Going out a lot better than it came in

The Children and Young Persons Bill was welcomed on all sides of the House as worthwhile and a helpful step forward for ‘looked-after’ children.  Peers were nevertheless curious that Part I of the Bill was devoted to some pilots of Social Work Practices, one of a number of new ideas for the organisation of social work for this group of disadvantaged youngsters.

It is perhaps sensible to consider the Bill under three headings:   (i) prevention;  (ii) support services for children and young people in care;  and (iii) the transition to adulthood or custody.

Prevention

The Bill includes no measures to improve the early provision of health assessments and therapeutic help for looked-after children.  We know that nearly half (45 per cent) of looked-after children and young people from five to 17 have an emotional or mental health disorder but only about one third of them receive any help from the child and adolescent mental health services. Not surprisingly, too many of these children fail in education and eventually become involved in the criminal justice system.

My amendment to place a duty upon Primary Care Trusts to work with local authorities to ensure the provision of physical, emotional and mental health assessments and care was supported by Peers on all sides of the House but was debated too late for a vote in the Lords. (Hansard March 17, col.123-132).

A related amendment proposed that, where a family court has recommended the provision of evidence-based therapeutic intervention, it should be the duty of the local authority to make such provision.

In response to these amendments Lord Adonis agreed to reinforce the existing legislative framework  to ‘put revised guidance on promoting the health of looked-after children on a statutory footing for health bodies as well as local authorities’.  

Lord Adonis went into detail about what the revised guidance will cover. (Hansard 17 March, column 130).  MPs may, nevertheless, want to try again to have a commitment on the face of the Bill  to health assessments for all looked-after children within a short period of the child becoming looked-after.

Support services

The government made a number of important concessions here. For example, there was considerable concern from Peers on all sides of the House about the number of children and young people placed out of area and losing touch with family, school, friends and local services. In response Lord Adonis introduced a government amendment placing a new general duty on the local authority to ensure, where reasonably practicable, that sufficient accommodation is available for looked-after children within its area.  

Another important concession  in response to Baroness Sharp and Baroness Walmsley and Lord Rix, concerned provision for short breaks for carers for disabled children.  

Three key issues will need  the attention of MPs.

First, they must ensure proper assistance to looked-after children in custody.  We know that the outcomes for children in care are strikingly poor. They are three times more likely to be subject to a warning or criminal conviction than others. 62 per cent of children enter care because of abuse or neglect.  These children need professional help.  

Lord Ramsbotham’s amendment, which had strong support on all sides of the House, would have achieved this objective (Amendment 28 at Report, Hansard 17 March, col. 104-109).  It was debated too late for a vote in the House of Lords.

Second, the Border and Immigration Agency must safeguard and promote the welfare of the children who pass through its care: this amendment, proposed by Baroness Morris of Bolton, was the only one on which the House divided.  The government was defeated by 173 votes to 119.  A number of Labour Peers voted with the opposition.  

The Conservative Party has raised this issue on two previous occasions, with cross-party support, in 2004 and 2007.   The government had already conceded a requirement that these children should be kept safe from harm but Peers agreed with the Bishop of Portsmouth that the failure to promote the welfare of these most vulnerable children is discriminatory, when all other children in the UK are afforded this protection.      

Third, a major concern is the shortage of foster parents.  One disincentive for people to become or remain foster parents is the fact that at present if an allegation is made against a foster parent, however malicious, it will result in their fees being withdrawn until the investigation has been completed.  

The situation is exacerbated by the long delays in completing investigations.   Baroness Walmsley’s amendment (Hansard 17 March, col. 63-65) would have put this injustice right.  Lord Adonis agreed to consider his response and to bring the fruits of his deliberations to the House of Commons.   Peers are depending upon MPs to ensure that the government rights this wrong.

One of the oddities of the Bill is the devotion of Part I exclusively to some pilots of Social Work Practices — a model of privatising social work for looked-after children.  Baroness Morris of Bolton for the Conservatives strongly supported these pilots.  Peers from other parties expressed many concerns about these practices, including their impact upon  the child protection services left within the local authority.  

Lord Adonis gave clear assurances that the evaluation of the pilots would be robust and fair  (Hansard 17 March col. 17).  Nevertheless MPs may want to question the need for Part I of the Bill in view of other important social work pilots in the pipeline, including those of the Children’s Workforce Development Council.

Transition

Peers made no progress on the crucial issue of encouraging young people to remain in care until the age of 21, whether with foster parents or in a children’s home.  They need to acquire skills in budgeting and home care and the maturity to take on these personal responsibilities.

Children with their own families, on average, leave home at 24. Children in care can be expected to be more in need of support in early adulthood.  We regard this issue as a priority for MPs.

In conclusion, far more concessions were made by the government than can be included here.  Lord Adonis responded to genuine concerns and efforts to improve the Bill by bringing forward considerable numbers of government amendments and agreeing to strengthen regulations and guidance in many ways.  

The Bill started well and is now much improved.  We wish our colleagues well in making further progress in the Other Place.

Baroness Molly Meacher is chair of East London and City Mental Health Trust.