and Shelter. They all say that the situation is becoming very much worse for these young people. More and more of them are becoming homeless.
It seems to me to be extremely important that something positive should be done while we can still do it and this Bill is still before us if we hope to take preventive action. Otherwise, I believe that the money saved from not making this a duty and not making local authorities give the assistance that they should give in certain cases will go towards paying vastly much more for young people in prisons and those who take to prostitution and drugs. It is an extremely serious problem.
We have been given figures by the Department of Health, with official returns from local authorities. It is quite extraordinary how the figures vary from practically nothing to way up into the 150,000 area. So there is nothing going on round the country which makes much sense.
There should be a duty everywhere to ensure that these young people are looked after. I hope that at long last the noble and learned Lord will feel able to accept this amendment. I believe that it is of very great importance.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, this amendment would replace the power of a local authority in the new subsection (6A) introduced by Commons Amendment No. 62 (should your Lordships agree to that in due course) to contribute to accommodation expenses incurred by a child in connection with his employment, further education or training, with a duty to do so.
First, it is important to recognise that Commons Amendment No. 62 adds to the powers of local authorities to assist in that connection. This amendment seeks to replace that power with a duty. By virtue of Amendment No. 61, with which we have just dealt, when a local authority is considering whether it would be appropriate to provide financial assistance in the circumstances described in Commons Amendment No. 62, it will not be bound by the exceptional circumstances qualification which is applied to the provision of cash assistance elsewhere in the Bill, for example, under subsection (6) of Clause 20. So in this connection, the 748 exceptional circumstances requirement is not applied for cash assistance. I think that to some extent that meets the concern mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
Also by virtue of Commons Amendment No. 63, to which we shall come, a local authority will be unable to attach a repayment condition to any such financial assistance; so it is out and out assistance. Nor will it be required to have regard to the means of the child or his parents. Taken together those specific exclusions from the general arrangements for the provision of financial assistance under the Bill provide a powerful indication on the face of the Bill of the expectations on local authorities to provide the form of support specified in Commons Amendment No. 62, which is related to education and training. That will be fully reflected in the guidance which will be made available to local authorities when the Bill is being implemented. There are valid reasons for this. The Government share the view that future education training or employment prospects of young people are crucial areas where they may need some special help if they are to become equipped to be fully independent members of society. That is why we have given this very considerable increase in flexibility to local authorities to assist in such cases.
As from July this year this form of financial assistance will no longer affect the level of income support which a young person may receive through the social security system. It is important that we emphasise this; a number of noble Lords emphasised it when we considered the matter previously. It is not part of a social security system. The social security system is more general and applies without specific reference to circumstances of this kind. This is a particular power to assist in a particular way without in any way diminishing the income support which the young person might receive through the social security system.
The Government believe that the proposed Amendment No. 62A, which replaces the local authority's power to assist in such circumstances with a duty to do so in all the circumstances to which the provision applies, goes too far. For example, it would require a local authority to contribute towards the cost of independent accommodation even where it was able, with the child's agreement, to provide accommodation in an appropriate community home under the provisions of Clause 17(5). Under the provision the local authority can accommodate any person who has reached the age of 16 but is under 21 in a community home which takes children aged 16 and over if the authority considers that it would safeguard or promote his welfare. It would also impose an unqualified requirement on local authorities to make grants to meet expenses connected with educational training without any regard to financial support for these purposes which may be available elsewhere.
We are not requiring the local authority to have regard to other financial support when considering this assistance. If one turned it into a duty, it would surely at the very least be necessary to do that. It is surely more flexible to give the local authority the power to operate in this very enlarged discretionary 749 way. The power provided in Amendment No. 62, without Amendment No. 62A, enables a local authority to take full account of the range of services which it provides or which is available from others within its locality.
I believe that this approach goes a long way to deal with the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, have outlined to us. However, I believe that it does so in an appropriate way in the amendment. If the approach is correct, as I believe it is, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

§ Lady Saltoun of Abernethy
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question. We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady David, that many local authorities are not doing anything at present for their children leaving care. Is there any reason to suppose that those local authorities will do any better in the future unless there is some element of compulsion?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, there are a number of ways of assisting local authorities to move in an appropriate direction. One way is to give them very specific powers of the kind that we have done, with very considerable encouragement as to how these powers should be exercised. That is what Amendment No. 62 does. To try to turn it into a duty to make payments in all circumstances would require a completely different approach because the duty to make payments could apply only in the case of some form of need, whereas the power is given here in a way that I believe encourages local authorities to assist in particular in relation to the problem of education and training. It is a power that local authorities do not possess at the present time.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord realises that there is anxiety expressed in the House between the position of a power being given —and it is obviously right that the power should be given —and an expectation that the power will be exercised by some authorities which have not troubled to deal with this very important matter until now.
The noble and learned Lord was good enough to say that there would be guidelines. I wonder whether he would leave us with a little more satisfaction if he were able to undertake that the guidelines will express very clearly that local authorities in appropriate cases are expected to exercise those powers. It seems to me that it may be the nearer way of dealing with the matter. An amendment has been put which most likely will not be taken to a Division. However, the wish of the noble and learned Lord is obviously that local authorities should not only have the power but should in proper cases exercise it.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, perhaps I may repeat what I said on this matter. On the face of the Bill, the specific exclusion of conditions which apply to other powers are themselves a powerful indication to the local authorities of the expectations that we have of them. These expectations will be fully 750 reflected in the guidance which will be made available to local authorities when the Bill is implemented. I believe that I have given an undertaking on the lines that the noble Lord has in mind in connection with the implementation of this Bill.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has used the word "undertaking". I am more than happy, and I believe that my noble friends will be also.

§ Lord Prys-Davies
My Lords, in the light of the undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.