Orders of the Day — Children Leaving Care Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 31 October 2000.

FURTHER DUTIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TOWARDS CHILDREN WHOM THEY ARE LOOKING AFTER

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 16, at end insert— '( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify persons or classes of person who are and persons or classes of person who are not suitable to act as personal advisers under the provisions of sections 19C. 23B(2), 23C(3) and 23D(1).'. Three months have elapsed between Committee and Report. I am sure that all hon. Members need to cast their minds back to the issues that were raised three months ago. The gap means that the Government have had extra time in which to reflect on some of the excellent points that we made in Committee, and it has also allowed for some fresh thinking by us. The Bill has a strong measure of support from all parties. We recognise that the system fails care leavers dismally. The facts are worth repeating for any hon. Members who did not participate in earlier stages of our consideration of the Bill, or for whom July is a long time ago. Seventy-five per cent. of young people leaving care have no educational experience and 50 per cent. are unemployed. I am especially struck by an appalling statistic—that up to 25 per cent. of young women leaving care are pregnant or have a child. We, as a corporate parent, are not doing a good job for care leavers. That is the reason for the Bill. On Report, we want to press several amendments and hear the Government's views on them because they cover points that, on reflection and careful re-reading of all the records of proceedings for the Committee stage, would leave the Bill less effective than it would be if we could persuade the Government to accept the amendments. Amendment No. 11 would add the provision: The Secretary of State may by regulations specify persons or classes of person…who are not suitable to act as personal advisers… We believe that that is important. As parliamentarians, I am sure that we know that care leavers are among the most vulnerable people in our society. We therefore need to be extremely streetwise about putting them in a position of trust with a personal adviser. We have all learned some hard lessons from our experience of children's services, especially in north Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom where it has been revealed that unscrupulous individuals prey on children. We need to understand that the role of personal adviser is one that could be attractive to unscrupulous persons who seek to prey on vulnerable children or young persons. The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen that understanding. We remain concerned about the specific training and qualifications required of young persons' advisers. It is a particular concern of the National Children's Bureau. It was made clear by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on Report in the other place, that in his view the majority of personal advisers would be drawn from persons who now work with children in care or those leaving care. That was put forward as a point of reassurance to their Lordships. Lord Hunt was saying that those still concerned about the matter need not be. I still have two residual concerns. Although there are planned changes to the training and development of social workers under the Care Standards Act 2000, it has been acknowledged by the Government that child development has been an area in the training of social workers that may not have had the full attention that it requires. That will be especially important in relation to the new role of personal advisers. If the majority of them are to be drawn from the group of people whom we would now regard as social workers, we need to be sure that in the course of their training attention is drawn to child development. Understanding the needs and predicaments of young persons leaving care has much to do with understanding how children behave, particularly when they have had poor experiences of family life and bad experiences from the past, which they carry as luggage when going forwards. That is why we endorse the concern of the National Children's Bureau that the training and qualifications of personal advisers should be spelled out more clearly. Although Lord Hunt sought to reassure their Lordships that the majority of personal advisers would be drawn from among those who already work with young persons in care or leaving care, a minority of others could come from completely different walks of life. That is desirable, but some of them may be volunteers. We need to be sure that even those who volunteer to undertake the important role of personal adviser are trained and qualified to do the job. We would regard somebody as not suitable if he or she did not have appropriate training.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I warmly welcome the amendment. Would the regulations that my hon. Friend has recommended be subject to the negative or affirmative procedure?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

As my hon. Friend knows, and as we discovered at an early stage, as parliamentarians we need to have a belt-and-braces approach. It is not enough in this instance to let things go through on the nod. That is one of the motivations behind the amendment. We feel that there is too much latitude for inadequacy in training people for the important role of personal advisers. They must be qualified and they must be suitable. Save the Children Fund is another charity that has a real concern. It has said that there could be a situation in which a personal adviser has a conflict of interest. The example that it has given could genuinely arise. If a personal adviser is a social worker and an employee of the local authority, it is possible that he or she may be under considerable pressure to stay within a budget. That is not unusual for a local authority employee. That may compromise the preferable choice that that personal adviser would make in addressing the need of the care leaver for suitable accommodation. The fact that Save the Children Fund recognises that there is a conflict of interest should lead us all to reflect on the matter. A conflict of interest could be an important reason why someone might not be suitable for the role of personal adviser. Another important practical consideration has come to light through the work of charitable organisations, which have a great deal of experience in this area. The National Children's Bureau has said that there is no mention in the Bill of the links between advisers of young people who are involved in other recent Government initiatives, such as the youth support scheme which will be established by the Learning and Skills Bill. There is a risk that young people may face a veritable army of advisers. For example, they could find themselves with a social worker, a personal adviser, a case supervisor, a home link worker, a foster carer and, indeed, a Connexions adviser, although that role might double up with that of personal adviser. I invite hon. Members to put themselves in the position of a vulnerable young person who has so many different people to answer to for his or her actions, to consult, to take account of and to get to know. In addition, that young person has to cope with changes in personnel as those advisers change. It is fair to ask the Government to reassure us that the approach will be streamlined. There is a danger that an array of different people will intervene in a young person's case when it is crucial that that person does not become another statistic in a system that has failed him. The arrangements must remain personal. Young care leavers will undoubtedly view an array of such people as representing the establishment, for which they may not have the warmest regard. There is a danger that young people will feel no more cared for and supported than they were before. We should reiterate that children have a right to expect unsuitable advisers to be screened out. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that protective measures exist in other parts of the legislation. We know that terrible mistakes have been made. In Committee, I cited the example of how, almost by chance, a local authority uncovered the fact that an employee of another local authority, who held a position of enormous trust looking after vulnerable children, had a criminal record. It took more than a year for the local authority that employed him to do anything about the fact that he was in charge of children despite having a criminal record that would render him completely unsuitable for working in close proximity with children. The criminal record was only uncovered when the individual applied to Wandsworth council to become a foster parent. The council ran the proper checks and discovered that he had a criminal record, of which Lambeth council was completely unaware. We are talking not about theory but about mistakes that happen in practice. Children were let down in that case and we must ensure that they are not let down in the same way again. All the evidence surrounding inquiries into the running of children's services in which there have been problems has taught us that some local authorities do not have a good track record in this area. I would be the first to acknowledge that great steps have been taken to protect children. People who have contact with children should now be rigorously checked. I have first-hand experience of that because, wisely or unwisely, I volunteered to help with the Sunday school in my local parish church. I have been interested to go through the whole process that requires me to declare whether I have a criminal record, a health reason why I should not work with children or have had a different name in the past. I even have to supply my birth certificate. I therefore know that checks are made even when an individual is volunteering, but I am nevertheless concerned about the fact that the appointment of a personal adviser relies on such checks by local authorities. 5.15 pm During the Committee stage of the Care Standards Bill, we learned of the terrible dearth of social workers. They are in short supply, and much of the legislation that we have passed requires them to do more and more. There is a huge demand for their skill, and I should hate the need for them as social advisers to be compromised because of a shortage of time for checks to be made. The amendment will help to ensure that local authorities take seriously the process of establishing whether a person is suitable to act as an adviser. I want to make another practical point about timing. The Minister explained in Committee how changes in the checking procedure could be helpful, but there is no doubt that there will be a time lag between the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau and local authorities needing to know whether someone is suitable, and has passed the police checks. On 26 October, a ministerial answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) suggested that the new bureau would be in a position to issue criminal records certificates by around July next year, but the Minister involved said that detailed planning was continuing. That leaves a bit of doubt in my mind. I know that the time is coming, but the needs of care leavers have been clearly identified and the role of personal adviser is key to the success of this part of the Bill. There must be a huge temptation to get the system going, perhaps before the establishment of the very best protection which we hope will be afforded in future. I should like the Minister to reassure me that there will be no gap during which unsuitable persons might be appointed. We understand how crucial advisers are to the workability of the system. I cannot emphasise that enough. They will be responsible for ensuring that care leavers' pathway plans develop and for adjusting those plans to young persons' changing needs. An adviser will have a close relationship, involving trust and understanding, with a vulnerable care leaver. Advisers will represent the human face of what I have described as the corporate parent. As I said earlier, as a corporate parent we have not done very well in the past in relation to the group that we are discussing. If the Minister is receptive to our amendment, we shall, I hope, help to remove elements of risk that might cause unsuitable people to gain a position of influence, and to aggravate an already bad situation. A number of care leavers fall through the net, causing the sad statistics that I cited earlier. They may become unemployed, they often become homeless, some become pregnant, and some have young children. We tabled a similar amendment in Committee, but the Minister rejected it, saying that the Government did not want to be too prescriptive and wanted to leave the matter to the discretion of local authorities. As I hope I have made clear, we remain anxious about the discretion of local authorities. We feel that our amendment would strengthen the Bill and would leave less room for manoeuvre. One of our major concerns with the Bill is that we have to take quite a lot of it on trust. The Government stated that they would resolve the matter that we are concerned about through statutory guidance, but the question is: what will that be? We do not know. It is yet another example of an empty box. We are being asked to agree the contents without having seen them. We were invited by the Minister to help him to ensure that the guidance was correct. How can we do that without knowing what it is? Perhaps we shall hear what it is and perhaps that will give us some reassurance. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for the spirit in which she has moved her amendment. She started by saying that we all had to remind ourselves about the nature, scope and range of the Bill. That is true for those on the Government Benches, as I am sure it is true for those on the Conservative Benches. A long time has elapsed between the Committee stage of the Bill and Report. We all know the reasons for that, but the hon. Lady showed her customary grasp of the detail. I congratulate her on that. The hon. Lady is right to say that there is a powerful sense of deja vu about the debate: she made exactly the same speech in Standing Committee. I do not want to antagonise her, but my response is likely to be similar to my response to her amendments then, although I shall try to deal specifically with the particular reassurances and assurances that she asked me to give in relation to two particular concerns. One was about the relationship between the young person's adviser and the Connexions service that the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health strongly support and encourage. The other was about the progress of the Criminal Records Bureau and the facility that local authorities will have to check the names of potential young persons advisers against the database that the bureau will maintain. As I said in Standing Committee, the hon. Lady's argument with the Government is one of process rather than substance. I do not think that her argument is one of substance in relation to the role of young persons advisers, their training, qualifications and suitability to do the job. As I understand it, her argument is essentially that she would prefer those issues to be dealt with by regulations—she is right; if we took that action it would be subject to the negative procedure—instead of setting the procedures for appointing young persons advisers and the detail around that in guidance. The hon. Lady was slightly wrong to say that I suggested in Standing Committee that all those matters would be left purely to the discretion of local authorities because, as she went on rightly to say, I made it clear that we intended to issue statutory guidance to local authorities on how that discretion should be exercised. Of course, that is guidance that local authorities are required to follow. We are aware, as she is, that substantial issues of policy and consistency need to be addressed around the appointment of that new person—the young person's adviser—who will have, as she rightly said, an important and substantial role in overseeing the implementation of the new arrangements. What is clear—I agree with the hon. Lady—is that the young person's adviser must be able to build the right relationship of trust with young people. The Government believe that there is no monopoly of those skills and characteristics in any given professional group, or in the public, private or voluntary sectors. In our consultation document entitled "Me, Survive, Out There?" we produced a fairly comprehensive and long list of people who could potentially act as young persons advisers. We must allow for flexibility in the system, so that individual needs and circumstances can be best met. I believe—I made it clear in Standing Committee and I repeat it—that that is not a suitable matter for regulation, but that statutory guidance is a better mechanism to build in the flexibility that we want. We shall be clear that we envisage a wide field for potential young persons advisers and that the critical point in each case will be whether they are able to work successfully with the individual young person. I believe—it is a matter of common sense, and I am sure that this is where most Members would want to draw the line—that those judgments about suitability are best made through local recruitment and selection processes. As for defining groups that may not be young persons advisers, that issue has been largely overtaken by the Protection of Children Act 1999, which, subsequent to our discussions in Standing Committee, became law on 2 October. The hon. Lady was right to say that it is important that vulnerable young people, such as those who have been looked after, should be protected from unsuitable people. I am confident that the legislation will do that. We have taken account of that need and safeguards are already in place—such as police checks, to which the hon. Lady referred and about which I shall say a few words in a moment, and the provisions of the 1999 Act. We do not envisage that young persons advisers will be recruited to specialise in different age bandings. Indeed, the ideal will be that a young person keeps the same young persons adviser from 16 to 21, or whenever he or she stops receiving support from his or her responsible authority. Consequently, young persons advisers must be able to work with the entire age range, and recruitment will have to take account of the safeguards in place to prevent unsuitable people from working with children. Therefore, I do not think that there is any need to make separate regulations for that purpose as amendment No. 11 invites the House to do. The hon. Lady asked two specific questions and expressed a particular concern about the Connexions personal advisers. The role of the Connexions personal adviser and that of the adviser appointed under the Bill clearly will be largely similar. It is proposed, therefore, that the advisers for young people aged 16 and over living in and leaving care should usually be their Connexions adviser. The precise nature of the relationship between the employing authority—for example, a social services department—and the Connexions service is still a matter for consideration. We are examining the details of that relationship. Additionally, proposals are being developed for a major training programme for Connexions advisers, to include those who are appointed as advisers for the purposes of the Bill. As for the training of young persons advisers who are not going to be Connexions advisers, we made it clear in the "Me, Survive, Out There?" document that local authorities would be able to use an element of their children's special grant—the quality protects money—to ensure that young persons advisers receive the training that we all know they need to receive. The project remains on target for the Criminal Records Bureau to begin issuing greater numbers of certificates by about July 2001. Meanwhile, the Home Office is examining possible methods of minimising delays in local police forces. I think that it is very important, for reasons that the hon. Lady has rightly identified, that police checks are conducted as expeditiously as possible. That is a basic safeguard which we expect to be in place. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured by the particular responses that I have made on the Criminal Records Bureau and the Connexions advisory service. She is less likely to be satisfied with my arguments on why we prefer to deal with the matter in statutory guidance rather than in regulations. However, I think that it would be wrong to characterise statutory guidance as an ineffective tool. It is not ineffective—it has proven its worth on many occasions and in many settings in which Governments of all persuasions have used the section 7 route to provide guidance to local authorities. The hon. Lady asked me specifically about how she could know whether the guidance would be appropriate. The fact is that the guidance is not yet ready. If it were, we would certainly let her see it, so that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends could comment on it. I meant what I said in Committee: when the guidance is ready, we shall certainly seek her view and that of other Conservative Members on the appropriateness of that guidance tool. We shall do that not because of nostalgia or sentiment, but because it is the right thing to do. We want to ensure that consensus on the Bill is maintained. The hon. Lady identified consensus as one of the strong characteristics of our proposals and we are anxious to maintain that. I am sure that she will not mind me saying, however, that we do not think that Conservative Members necessarily have a monopoly on wisdom in the matter. She said that I asked her to help out, but I think that she might have misinterpreted that, as we have very strong ideas about what we want the guidance to cover. Nevertheless, we should certainly welcome her advice and opinions and those of other Conservative Members. I therefore cannot recommend my right. hon. and hon. Friends to accept amendment No. 11. However, I hope that the hon. Lady has at least been reassured about our intentions on maintaining proper and effective safeguards and that the legitimate points she has made on training and suitability will be properly dealt with in the guidance that we shall be issuing.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am grateful to hear the Minister's clear reassurance that there will be some streamlining in the number of advisers who will be working with vulnerable young people and his identification of funds to finance additional training. I have been reassured on both those points. 5.30 pm There would have been no need to debate the amendment had we seen the draft guidance. One of the problems throughout our consideration of the Bill has been that quite a lot of detailed background information has not been available. Of course, three months have elapsed since we debated the Bill in Committee, but I hope that this evening's debate, which has highlighted some of the Opposition's concerns, will serve to inform the Government as they draft the guidance, to which we wish to contribute by dint of their invitation to us. To be realistic, we are unlikely to see any draft guidance until it is pretty well in its final stage, so perhaps tonight's debate has served the purpose of enabling us to make a contribution, even if we have reiterated some of the points that we made earlier this year. We feel that they are important and we look forward to seeing the draft guidance. As we have had some reassurances on streamlining, funding and training, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN CHILDREN.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 30, at end insert— '23CA.—(1) Any person aged eighteen or over who makes a valid election not to be treated as a former relevant child shall not, so long as such an election is in force, be a former relevant child for the purposes of this section. (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the procedure for the making and withdrawal of elections under subsection 1. (3) In respect of a person in respect of whom a valid election is in force, a local authority shall not discharge any of the duties in subsections (2) and (3) of section 23C. (4) Subject to subsection (1C), a local authority may in respect of any person in respect of whom a valid election is in force offer services or assistance of a type required or permitted to be provided under this Act to former relevant children, but shall be under no duty to do so.'. I cannot allow the Bill to progress without raising what I believe to be an important issue, although in anticipation of what the Minister will say, I have to confess that we debated the matter on Second Reading and in Committee. The Bill originally focused on children aged 16 and 17. During its passage through the House its scope has been considerably extended to place on local authorities all sorts of duties in relation to people over 18 who left care before reaching that age. We have broadly supported the Government in those changes to the Bill. Indeed, our noble Friends were partly instrumental in making the changes in the other place. However, I fear that in their enthusiasm to ensure that the Government facilitated proper support for care leavers over 18, those in the other place may have lost sight of a rather important and fundamental principle: when we talk about people over 18, we are dealing not with children but with adults who have to be treated as people capable of making decisions for themselves, with all the respect that that implies. In his reply to the previous debate, the Minister spoke about his desire to build a consensus around this and other measures that seek to protect children. We fully support that view, but I would suggest to him that to be durable, a consensus must be not merely a consensus between the different views represented in this place at any particular time, but must sit comfortably with the traditions of our legal system. The Bill places on local authorities a requirement to maintain pathway plans in respect of former relevant children—people who were relevant children when they left care and who are now over 18. It also requires local authorities to keep in touch with former relevant children and to re-establish contact with them if that contact has been lost. I acknowledge, as I have done before, that that would be a positive measure for the vast majority of children leaving care and we welcome it, but upon becoming adults some children leaving care may wish to put their past behind them and sever the link with the local authority that looked after them during their childhood. The Minister may think that it is right or wrong, helpful or unhelpful, in their best interests or otherwise, but the point is surely that as adults they have that right. The intentions of others, and the outcomes, may be good, but we should not subject a singled-out group of competent adults to compulsion, simply because something is for their own good. We do that only when people's competence is in question. The essence of the Bill is to normalise the position of care leavers as far as possible and make their treatment as close as possible to that of other, perhaps more fortunate, individuals, and not to single them out for compulsory treatment in a way that marks them apart. Currently, we have no way of knowing how assiduous local authorities are likely to be in seeking to keep in touch with former relevant children. Without wanting to be too cynical, I must say that much may depend on the financing mechanisms yet to be announced. Local authorities may take a relatively assertive line in seeking to discharge their statutory duty to take reasonable steps to stay in touch with former relevant children and to re-establish contact if it is lost. We raised these issues on Second Reading and in Committee, and the Government argued that an opt-out, allowing an adult who is a former relevant child to choose not to be included in the provisions, would allow some local authorities to avoid their responsibilities under the Bill. Clearly, we do not want that. A balance needs to be struck. Local authorities must not be given a route that is open to abuse, but fully competent adult care leavers who do not want to participate further in the scheme must be given the right to free themselves from contact with their social services authority. There was a consultation conference on the Government's document, "Me, Survive, Out There?". One of the comments recorded in response to a question about whether it was right to have a plan was: Some young people have good reason for not wanting anything more to do with Social Services. They shouldn't be forced to have a plan or maintain contact. Their decision should be respected. We believe that that is right when we are talking not about 16 and 17-year-old children but about 18-year-old adults. The amendment would modify the statutory duty on local authorities to allow for the making of an election by an adult who is a former relevant child, in a manner to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. That is important, because it addresses the Government's legitimate concern about creating a loophole through which recalcitrant local authorities might escape. The Secretary of State would prescribe the way in which the election was made, and indeed the way in which it could be withdrawn. An election in force would relieve the local authority from its obligations to maintain or re-establish contact, and to maintain a pathway plan and appoint a young person's adviser, and indeed would prevent that authority from pursuing those duties. It would not prevent them from offering other types of assistance. I must draw attention to an error in the amendment. The reference to subsection (1C) should be a reference to subsection (3). The numbering changed between the blue and the white copy, but the subsequent reference in the amendment was not changed. The amendment is not in any sense intended to be a wrecking amendment. It would recognise the real and important difference between the treatment of care leavers who are still children—minors—and of those who are have attained majority. In the first instance, the local authority must take on the role of the parent and discharge that duty diligently; in the second, the local authority's role is to be supportive, where such support is welcomed by the individual. This is the third time that we have discussed this matter. I have as yet heard no case for requiring local authorities to maintain plans for, and to keep in touch with, competent adults who have expressed through a mechanism to be defined by the Secretary of State a clear wish to the contrary. The amendment would recognise the fundamental right of a competent adult to choose to be left alone by a local authority. As I have said before to the Minister, it is imperative that the Bill be in accordance with the spirit at least of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which gives the right to privacy and respect for family life. Therefore, a person who has attained the age of majority should be able to express a desire not to be included in the scheme proposed by the Bill. My attempts to argue that case on two previous occasions were met with torrents of abuse—not from the Minister, but from Labour Back-Bench Members. Perhaps their absence today means that they have decided that they have lost the argument. However, nothing is more typical of the tendency to interfere and nanny people—so unhelpful in creating good and durable legislation—than this attempt to coerce competent adults into something that they may express a desire not to have. A moment's reflection shows that it would be wrong for a local authority to monitor competent adults against their express wishes. I thought about the matter at some length over the summer recess, and could think of no circumstances in which it would be morally right to do so. I hope that the House will think carefully again about the implications of what the Bill proposes.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

Fewer hon. Members are in the Chamber this evening than attended the Committee deliberations. That is clearly a measure of the general support for the Bill. At the risk of going over old ground, I want to say that I support proposed new subsection (1) of the amendment, although my argument is not that advanced by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). Clearly, in an ideal world, an unruly 17-year-old in care can become a competent adult on his 18th birthday, but that does not square with my experience. The argument in favour of support for young people is as relevant for people of 16 as it is for those aged 18 or 19.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The hon. Gentleman presumably accepts that the law sets a watershed for people at the age of 18. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, people who attain majority are regarded as competent adults.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

Clearly, I recognise the law, but perhaps my definition of competence differs from the hon. Gentleman's. According to my definition, a competent person can make well-informed decisions for himself about how to lead his life, and can do so without support. I would be worried if all parts of the amendment were accepted. The local authority would then have a licence to have nothing more to do with a particular young person. I would be as worried if parents suddenly said to their child when he or she turned 18, "Never darken our doors again; we have no interest in you." There is a great difference between the requirement to receive all one's sustenance, benefits and means of sustaining oneself from the ages of 16 to 21, as the Bill provides for leavers, and the duty of caring about the outcome of the decisions that they make in their lives.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The hon. Gentleman has just referred to 16 and 17-year-olds. We are not talking about them, but about 18-year-olds. Will he concede that an 18-year-old who wished to distance himself from his family would be entitled to expect his family not to harass him, if that was his clearly expressed wish?

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

Absolutely. I would not give licence to parents to harass, either. However, there is a great difference between continuing care and harassment. I hope that the Bill does not give a power to harass. What concerns me—which is why I support the first part of the amendment—is that the powers that the Bill gives local authorities over young people who are over 18 are greater than those of the average parent. If young people are in education or are in need of benefit because they are not self-sustaining in the work place, their only means of support is not—as it is for children with parents—a benefits system into which everyone can plug, but through their local authority. In Committee, I moved an amendment that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge described as a wrecking amendment. When young people—it does not matter to me whether they are 17, 18, 19 or 20—become disaffected with the local authority and refuse to accept its help, is there a mechanism flexible enough to ensure that they are supported in a legitimate way? That is what my amendment was designed to test with the Minister, because I am extremely concerned that when young people who cannot go to a Benefits Agency office, do not qualify for social loans and refuse to be in touch with their local authority take flight, their only means of support is through drug dealing, prostitution or stealing. We had some discussion on this in Committee. The Minister talked about exceptional arrangements or, by regulation, listing exemption groups. However, having reread Hansard, I am not sure whether that exemption can be made for individuals when the situation has broken down. Will the local authority and the Benefits Agency liaise when a young person is clearly in need of financial support, and can such support be forthcoming other than through direct contact with the local authority if the authority cannot meets its commitments, even if it wants to, because of that young person's bloody-mindedness?

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) is in the classic Liberal Democrat position. He supports some parts of the amendment but not others. Unfortunately, the rules of the House do not allow him to choose which parts he supports. He either supports the whole package or he does not.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

I am always happy to be rebuked and to learn, but I thought that one of the opportunities available on Report was to explore further with Ministers their approaches to amendments and the Bill. That is why I am happy to support only part of an amendment. How I will vote is a matter that will become clear should we be called on to do so.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I look forward to finding out how the hon. Gentleman intends to vote if the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pushes the amendment to a vote. I must begin from where I would not choose to start by correcting the assessment of the Bill made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It is not true to say that we did not envisage this part of the Bill extending to people aged 21. We always saw it that way. The argument in the other place was over whether that should be made explicit in the Bill or implemented through the regulation-making powers that we had originally said we wished to use. His description of a Bill whose character and nature had been fundamentally changed by the amendments accepted in another place is not right. As is made clear in the Bill and in the document, "Me, Survive, Out There?", we always had those points in mind. Secondly, and more substantially, the hon. Gentleman fundamentally misunderstands this part of the Bill, and his concerns are therefore misplaced. He characterised the local authority in conducting its responsibilities as an intrusive arm of the nanny state that would harass and monitor people in some covert, police-style operation. That is completely inaccurate. We do not expect local authorities to exercise their functions and duties in that way. We argued that point on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, and I am sad that we seem to have seen no progress in the hon. Gentleman's thinking on it over the summer. However, his friends in the other place did not raise that argument at all, although they had plenty of opportunity to do so. He seems to have got his arguments into a twist. His perfectly understandable arguments about civil liberties are misplaced. I must also argue with the hon. Gentleman's amendment on the grounds that his attempted solution to the civil liberties deficit that he says that he has identified would be likely to make matters worse rather than better. We explored the reasons why that should be in Standing Committee, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has rightly said. The attempted solution might in fact operate as effective encouragement to some local authorities to make young people leaving care exercise the choice that the amendment would provide. In that case, the amendment might deny the local authority the opportunity to provide the sort of help that we would wish to vulnerable care leavers—the very people who prompted our concern to legislate. I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but they traduce the duties that we want local authorities to have for young people. He misdescribed, in particular, the way in which we expect the duty to keep in touch to operate. We shall deal with that through statutory guidance, which we intend to issue as soon as we can. We shall consult the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the nature of that duty. The hon. Gentleman did not address the point that we are trying to strike a balance. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight, to his credit, did mention that, and, to be fair, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge alluded partly to it. We accept that we are striking out into new territory. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and his party had 20 years in which to address deficiencies in the system for leaving care, and did not do so. We have tried to strike a balance between the needs of young people leaving care, who are often vulnerable, socially excluded, damaged youngsters, and what we expect of a responsible parent—in this case, the local authority.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment misses the point that a vulnerable young person of 18 may want nothing to do with the local authority, which will in turn be unsurprised by that. Two years later, at the age of 20, having grown up a bit, the person may seek support. It is not unusual for 18-year-olds to leave home wanting nothing to do with their parents, but for the same people, in their early 20s, to realise that they have cut off all support and seek to return in some way. We must build into the Bill the possibility of rapprochement, should the young person want it.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I agree. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that a recent assessment by the National Children's Bureau, which was published in September, showed that young people who have left care often admit, when they look back, that they were far less ready to live independently than they had thought at the time. Under the amendment, it might be difficult, once the young person has taken an option, for the local authority to discharge the responsibilities that we expect a good parent to deliver. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was right to say that a competent adult may say that he or she wishes to lead his or her own life exactly as he or she chooses. The Bill will not stop any young person doing that. We are concerned with the duties that a corporate parent, acting as a good and reasonable parent, should have. The hon. Gentleman is a parent himself, and I cannot imagine that he would accept a situation in which he would make no effort to keep in touch with one of his own children should something happen that resulted in that child not wanting to remain in touch. I should certainly wish to remain in touch. No matter what the difficulties in their relationship, we should expect a parent to make some effort to keep in touch. That is a hallmark of a good parent. The hon. Gentleman's concerns are misplaced, and he has misdescribed the nature of the duties, particularly the duty to keep in touch. He has characterised that duty as if it were some covert, police-state duty, which it clearly is not. We shall ensure that it is not when we issue statutory guidance.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

What would happen if a young adult in the pathway plan made it clear that he or she did not want contact with a local authority? Would that fit with how the pathway plan might work? Does not that point provide a response to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)?

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

Those issues will arise, as the hon. Gentleman knows from experience. We cannot legislate for good relationships between children leaving care and local authorities. We must put in place the right framework of duties and responsibilities, and that is all that we seek to do. We expect pathway plans to be kept under regular review, and if difficulties arise, the pathway plan should reflect them. The plan can ultimately record only the agreement reached between the parties.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I want to be clear on this point. Is the Minister suggesting that the pathway plan could provide for no further contact, which, I think, was the import of the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)?

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

We should wish to ensure that the duty to keep in touch was preserved at all times. That is an extremely important principle. How it would translate into practice would vary from case to case. In some cases, a young person leading a successful, independent life may feel that minimum contact is necessary, and that could be reflected in the plans. We are not dogmatic about telephone conversations or visits every hour or every day. That would be absurd. We need to tailor arrangements to suit the particular circumstances of the young person concerned. We want flexibility. I suspect that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is not reassured by all that, and I know that he feels strongly on these matters. I hope, however, that he will draw some comfort from the fact that we intend the arrangements to operate sensibly and realistically but in a way that achieves our fundamental objective for the Bill, which is to ensure that local authorities act in future as responsible and good parents. I argue strongly that it is characteristic of a good parent that he or she should at least try to keep in touch with a child.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I have listened carefully to the Minister. He and I approach the problem from fundamentally different points of view, but I acknowledge, as I hope he would, that we are both well-intentioned. The Minister referred to the pathway plan of an individual who was leading a successful, independent life, saying that it might propose minimum contact. In whose view would that life be successful? It is the local authority's view. It draws up the pathway plan. That is precisely the point. It is the nanny approach. The local authority will decide when, if and how one is entitled to break free. 6 pm The Minister is not correct when he characterises my position as that of having misunderstood the Bill. I understand it well and I agree with him that, whatever it states, it will not prevent young people from going their own way—probably successfully—if that is what they want. As the Bill is drafted, the local authority will retain a statutory obligation to use its reasonable endeavours to maintain or re-establish contact with the young person. It will retain a statutory obligation to appoint a young person's adviser. The young person's adviser for all those who have gone away and asserted their rights to be completely independent will have a good job because he will not be busy. There will also be a statutory obligation to maintain and update the pathway plan for the young person. Essentially, in the case of someone who has clearly stated his intention to set himself apart from the process, as the Minister has acknowledged young people will de facto be able to do, the local authority should be relieved of its statutory obligation to continue to do all those things laid down in clause 2 and, in case there are over zealous local authorities, should be prevented from pursuing aggressively—not all authorities would do so, but some might—the person in question. The Minister got himself a little confused when he suggested that his resistance to the amendment was based in part on his desire to avoid abuse by local authorities. At one stage he told us that he did not want to create a mechanism that would allow local authorities to encourage individuals to make an election that would prevent the authority from providing the advice and support that it would like to provide to the young person. If authorities want to provide that, they will scarcely encourage the young person to make an election. I am not persuaded by the Minister's argument. We come at the problem from fundamentally different points of view. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made a good point. I hope that we have dealt with it through the proposal that an election could be withdrawn as well as made. A young person who changed his or her mind would not be permanently excluded from the system. I take exception to the Minister's remark that it took us 20 years in government to protect children effectively. He may want to remind himself of the date of the Children Act—1989—which is, I think, by consensus the basic building block from which we start. Indeed, the architecture of the Bill builds upon that Act. Most hon. Members—I include the Minister—have sought, in debates on this Bill and on others, to emphasise the consensual nature of most of what we do in the House for children. Of course, the Minister was right to say that the regulations will determine the substance of the matter that I have raised. If they are drafted in such a way as to ensure that local authorities do not pursue individuals who express a clear wish to break free and they do not give authorities incentives to pursue people whom they should not pursue, the practical effect that I am seeking will be achieved. Therefore, although we have to disagree, I am mindful of the Minister's reassertion today of his commitment to consult with Conservative Members and hon. Members from other parties to produce those regulations. I will withdraw the amendment and thus spare the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) the embarrassment of having to decide which part of it is most important to him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 2, at end insert— '() The assistance given under subsection (4)(a) and (b) may be subject to such conditions regarding adherence by the former relevant child to his pathway plan as the local authority shall reasonably determine.'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 4, page 7, line 39, at end insert— 'in accordance with his pathway plan'. No. 4, in page 7, line 44, after "training", insert— 'in accordance with his pathway plan'. No. 5, in page 7, line 46, at end insert— 'in accordance with his pathway plan'.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

The amendments are a matter of common sense from the perspective of the corporate parent. The compliance with the pathway plan that we want to achieve will be instrumental in the effectiveness of the Bill. All eligible relevant and former relevant children and young people must have a pathway plan under the Bill. It will take over from their existing care plan and will run at least until they are 21, covering education, training, career plans and help needed, for example, to move into supported lodgings. Regulations may be made on the review of pathway plans, but it is envisaged that they will be reviewed only every six months. Having reflected on the matter since the Bill was in Committee in July, we have decided that, from the perspective of the corporate parent and given all the effort and resources that go into drawing up a pathway plan, we need to ensure that it is adhered to. If the Bill is not strengthened in that way, a more minimalist attitude towards compliance with this part of the Bill may result. This is a classic role for a corporate parent. Many hon. Members will be in a similar position—seeing their children go on to further and higher education and becoming heavily involved in the cost. Parents are diligent in reassuring themselves that their money is spent on the purpose for which it was intended. Many of us who went through further and higher education remember our parents holding us to account about what we had done with the money—not necessarily every penny, but we certainly had to reassure them that we were following the course that we had together agreed. Sometimes, child and parent face the difficult decision to change course halfway through. Changing our minds had consequences—the implications might have been to increase the financial load on the parent. It is no different for corporate parents. We want to encourage vulnerable young people to obtain educational qualifications. Statistics show that they are often very short of such qualifications. One of the purposes of the pathway plan is for the young person's adviser and the care leaver to agree together the appropriate development plan. There is little point in all that activity if the young person is simply allowed to depart from the plan. Such a departure might go undetected if the review does not take place more frequently than once every six months.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The hon. Lady's colleague, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), asked who were the local authority to judge whether a pathway plan had been successful. He accused the Government of acting like the nanny state. The amendment seems to state that we must judge failure. Is that not a contradictory perspective? If we say what is successful, we are being the nanny state, but if we judge something to be a failure, we are not.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

We do not want to use labels as brutal as "success" or "failure" for this group of young people. Statistics show that 15 per cent. of them are unemployed and 75 per cent. do not have educational qualifications. On the face of it, that looks like failure if one is putting it baldly, but it will not be particularly helpful to attach that tag to such vulnerable young people. The amendment's purpose, of which the hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight, is to assist the young person's adviser to see through the investment made jointly with the vulnerable young individual—let us not talk of success or failure—so that the individual keeps on the agreed course. One of our concerns is that as a review is planned only once every six months, much could come unstitched. I invite the hon. Gentleman to think back to his own further or higher education—during a six-month period much can happen to a young person. The amendment will help the young person's adviser to take a proactive approach to the implementation of the pathway plan. That is not to say that that would not entail change. If we consider the matter realistically, young people often make their choices quite late in the day, at short notice and so on. My understanding of the explanatory notes supporting the concept of pathway plans is that that is all perfectly possible within the role that the personal adviser would have under the plan. Such changes should, however, be agreed, just as they would be discussed by a parent and child, who were looking together at further or higher education—as I pointed out. Such changes might be made when young people who had completed one term of a course in a further or higher education establishment came to the conclusion that, at the end of one term, or even after half a term, the course was absolutely not for them. Such occurrences are not unusual. As matters stand, if the young person's adviser was unable to undertake a review more often than once every six months, half an academic year would be lost. That is important in relation to further education choices. Such courses may last for only two years, so a quarter of that potential for academic furtherance could be lost.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Given the spirit of the hon. Lady's remarks, does she also argue that her proposal would help the young person's adviser to put pressure on a local authority to provide resources for a young person who was following the pathway plan?

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

There is no dispute about the Bill placing a duty on local authorities to provide assistance, but having given public money—both to support the role of the young person's adviser and for the whole process of working together to produce a suitable plan for the young person's development, training and furtherance—it is perfectly reasonable for that local authority to determine whether the assistance is correctly applied and whether benefit is being gained from it. The amendment is clear on that point.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

I seek clarification. I understand that if the relevant child is receiving money for education or training needs that are not being taken up, there may be an argument for withdrawing the money. However, does the hon. Lady really suggest that assistance of the kind referred to in section 24B(2), to the extent that his welfare…needs require it is included under her amendment? If so, that would worry me greatly.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Welfare is difficult to define precisely, although of course it must be the paramount concern. The focus of our amendment is on consistency between the pathway plan on education and employment choices and what the young person actually pursues. That is a perfectly reasonable position for the corporate parent to adopt and one that a young person will meet in later life. There is accountability for money spent on, or invested in, a person—whether in a business or public service context. There is accountability for resources invested to pursue a particular path of development. It is wholly reasonable that the authority committing those resources should ensure that the outcome reflects the agreed purpose of the initial commitment. 6.15 pm There will always be accidents, in education or employment, when young people begin a particular course of action and, for good reasons—such as a course being wrapped up for lack of participants—do not complete it. In my constituency, I have encountered that. However, such cases are in the minority; we do not want to multiply them, but to add strength to the Bill and to tighten the role and responsibilities of the adviser. The amendment, which is a small but important alteration to the Bill, will ensure consistency between the pathway plan and the eventual outcome for the care leaver, to the benefit of that young person. It will increase the responsibility of the adviser to follow up the agreed course of action and to be satisfied that it is being pursued. It is very much in the interests of the welfare of the young person. The amendment is a practical and realistic proposal; it will help to improve the Bill's effectiveness in practice.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

This amendment and amendment No. 1 demonstrate some of the turmoil and tension among Conservative Members as to whether they want to take a libertarian view on these matters or whether they are more in favour of the control freak tendency view on the power and role of the state. Amendment No. 1 would have allowed young people to opt out of the arrangements altogether; amendment No. 2 would enforce their compliance with arrangements. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on one or two points on the way that we envisage the operation of the legislation. I hope that then she will not feel the need to push the argument further. In essence, as I understand her arguments today and during our Standing Committee debates, she and her hon. Friends are concerned that the pathway plan will represent a one-sided bargain and that it will require the local authority to make available significant resources and other support, care and assistance to a young person who might either choose to disregard the terms of the pathway plan or fail in some way to comply with it. That would thus be an unacceptable use of public money and would not encourage the rights and responsibilities that we think necessary in this matter. We are talking about a good parent and the children for whom that parent has responsibility. The pathway plans will not be one-sided bargains. I make that clear to the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends. There are responsibilities and rights in this matter. They need to be addressed and we intend to do that. As the hon. Lady knows, the pathway plan will set out whatever assistance—for example, with education, training or employment—the responsible authority agrees to provide. The young person's adviser will keep in touch with the young person. There will continue to be reviews of the pathway plan—at least every six months—but a review can, of course, be initiated either by the young person or by the council itself. If the council became aware that a young person was not complying with his or her plan—either because he was abusing the council's support or for some other reason—of course the council would be able to call a review and, if necessary, to revise the terms of the plan. We intend that type of rolling revision to happen. It is one of the reasons that a young person's adviser would keep in touch with the young person and one of the factors that would determine the level of contact that he and the young person would wish to maintain. The amendment would affect former relevant children—young people aged 18 and over. Those young people will no longer be dependent on their responsible authority for accommodation and maintenance, because those duties—as the hon. Lady is aware—cease when the young people turn 18. The assistance for that group of young people, therefore, will consist of help with employment, education, training or general matters. Such help will normally be agreed between the young person and the responsible authority and will be given for specific purposes. Councils are under a duty to provide such assistance to the extent that someone's welfare or his educational and training needs require it. If someone is not co-operating with the council, the council will be entitled to consider that his welfare does not require that assistance. That is hardly, therefore, a blank cheque. A pathway plan, setting out such assistance, will be reviewed regularly and as frequently as necessary. Clearly, that is not a licence for former relevant children to stay in bed all day—that is what the hon. Lady seemed to suggest—while limitless funds flow into their bank accounts. That is not likely to happen and it is certainly not what we intend. There is therefore no need to make specific provision in the Bill for that eventuality. Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 would affect councils' powers—not duties—to help care leavers under section 24 of the Children Act 1989. The amendments seem to reflect some confusion and I bring that to the hon. Lady's attention. Of course, it is true that section 24 can still apply to former relevant children, but the proposed new section 23C sets out councils' duties to that group. In essence, the proposed new section 23C translates councils' section 24 powers to assist into duties to former relevant children. Section 24 will, therefore, apply in practice to care leavers who do not qualify for the new arrangements because, for example, they do not meet the eligibility rules that we will set out. That being so, I am sure that it is obvious to the hon. Lady that such care leavers will not have pathway plans and that it would be wrong for any help that they receive under section 24 to be contingent on their conforming to the plans. If they did, it would be perverse and unjustifiable. We spent some time on this matter in Committee. I hope that I have been able to set at least one or two of the issues straight. We want very much for the new arrangements to work in the context of a relationship based around rights and responsibilities. I hope that my remarks will, to some extent, reassure the hon. Lady about the issues that she has raised.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I assure the Minister that there is no turmoil among Conservative Members, and there was no confusion until he started speaking. Although I shall ask for clarification on one point, I was pleased to hear that he understands exactly what we were driving at, something about which there is absolutely no confusion. We wish to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities. He used exactly the same language in that respect, and there is a clear consensus on that point. I accept that he does not take a one-sided view of this issue. I take on board as a comfort the Minister's point that a review every six months will, in practice, mean a rolling revision process. However, such a process will have cost implications. As we are unsure about whether resources will be made available to make it successful, I underline to the Minister the fact that local authorities will consider the increased burden presented by rolling revision as a practical matter of resources. I seek clarification on something that the Minister said. He seemed to suggest that if a care leaver did not co-operate or comply, the council could be right to assume that his welfare did not require support. If I understand him correctly, his point will not give comfort to the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). However, I wish to point out to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that our amendment No. 2 deliberately did not refer to subsection (4)(c), because we are interested in adherence in relation to education and employment. We are sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I am left with the distinct impression—unless I am very confused on the matter—that the Minister said that the council could assume that the care leaver's welfare no longer required support if he did not comply with the agreement established with the personal adviser in the plan. Will the Minister help me on that point?

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I shall certainly try to help the hon. Lady. I tried to make the position clear and she can examine my remarks in Hansard. It is important that she understands that the issue will be addressed as part of the rights and responsibilities agenda that I have described. I do not want to be prescriptive about individual cases, and I am sure that she will understand that. However, the degree and extent of compliance with a pathway plan and a local authority's obligation to provide support for training and the other issues identified in the Bill are bound to be connected.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

We may be reaching a degree of consensus on this point. I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow, but the Minister has probably articulated the points that we were driving at in our amendments. My reading tomorrow will make the matter much clearer, but the Minister sought to finesse his reply. I think that I understand it correctly when I suggest that the balance of rights and responsibilities that we sought in our amendment is the same balance that he seeks to achieve. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS AGED 16 OR OVER

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 25, leave out "registered" and insert "private".

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I am rather sorry that I have to move the amendments. They are necessary only because the Care Standards Act 2000 received Royal Assent before this Bill and we had assumed that this Bill would reach the statute book first. I assure the House that the amendments are technical. The Care Standards Act amended the definitions of residential care homes, nursing homes and registered children's homes to care homes, independent hospitals and private children's homes. I am sure that the hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will remember the debate on that point—I will never be able to forget it. This Bill, in restating section 24 of the Children Act 1989, deployed in the proposed new sections 24(2)(d)(ii) and 24C(2)(c) the existing definitions of such homes because it was introduced ahead of the Care Standards Bill. Amendments updating those references were made to the Children Act in the Committee considering the Care Standards Act. As I said at the time, those amendments were drafted on the reasonable assumption that the amendments to the Children Act made by the Children (Leaving Care) Bill would become law first. In the event and as we all know, that did not happen so the amendments refer to new sections of the Children Act that did not, in fact, exist at the time the Care Standards Act obtained Royal Assent. The consequence is that the amendments have no effect. We therefore need to amend this Bill to bring the references to such homes into line, and to remove the now incorrect amendments to the Care Standards Act. I hope that I can assure the House that the amendments are simply technical: they have no new policy implications of any kind. They are necessary simply because the Care Standards Act received Royal Assent before this Bill.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

This is a complex series of amendments to achieve, as the Minister said, precisely nothing in policy terms. We are happy that they achieve their technical purpose and do it well. I am moved to pass a comment because in the previous debate the Minister felt able to remark on the turmoil, as he saw it, among Conservative Members. What turmoil is going on among Labour Members that enables a Minister of the Crown to say, "We were assuming that the Children (Leaving Care) Bill would reach the statute book first"? Who are the "we" who made that assumption? The "we" have to be the Government. Presumably, the Government could determine which of those two measures reached the statute book first. 6.30 pm It is a bit rich for the Minister to say that the Government drafted the Bill on the reasonable assumption that one Bill would reach the statute book before the other and that the Bill must now be amended otherwise it would not make sense because, by implication, someone else arranged that that would happen the other way around. If any turmoil is being revealed, it is that which lies at the heart of the Government's management of their overcrowded legislative programme.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 8, line 11, after "full-time" insert "further or".

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

We all know by now that the Bill is all about improving the life chances of young people who have been in care. Of course, education is the best way to do that—helping them into jobs, careers and a fulfilling and productive role in society. Skills and knowledge are now the commanding heights of the new economy. We want looked-after children to have exactly the same opportunities to receive a good education as anyone else. That is why the Bill is assiduous in creating duties to help with education and training even beyond the point at which young people leave care. The new duties for qualifying care leavers aged 18 and over specifically include a duty on councils to assist with education and training to the end of the agreed course, even if that takes a young person past the age of 21. The Bill, as originally drafted, backed that up with a new duty to provide vacation accommodation for care leavers in higher education. That duty was introduced because we were aware of cases in which young people who had left care were unable to take up university places simply because they could not find somewhere to live during vacations. That is why the duty applies to all care leavers, not just those to whom the rest of the Bill applies. While the Bill has being making its passage through Parliament, we have been made aware of the fact that vacation accommodation can be an issue for some further education students as well. I am grateful to those who have drawn our attention to what might have been an omission in the Bill's drafting. For the most part, students take further education courses near to home at their local school or college, usually studying from home. Those students do not usually have special accommodation needs during vacations, and these amendments do not affect them. However, some agricultural, horticultural and arts courses are run at residential colleges and those students are clearly in the same position as many university students during vacations in needing to find alternative accommodation. Therefore, following the representations made in Committee and elsewhere, we have decided explicitly to extend the duty to provide vacation accommodation to care leavers who require it to those further education students as well. Under amendment No. 18, the Secretary of State will be allowed to make regulations defining further education for the purposes of the Bill and the intention is to define it in terms of the sort of residential FE courses that I have described. Amendment No. 16 will add the qualifier because his term time accommodation is not available to him to establish the reason why a student would need to call on that duty. Most students have the option to return to their family home during vacations—an option that is not available to care leavers. These amendments are intended to create a more level playing field by ensuring that care leavers are not left with nowhere to go during vacations.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I have hung on the Minister's every word because this parliamentary occasion is a first for me. I have seen the Bill through Committee to Report and, as an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I have articulated the need to amend the Bill to include further education. Therefore, I was interested to find out how the Government would handle the fact that the Opposition had previously drawn their attention to the need for such an amendment. In the human transactional way of things, I suppose that what the Minister has said is the closest that we will get to an apology. The Opposition first brought the proposal to the Government's attention in Committee, where they rebuffed it but, on reflection, they have now accepted it. That is an important point for the Opposition. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that an Opposition make great play of an amendment being accepted in Committee. We go to the country and say, "Hooray, draft legislation has been changed because we brought something to the Government's attention." Therefore, it is disappointing that the official Opposition have not been given adequate credit. The Minister spoke of those who had made him aware of the matter, but the word "those" refers to me. Others may have been involved, but the fact is that I and my hon. Friends tabled the amendment in Committee, and we should have liked to have heard about that. Obviously, the most important point is that the change has been made. I do not wish to embarrass the Minister too much but, in Committee, he said that further education accommodation was not a significant problem…New express duties are not required.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 July 2000; c. 110–11.] He also said that any adjustment would be made "through additional guidance." I rejoice at a parliamentary occasion on which, for once, we have achieved a change in the Bill. That is important because much of the Bill represents an empty box and the Opposition have had to depend on the guidance that is produced to understand its implications. We welcome the amendment because the label on the box will be clear to everyone. For the benefit of hon. Members who were not present at the initial debate in Committee on the need to include further education, let me emphasise that only 1.1 per cent. of care leavers enter higher education and, therefore, the requirement on the local authority or the corporate parent—the term that we chose to use—to provide vacation accommodation will be taken up by a small percentage of care leavers. Of course we should like more care leavers to enter higher education, but the reality is that a far larger percentage enter further education. The Minister said in Committee that 40 per cent. do so. The amendment represents an important change in the Bill, which is why we welcome it strongly. As I said, this is the first parliamentary occasion on which I have had such an experience, but I should have preferred credit to be given in the right quarter. I have no doubt that other organisations brought to the Minister's attention the need to include higher and further education, but the official Opposition tabled the original amendment, which was rebuffed in Committee. It would have been nice if the apology had been fulsome, but I welcome the change. It was certainly part of our policy ambition that further education should be included and there is no doubt that a much higher percentage of care leavers will benefit from the provision than would have been the case if the Bill had not been amended.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

I certainly welcome the amendment and share the delight of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in having had some output from the many hours that we spent in Committee. It is important to make residential provision available not only for particular courses but for people living in isolated or rural areas. I gave specific examples in Committee, as did the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). Therefore, I totally support the Government's change of mind. I hope that it will achieve a tremendous amount; it is probably the one proposal that will make a real difference to the life chances of young people leaving care and help to encourage them into the further education that they need.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I very much welcome the amendments. It will be quite a challenge for local authorities to implement plans before a course starts for a young person who will need accommodation during a vacation. In order to complete a course, one certainly needs to know where one will live during the summer. We do not want a young person to approach the end of term saying, "I've nowhere to live; I'd better ring the council." With the best will in the world, no council would say, "There's the accommodation; we've sorted it out immediately." The remarks of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) were not particularly fair to my hon. Friend the Minister. On a number of occasions during proceedings in the Committees considering this Bill and the Care Standards Bill—the hon. Lady and I served on both Committees—my hon. Friend conceded points, sought further information to reassure her and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), and changed the Bill as a result of amendments that they had tabled. For example, during proceedings on the Care Standards Bill, the hon. Gentleman made a point about including residential schools, and my hon. Friend immediately responded and made the necessary changes. We ought to recognise that, as has been said, further rather than higher education is the principal route at the moment for most of the young people about whom we are talking. We hope that, as a result of the Bill, more such young people will enter higher education. In July, my hon. Friend the Minister met a young man, Mark Kane, who was a care leaver, in further education and a member of the board of management for Kent county council's 16-plus service. He was a strong and passionate voice for care leavers throughout the county. He had not always received the best deal in services but, rather than be angry for himself, he chose to channel his energy into something positive to bring about changes for young people. He was very much a positive role model for many young people leaving the care system in Kent. Sadly, on 26 September, Mark Kane took his own life, leaving his friends, social workers and all those who were associated with him devastated. He was a young man who had great hopes and someone to whom we thought we could point as a success of the care system. Despite his confident persona, that articulate young man clearly had difficulties and problems, which resulted in such a tragedy. He would very much have welcomed the amendment, as he would the whole Bill. I had a couple of opportunities to discuss the Bill with him. I hope that its powers will serve as a campaign in Kent in his memory. The amendments are very welcome.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I shall be more generous in my thanks to the Minister than the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was correct in saying that she and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) tabled in Committee the original amendment, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) and I were delighted to support. The Government have listened and tabled the necessary amendments, and that is welcome. They do not have an excellent reputation for listening to rural voices at the moment, but on this point they have done so. The point that I made in Committee was not just about vocational courses, such as those offered in Aberystwyth, where the foremost agricultural college happens to be located, which I know many students travel some distance to attend. If rural-based students are to access the best courses, including vocational ones, they will need to travel. Some of my constituents travel 60 miles to Carmarthen, for example, in order to undertake the right vocational course, which means that they must stay there during the week. There are obligations to provide vacational accommodation for such people, and I am pleased that the Government have listened on that point. In Committee, the Minister had the unenviable task of trying to defend shades of difference between further and higher education, when his Government are in fact increasingly blurring the distinctions. Certainly in Wales, with the abolition of training and enterprise councils and the establishment of a new sixth-form system of education over the next few years, we shall see the difference between further and higher education alter greatly. Care leavers' access to such education will change too. I would imagine that one aim of the Bill is to encourage more care leavers to access both further and higher education. We must acknowledge further education as the route, on occasions, into higher education, particularly for care leavers who may have fewer GCSEs, and so forth, to start with. The amendment is essential, and I am pleased that the Government have listened. The Bill will be seen, certainly in rural areas, as stronger as a result, ensuring that there are not more examples of rural social exclusion about which, on occasion, we must argue.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken on the amendment and for the support that they have expressed for the changes that we are making. Obviously, I am less than pleased with the comments of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), but I dare say that I will get over that. I say to her and her hon. Friends that this is probably not one of those occasions on which we should worry so much about who should take credit for the changes. The important issue is that the Bill will be amended. I acknowledged the comments and arguments put to us. We have listened to those observations, and changed the Bill accordingly. That is the right, responsible way for Governments to act. We have tried to discharge our responsibilities seriously and fairly, and I hope that, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, the Bill has been strengthened as a result.

REPRESENTATIONS

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 9, line 9, at end insert— '(1A) Every local authority shall make arrangements to ensure that any person qualified under subsection (1) to make representations has access to appropriate independent advice and support to assist him in making such representations.'.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

Those who observe these debates will be pleased to hear that the consensual tone will return—certainly on the question of independent advice, which we debated in Committee. Even in Committee, there was quite a lot of understanding of the importance of independence. We certainly believe that looked-after children should have access to independent advice and support if they feel that they must make a complaint about their personal adviser and the services that they are receiving. That was our purpose in tabling amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I am sure that all hon. Members are all too aware of the poor experience of children in care in trying to obtain access to independent advice. Many children's charities and those who work with children are strong advocates of independent advice being made available to children. We maintain that view; it was our motivation behind tabling the amendments. Save The Children Fund is even anxious about the over-dependency that might be created in the relationship between the care leaver and the personal adviser. It is concerned about whether the balance in that relationship is right without the existence of independent advisers to whom the care leaver may turn, should that relationship break down. Its uneasiness is easy for us to understand. In Committee, there was quite a deal of debate about how the complaints procedure—should there be need to make one—would be developed. If, in the course of replying to my speech, the Minister explained a little more about the Government's thinking on that point, we would be greatly illuminated. It remains rather unclear in the Bill. We have reached an important point in the outworking of a Bill designed to protect children and provide a satisfactory complaints procedure. There has been consultation about the form that the complaints procedure should take, but that has not left me reassured that the complaints procedure will be just and speedy enough to satisfy an unhappy care leaver that the complaint is being dealt with fairly and independently. The personal adviser is the human face of the corporate parent, as I described it, and therefore represents the corporate parent—the state or the establishment—to the care leaver. It would not be unnatural for the care leaver to feel anxious and even to lodge a complaint about the adviser, who represents the corporate parent with whom the care leaver felt that he or she had fallen out. Without an independent adviser to whom to turn in such a situation, and unable to see a fair and speedy way to have the complaint investigated, the care leaver might be tempted to swallow the complaint, go to ground, drop out of the agreed pathway plan or become estranged from the local authority, whose duty it would be to keep in touch. Whether or not the complaint was legitimate, the lack of an independent adviser would place the care leaver in a weaker position. For that reason, we have returned to the need for independent advisers. The charity Action on Aftercare Consortium stresses the importance of developing a complaints procedure that is not unwieldy, bureaucratic or long. As I understand it from the consultation process, the dispute is not about whether independent advisers or advocates should be available to children who have complaints, but about the stage at which independent advisers would be made available. In the consultation document, there are choices to be made about whether that should take place at the first, second or third stage. We should put ourselves in the position of care leavers, for whom the process is likely to seem extremely intimidating; they may have to go through it on their own, possibly opposite a panel that will decide whether the complaint should be upheld. The process may reach the third stage before an independent adviser suddenly pops up out of the woodwork to provide help. The term "independent adviser" is carefully chosen. The difference between advocacy and independent advice is that an advocate speaks for the complainant, but an independent adviser may be able to bring some objectivity to the process, and that would be extremely helpful. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how far the review of the complaints procedure has progressed and the role in that complaints procedure for independent advice, as envisaged in legislation to protect children. We consider it important to recognise in the Bill the need for independent advice, so that a just and speedy way can be found to address a complaint felt keenly by a care leaver, which otherwise may result in his or her being disillusioned with what is made available to help care leavers with their needs. Such disillusion would result in the failures of the system that have unfortunately all too often characterised the experience of care leavers.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her amendment and the way in which she has presented her arguments. There is probably not a great deal of difference between us on the issue. The debate is about whether we want such a provision written into the Bill, or whether we should develop the arguments about advocacy through other means. In the Standing Committee, I drew the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that we are consulting on the complaints procedure for the entire Children Act 1989. That consultation has included specific questions about the provision of advocacy services. I do not want to second guess the outcome of the consultation, as we want to give careful thought to the comments made about those services. However, I make it clear to the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends that there is no question of a lack of Government support for advocacy services in this area. She helpfully allowed the Standing Committee to have a full debate on the matter when we discussed the Bill in the summer. We have taken significant steps to encourage and support the use of advocacy services. The hon. Lady knows, because she and I have debated the issue extensively, that we have given a firm commitment to making it clear in the statutory guidance that will be issued in support of the Bill that young people should be given access to the services of an advocate if they require it when making a complaint under the complaints procedure. Once the consultation on the complaints and representation systems is complete, we shall be able to use the powers built into the Bill to describe its complaints procedures, so we can take forward the argument about advocacy at that stage. We do not need new powers in the Bill to do that, as the amendment suggests. I accept many of the arguments that the hon. Lady put to the House this afternoon about the importance of advocacy services in the arrangements. I do not want her or her hon. Friends to think that we are lukewarm about the importance of advocacy services; we are not. We want to make sure that the revised complaints procedure is capable of addressing as promptly and expeditiously as possible some of the urgent complaints and problems that may arise in future around the operation of the legislation. There is no point in introducing a complaints procedure that cannot address properly, fairly and squarely the concerns of young people leaving care. We want to make sure that the complaints procedure does that much more effectively in future than it has been able to do in the past. Advocacy services will clearly have an important role to play in that. We have made that position clear and, in the light of the reassurances that I have tried to extend to her, I hope that the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will not consider it necessary to press the amendment to a Division.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

I am sure that those listening will be encouraged to hear the return to a consensual tone. I am encouraged to hear that the Government are not lukewarm, as the Minister said, about advocacy. I want to impress on the Minister a practical point that arises from what he said. Perhaps he will take this as an informal contribution to the consultation, although the official Opposition do not usually participate in Government consultation processes. The phraseology that he used suggests that when the relationship breaks down between the personal adviser and the care leaver, and the care leaver wants to make a complaint, he or she will not have adequate protection, unless the complaints procedure under review is altered or the guidance is changed. The Minister said that care leavers will have access to advocacy services if they require it, but who decides whether they require it? If it is the personal adviser who decides whether the care leaver requires independent advocacy services, there will be insufficient arm's length or independence for the care leaver to have confidence in the system. All the charities that are concerned about independent advocacy may be disquieted by that as well.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and allowing me to correct a misapprehension. I am trying to preserve our position as we have not yet made a decision on the new arrangements, but whatever they are, we want them to command the confidence of young people. We shall make sure that that is the case. The important principle is that the young person feels that the system serves his or her interests, and we shall ensure that it does.

Caroline Spelman (Conservative, Meriden)

That is a bit better, and I am encouraged. I am glad that I gave way, as the Minister has shown clearly that he has understood that it is extremely important that the care leaver feels that he or she has unfettered access to independent advice when the chips are down and a complaint is made. That would not be the case if the person against whom the complaint was lodged were in a position to make a decision about whether independent advocacy services should be rolled in. It is certainly satisfying to hear the Minister's clarification of that point. I accept that he wants care leavers and all those involved in this process to have confidence in the system. His reply makes it a lot easier for me to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

EXCLUSION FROM BENEFITS

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 9, line 24, leave out subsection (3).

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

May I start by drawing the House's attention to a typographical error in amendment No. 9, which refers to section 120(2) of the Care Standards Act? In fact, that reference should be to section 121(2) of the Care Standards Act. I am advised by the appropriate authorities that in a case where a typographical error is made but the meaning is clear, there is no reason why we should not debate the substance of the issue. If necessary, there will be opportunities later to correct what is written in the amendment. Responsibility for the error is entirely mine, so I apologise, I apologise, I apologise.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said about his amendment, will you confirm that although he acknowledged that there is a typographical error on the Order Paper, we shall be debating the wording that the hon. Gentleman proposed, not that which he originally intended?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly, the Bill will have to go back to the other place as Government amendments have already been accepted, so there will be an opportunity to correct the technical error in the Order Paper later. I hope that the Government will not seek to shelter behind a technicality in a debate about an important issue of principle. The House should discuss the important issues in the amendment, not the technicality of what is obviously a typographical error. Clause 6 removes the right to means-tested benefits, consisting of income support, housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance, for 16 and 17-year-old care leavers, bringing their position broadly into line with that of other 16 and 17-year-olds. That is entirely consistent with the Bill's objective of providing a concept of support that is broader than entitlement to cash benefits. Of course, we accept that that support may, and almost invariably will, include a cash element. However, that should not be an entitlement, as it should be negotiated between the young person and the young person's adviser, who will seek to put together a package of measures that provide proper support, in the broadest sense, for that young person. We accept a point that the Minister made many times in presenting arguments for the Bill, and agree that the rigidities of the social security system and the sheer difficulty of navigating a way through it mean that it is often not the ideal way of dealing with the needs of particularly vulnerable young people. Care leavers clearly fall into that category. Under the present system of support available to non-care leavers, there is an entitlement to benefits for disabled young people and young people who are lone parents when they live at home with their families, meaning their own parents. In introducing clause 6, the Minister's intention is to give the Secretary of State powers to exempt groups from removal of eligibility for benefit so that they can be brought more into line with the treatment of other young people who are not care leavers. My amendment and our debate are triggered by a separate issue that the Minister raised in Committee, when he indicated that his intention was to go significantly further than matching the support that other young people receive. He said: I have made it clear that we intend to exempt lone parents from the benefit entitlement provisions, as it is right and proper that they should continue to be entitled to benefits. If such a young person was living at home, he or she would continue to be entitled to benefits. That should apply also to young care leavers who are pregnant.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 July 2000; c. 137.] The Minister therefore indicated that exemption from the provisions of clause 6, which removes the entitlement to means-tested social security benefits, should be extended to 15-year-old girls who are pregnant when they leave care. That does not bring the position of care leavers into line with that of non-care leavers; it sends a confusing signal to some vulnerable 15-year-olds. The Minister's own consultation document, "Me, Survive, Out There?", reports that some studies show that between 25 and 30 per cent. of 16-year-old girls leaving care are already mothers. I have not been able to find a figure—it may not be available—that tells us how many of those girls are pregnant at the time of leaving care. Whether we like it or not, some young people will see the loss of entitlement benefits as a negative thing. There is a consensus in the Chamber, as there certainly was in Committee, that the package of support, consisting of cash benefits and non-cash support, available under the Bill will, on an objective basis and from an adult perspective, be superior to that which might otherwise be available under the means-tested social security system. The Minister, myself and other hon. Members who have taken part in our debates all agree on that. Although the Minister disagreed with me strongly in Committee, the removal of an entitlement to cash benefit, which will be replaced by a discretionary benefit payable by the local authority that will be negotiated with the young person, will not be seen by all young people as positive. Indeed, if the Minister considers which young people might feel that removal of entitlement benefits and replacement with discretionary support packages was not beneficial or did not suit their particular desires at that stage of their life, he will find that the most vulnerable young people are the most likely to see merit in trying to hang on to cash benefits. We accept that care leavers who are disabled or lone parents who live at home with their own families constitute a special case. Before the summer recess, I tabled amendment No. 9, which seeks to limit the Secretary of State's powers to those groups and exclude the group which, as the Minister revealed in Committee, the Government intend to include. I spent some time in the summer consulting various outside bodies about the issue. The need to discuss a wider issue became clear to me and I therefore tabled amendment No. 24. If the system of support for which the Bill provides is so superior to the means-tested, social security support, which it will withdraw, why would we want to give the Secretary of State the power to exempt from that arrangement those who are perhaps most vulnerable—those who are disabled or lone parents? Many organisations that deal with disadvantaged young people have made the point that the benefits system does not tackle the complex needs of vulnerable young people well, even if they can find their way through it. It may be better to provide, if appropriate, a cash-based support system, but within the structure that the Bill establishes. That would obviate the need to create exemptions from clause 6. The underlying ethos of the Bill is that those for whom it provides should be better off than they would be outside the system for which it provides, despite the change in the level of entitlement to cash benefits. Amendment No. 24 would achieve the objective of dealing with the cash needs of vulnerable groups of care leavers within the architecture of the Bill. It recognises the need for special support for those groups, and that a system that is more cash based may be appropriate for some. However, that system can be provided within the scope of the Bill. I hope that the Government can accept the logic of that argument and support the amendment. We would find it unacceptable for the Secretary of State to have discretionary powers to exempt groups from clause 6 without specifying them in the Bill. The Minister, who is in charge of the measure, told us clearly in Committee that he believes that those powers could apply to young care leavers who are pregnant. We would resist that. It would have a more pernicious effect than exempting care leavers who are disabled or lone parents. It would send a negative and undesirable signal to vulnerable 15-year-old girls and would contrast starkly with the Department's campaign to discourage sexual activity among the under-16s. Positive, continuing contact between the care leaver and the young person's adviser would be less likely if young people did not perceive that they received their stream of benefit payments—in kind or in cash—through that medium, but were able to gain access to them through the entitlement systems of the social security structure. The Government's consultation document, "Me, Survive, Out There?", made no reference to including pregnant care leavers in the category that should be exempted from the withdrawal of cash benefits. I hope that the Minister will be able to agree this evening that there is no need for powers to exempt categories from clause 6. If he is unable to go that far, I hope that he will agree that the Secretary of State should not have the power to exempt pregnant 15-year-old girls simply because they get pregnant while in care. From every discussion that I have held with the Minister, I believe that he must agree that that would send the wrong signal to a vulnerable and exposed group of young people. I am sure that he would join us in wanting to do everything possible to discourage inappropriate behaviour among 15-year-olds, whether in care or not. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Bill, when read in conjunction with his comments in Committee, clearly gives a negative signal to 15-year-olds. We must tackle that tonight, notwithstanding the typographical error in drafting amendment No. 9. I hope that the Minister will deal with the substantive points and acknowledge that there is a simple and adequate opportunity to make the typographical correction when the Bill goes to another place. I am confident that, if amendment No. 9 is accepted, my noble Friends will co-operate in ensuring that the typographical error is corrected.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

It appears that the origins of the amendment are some comments that I made in Committee about pregnant girls leaving care. I shall deal with that point later, and I hope that I can give the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) the assurance that he seeks. If he spent the entire summer expressing anxieties about my words in Committee, I am surprised that he did not raise them with me then. I could have given him the assurance, and we might have spared ourselves some time and effort today. I shall not deal with the amendments on the basis of their technical drafting. We know what life can sometimes be like in opposition. We all make mistakes with amendments; I have certainly made such mistakes. I want to do the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of giving him a full and proper response to his arguments. Notwithstanding the comments I have just made, the amendment is horribly defective. We must be clear about that. The attempt to align the definition of disability in the Care Standards Act 2000 with clause 6 of the Bill is a complete failure, because the section that the hon. Gentleman identifies as defining disability does not do that. As defects go, that is rather substantial. However, let us draw a line under that and try to deal with the arguments that he raised. Amendment No. 9 would replace the general power to make regulations about the groups to be excepted from the new benefits regime with a far more restrictive power, which would identify only two categories of care leavers in the Bill. That approach runs counter to the way in which legislation on social security entitlements has often been drafted in the past. Primary legislation sets out the framework and establishes the principles, and secondary legislation tends to fill in the details. That is important if the law is not to become a blunt instrument. I am not in favour of that, and I am sure that hon. Gentleman is not. We anticipate that the principles that the measure establishes will stand the test of time. However, matters of detail may change over time. We may find that we need to make minor adjustments in the light of experience. We therefore want to allow for some flexibility in the Bill so that implementation of the new provisions can take advantage of growing experience. That means putting the detail into secondary legislation so that, if necessary, it can be changed in future. We have been clear throughout that we plan to make exceptions for disabled young people and for lone parents who will continue to be eligible for benefits. The benefit system recognises that they have special needs and permits them to claim benefit when they are living at home with their families. We are trying to treat these young people consistently. The new arrangements will continue to recognise these special needs. I think that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that he recognised these special needs and that the young people concerned should continue to be eligible for these benefits. I want to correct what the hon. Gentleman may have understood from my remarks in Committee. He was anxious about the matter. It seems that he gained the impression that we intend to exempt pregnant care leavers from the new funding arrangements in the Bill. We do not. I apologise to him and to others if that was their impression. It is technically possible for a pregnant care leaver to be eligible for income support and other benefits on the ground of a disabling condition to which, perhaps, the pregnancy itself might give rise. However, we have made it clear that disability and the fact that a young care leaver is a single parent—a lone parent—will be the conditions that we intend to exercise in terms of coming to a view about who should continue to be eligible for benefit entitlement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is clear now about our intentions. For disability, we plan to use the existing Department of Social Security eligibility criteria for claiming income support for the sick and disabled. As we are thinking about who is not to be excluded from benefit, it would be sensible to be consistent with the rules that say who can claim benefit. The amendment, which attempts to provide a new definition of disability, could be confusing. That would not be a helpful way in which to proceed. Definitions should be consistent. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who was a DSS Minister in the previous Administration, might be advancing a similar argument if he were standing in my shoes. On lone parents, given that we are talking in this context about young people aged 16 and 17, it seems completely otiose to prescribe the age of a child in order for the parent to be able to claim benefits. That is what the amendment would do. Having decided that lone parents are a special group who should have access to benefits, it does not seem right to impose any additional conditions. If they claim income support or jobseeker's allowance, they will be expected to meet the normal conditions of entitlement for the benefit concerned. We see no need, therefore, for extra conditions for this particular group of lone parents. Interestingly, amendment No. 9 talks in terms of mothers; the Government talk about lone parents. The point of principle on which we consulted in "Me, Survive, Out There?" was that we are setting up new arrangements that mirror as closely as possible the sort of support which young people would normally be able to expect from their parents. In the case of lone parents, their special needs are recognised in that they are able to claim benefit even if they are living at home, and that right is what we are reproducing for lone parents who have been looked after. It would be a retrograde step to limit the provision to mothers. In reality, it is mothers who will be the ones looking after children—I accept that overwhelmingly that will be the case—however, it is possible that a lone father might be bringing up a child alone.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

In care.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

Yes, possibly in care. We do not want this legislation to discriminate against any such person. The amendment would allow a mother to continue to claim benefit if she had a child under four years of age, but not a father bringing up a child on his own. I accept that those cases might be exceptionally few and far between, but in fairness to those people we could not accept the amendment. There is no logic or fairness to it. Under the terms of the Bill, these lone parents will have a young person's adviser, a pathway plan and all the support that will go with that. They will have a needs assessment like any other eligible or relevant child, and their responsible authority will agree with them a package of support, just as it does for anyone else. That package will be devised to meet the young person's individual needs and it will take account of the benefits to which he or she is entitled, just as someone else's pathway plan would take account of any income or resource that was available to them. It would not be helpful to single out this group to impose special conditions on them. I hope that, at least in one respect, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge might be reassured by my response. It is clear that we have a different view. He prefers a particular way of dealing with the matter in the Bill, and we have tried to provide an alternative approach, which would preserve the issues of principle that he and I share and have in common. I suspect that I might be wrong, but I hope that he will not feel it necessary to push the amendment to a vote. If he insists on voting, I shall strongly advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the substance of the amendment and not seeking to shelter behind a technicality. He has always shown great courage in taking that line in Committee and in the House in dealing with the issues that need to be discussed. However, I am disappointed with his condemnation of our use of the definition of disability that is contained within the Care Standards Act 2000. It seems to be an eminently appropriate definition. It reads that For the purposes of this Act…a person is disabled if…his sight, hearing or speech is substantially impaired;…he has a mental disorder; or…he is physically substantially disabled by any illness, any impairment present since birth or otherwise. That seems to be quite a good definition of disability.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

It is a very good definition because I tabled the relevant amendment. However, it is not the definition that the DSS uses in determining eligibility for benefits on the basis of disability. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts the need for some consistency in those cases.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Perhaps that is an argument for joined-up government from the Minister. The Minister wondered aloud why I had not contacted him during the summer to discuss the confusion that may have arisen in my mind about what he said in Committee. There was no confusion. I do not believe that there was any confusion in the minds of hon. Members on either side of the Committee. The position seems pretty clear. The Minister said: I have made it clear that we intend to exempt lone parents from the benefit entitlement provisions. He added: If such a young person was living at home, he or she would continue to be entitled to benefits. That should apply also to young care leavers who are pregnant. There is not much scope for misinterpretation there. In response to an intervention from me, he said: Many young girls leaving care are pregnant…I am told that as many as one in four girls who leave care are pregnant. A column later, I said to the Minister: Has he given any thought to what message is sent to young girls aged 15 in local authority care, their co-residents in the children's home and others who are pregnant will anticipate receiving benefit because of the exemption, but those who are not pregnant will not expect benefits? The Minister said: I am not convinced that young women will get pregnant because they might then be entitled to income support. A column later, I said: That sends some strange messages. I do not suggest that 15-year-old girls in care will automatically think that they have one year left in which to become pregnant, but there will be serious consequences to anything that seems to people's peers, however misguidedly, to reward them for a type of behaviour that we would not seek to encourage.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 July 2000: c. 137–39.] Nowhere in those exchanges over three columns of Hansard did the Minister seek to retract the statement that he made in column 137 that the exemption should apply also to young care leavers who are pregnant. The Minister has said that he wants to allow in the Bill for some flexibility in how the Secretary of State seeks to use his power to make exemptions. Having heard what the Minister said in Committee—that he would intend to apply the exemption also to all young care leavers who are pregnant—we specifically do not want to leave the Secretary of State any flexibility in interpreting how he uses the exemption. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 24.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 9, line 41, leave out subsection (7). At present, the Bill applies only to England and Wales—with the exception of clause 6, which, because social security is a reserved matter, applies to the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government clearly expect the Scottish Parliament to produce legislation similar to that in the Bill. That is an arrogance in itself. In Committee, when we discussed issues relating to this matter, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) accused me of displaying—in an amendment that I had tabled—a lack of faith in the devolution settlement. He confidently assured me that the Scottish Parliament would ensure that legislation mirroring the Bill was introduced. I understand from my colleagues in Scotland, however, that no progress has been made, and that consultation is still going on. As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, it is clear that in the Scottish Parliament there is nothing like the consensus in favour of the legislation that exists across the parties in England. Perhaps in a moment the Minister will be able to give us his latest anticipated timetable for getting similar legislation through the Scottish Parliament. As drafted, clause 6 would be applied in Scotland before legislation equivalent to the rest of the Bill had been passed by the Scottish Parliament. That would mean children leaving care in Scotland being left with no means of support, because clause 6 would withdraw their entitlement to means-tested social security benefits before legislation had entitled them to benefits from local authorities on a model parallel to that established in England and Wales. We all agree that that would be unacceptable. The Government's solution is not to wait until they can get their act together and ensure that appropriate legislation exists throughout the United Kingdom, but to give themselves a power to prescribe, by order, certain groups that are to be exempt. In our last debate we discussed the exemption of certain groups, such as lone parents and people who are disabled. Clause 6(7), however, specifically enables the Government to exempt groups by providing powers to make different regulations in different areas of the United Kingdom. In other words, it enables the Government to exclude people living in Scotland from the provisions of the clause. Although social security is a reserved matter—in the devolution settlement, it was considered appropriate that social security matters throughout the United Kingdom should be dealt with by this Parliament—the Government's proposal is to block exempt Scotland from the effect of clause 6. Social security was kept as a reserved matter because it was obvious to those drafting the Scotland Bill that, if social security regimes differed in different parts of the country, it could lead to unfortunate examples of people migrating to find the benefits that were most advantageous to them. It was felt that the appropriate solution was to have a uniform system of benefits throughout the UK. The fact that the Government have had to seek a regulation-making power to allow them to impose Scotland's exemption from clause 6 highlights a problem in the devolution settlement. The problem arises when legislation comes forward where delegated and reserved areas of policy making interact in a way that will leave one area stranded high and dry if the devolved Parliament does not co-operate with the Government in Westminster to ensure that appropriate legislation is in place in time. The Government's proposal is to give themselves, through subsection (7), powers to make regulations that make different provisions for different areas and to use the subsection—they have freely admitted that it is their intention—to exclude Scotland. Means-tested cash benefits as an entitlement would continue to be payable in Scotland, although they would not be payable in England. We have a clear and perhaps genuine disagreement across the House on the likely effects of that. There are those—they spoke both on Second Reading and in Committee—who believe that the entitlement to means-tested cash benefits is not likely to be important to people leaving care, and that they will see the common sense that we all agree on: the package of support on offer from local authorities is likely to be, taken in the round, superior to the value of the cash benefits that are on offer under the social security system. However, common sense tells me that some people at least who are faced with the prospect of leaving care at 16 and who have been expecting to be entitled to receive means-tested cash benefits will not see that arrangement—which requires them to keep in contact with their local authority, to negotiate with it about what they need for their support, how they are going to use and to spend it, what part of it will be cash and what part will be in kind—as a benefit to them. As I said in the previous debate, common sense tells me that it will be the most vulnerable, the most at risk, who are likely to resist most the move from a cash entitlement benefit to a package of support provided by the local authority. The cash entitlement system gives no-questions-asked cash, albeit perhaps not particularly generous sums, rather than the alternative of accessing support on an agreed basis with an agreed package through the young person's adviser. I predict that there will be a steady trickle, if not a flood, of young people from England seeking to claim cash benefits in Scotland—perhaps, for example, when there has been some conflict or disagreement between the young person in question and the young person's adviser or the local authority. The Bill's intention is clear—that no cash alternative will be available to care leavers in England and Wales—but the practical effect of creating an exemption for Scotland will be that there is an alternative, always tantalisingly available, to the care leaver in England. That is to go north, to obtain an address in Scotland and then seek access to means-tested social security benefits in Scotland. That seems to be undesirable. One of the Bill's main purposes has been, rightly, to arrest the drift of children leaving care from areas where they have been brought up and cared for, to London and other big cities—where they are much more vulnerable to people and things that prey on them—and to keep them in contact with their local authorities. We support that objective. It seems to be madness to put in place a mechanism that will offer them an opportunity to access means-tested benefits precisely by moving away from the area where they have been brought up and away from the influence of their local authorities. It seems that that has been done simply to try to paper over the cracks in the devolution settlement, which the Bill has exposed by combining areas that are delegated and areas that are reserved. The Government cannot have it both ways.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Earlier, the hon. Gentleman referred to agencies that had various concerns about aspects of the Bill. That was one of the reasons why he was tabling amendments. I wonder, in relation to amendment No. 25, whether he has been in contact with any child care agency that feels that there will be a flood from Runnymede to Roxburgh to find those benefits. That is for the birds, as I said in Committee.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The hon. Gentleman's views on the matter are well known to me. I would be more interested in him seeking to deal with the point of principle. It may be a trickle, not a flood. I said that it may be a trickle rather than a flood, but I wonder if it sends the right message to young people leaving care that the Government think that it is right that they should not have access to means-tested cash benefits. The Government have put in place a system of probably more generous support—we do not know the details yet—but that means that young people leaving care have to keep in contact with their young persons adviser; essentially, they have to negotiate that package with the adviser. The Government argue—I tend to support them in the argument—that that is a positive thing. That will ensure that the young person is better supported and better able to make the transition from being a young person in care to being an adult finding his own way in society, but it is perverse then to create that one loophole. In Committee, the Minister said that he anticipated a short transition; in other words, he anticipated the period between the introduction of the legislation in England and the passing of similar legislation in Scotland to be short, but, at the same time, he rejected an Opposition amendment that would have required the Secretary of State to give a certificate whereby legislation having substantially the same effect was in place in Scotland before legislation was brought into effect in England, so requiring the Secretary of State to wait until the uniform regime could be applied throughout the UK. It was clearly the intention of the drafters of the Scotland Bill, in reserving social security to this Parliament, to avoid a situation—precisely the one that the Minister proposes to create—where the social security regimes on offer were different in different parts of the UK, creating unnecessary tensions. The Minister told us that it would be only a short transition period. Perhaps, then, he can tell us precisely when he expects the legislation in Scotland to be passed, how he expects that legislation to be passed, given the different views that prevail in the Scottish Parliament, and why he did not accept a proposal that required legislation to be in place in both countries before the Bill came into effect. 8 pm The Government should wait until they can treat all the people of the United Kingdom similarly on a reserved matter such as social security. Anything less undermines one of the important principles that was established when certain types of legislation were reserved for this Parliament.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) started his remarks by expressing concerns about clause 6(7). I assure him that subsection (7) uses a standard form of words for social security legislation, and that its inclusion in the Bill is to allow the Secretary of State the flexibility to react flexibly to future developments. It also allows, for example, the Department of Social Security to pilot new benefit schemes. Therefore, there is nothing alien or fundamentally unsatisfactory about the clause. It is also certainly not in the Bill to exclude Scotland en bloc, as the hon. Gentleman said. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the provisions of clause 6 will commence in England and Wales, but not in Scotland until Scottish legislation is in place. As I said, subsection (7) is simply a standard power in social security legislation to allow that type of flexibility. The hon. Gentleman's remarks seemed to indicate a concern that the Government envisage that different groups of young people will be exempted from the Bill's benefits provisions in the different countries of Great Britain. I assure him that that is not the case. We intend to re-harmonise benefit provision across Great Britain as soon as it is feasible to do so. I also assure him, in answer to his question, that, on 5 July, Scottish Ministers gave a very firm commitment to introducing legislation providing for support for care leavers as soon as possible—in the next Session of the Scottish Parliament, I believe. Once that has been done, we shall be able to commence the use of the terms of clause 6 of the Bill in Scotland, as it will be commenced in England and Wales.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Surely the Minister does not purport to be able to assure the House that the Scottish Parliament will pass such legislation.

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

Of course not; that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. However, the hon. Gentleman asked me when I thought that legislation would be presented to the Scottish Parliament. My information is that it will be introduced in the next Session of the Scottish Parliament. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman made very clear his feelings about devolution. I think that Labour Members and some Opposition Members have detected where he and other Conservative Members stand on devolution. Although that is not a matter for this debate, I suspect that we shall return to it in the next few months. The hon. Gentleman believes that some matters were reserved to Westminster to ensure that there could be no possibility of any variation in them across Great Britain. The Bill deals not only with devolved matters—support for children who are being looked after—but with reserved matters—welfare benefits. We have been very careful to keep in close touch with the Scottish and the Welsh devolved Administrations to be quite certain that they are content with the way in which to handle that new complexity. They are so content. We have also been at pains to ensure that no child is accidentally disadvantaged because of the Bill. We are confident that the Bill will achieve that aim. The Government have made it clear that it is right in principle that social security benefits should be available on a common basis across the country. However, we recognise that there may be occasions when Edinburgh cannot legislate for the same provisions to our own timetable. We need, therefore, to consider the circumstances on a case-by-case basis to decide whether it is essential that the provisions are implemented countrywide. In this case, it is not essential. Rather, we prefer to proceed with implementation of legislation in England and Wales that will benefit very many children for whom the state is responsible and who have to date not always received the best care and support. Consequently, as is obvious to everyone, there will be a transitional period in which benefit entitlement for 16 and 17-year-olds who have been looked after will be different on either side of the Scottish border. The Government agree that the sooner entitlement can be harmonised, the better. However, we do not believe that it would be right to deprive English and Welsh looked-after children of all the benefits of the Bill's provisions, which have received widespread support in both Houses of Parliament and more widely during the Bill's passage. The Government have also been at pains to ensure that, during the transitional period, no child will find himself disqualified for support when he moves across the Scottish border in either direction. The principle is clear: we do not propose to hold up implementation in England and Wales. The practicality will be that the traditional period will be short. As I said, we have assurances from Scottish Ministers that they will legislate for Scotland at the earliest possible opportunity. We had a long and extensive debate on this issue in Committee. I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to proceed with implementation in England as soon as we can, from next April, because the benefits for English and Welsh children are very substantial. We hope to re-harmonise the situation in Scotland at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister talked about needing flexibility in the Bill to deal with future developments. However, it has been made very clear—I do not think that the Minister would deny it—that subsection (7) will be used to deal with the transitional phase. It is simply not good enough for Ministers to wheel out the devolution slur every time we raise issues that are bound to arise as we all get used to dealing with the situation that has been created by the Scotland Act 1998. We are exploring what happens when the House is asked to consider legislation in which—this Bill may be the first such example—most of the provisions deal with devolved matters, for which the Scottish Parliament has full authority and jurisdiction, but one provision deals with a reserved matter. We have to address the issues of timing and of United Kingdom Ministers' inability to give assurances on the passage of appropriate legislation in the other Parliament. I think that it was right to raise the issue. I also do not think that the Minister's comments on devolution and on my comments in Committee will bear scrutiny. By highlighting the issue, we are pointing up—and will continue to point up, whenever the need arises—the inherent instability of the devolution settlement and the need continuously to address such issues. I entirely agree with the Minister when he says that he does not want to deprive Welsh and English children of the legislation's benefits simply because of any tardiness in the Scottish Parliament. I entirely understand his motivation in saying that. In requesting to withdraw my amendment—although I am far from satisfied—I simply say that the Minister has today demonstrated the confusion in the Government's legislative programme. He told us that, when this Bill was being drafted, it was intended that it should receive Royal Assent and be implemented before the Care Standards Act 2000. Events, however, have been the other way around. One might think that the Government should be in sufficient control of their legislative programme to be able at least to determine which of their measures is implemented first. The Minister is now asking us to believe that he can give effective assurances—a nod and a wink—on what will happen in the Scottish Parliament. The Minister may have different information from mine, but my understanding is that—although Scottish Ministers have been given orders by No. 10 Downing street that they have to have legislation mirroring this Bill as soon as possible—the arithmetic in Scotland and the views held there on the withdrawal of cash entitlement benefits from 16 and 17-year-olds are such that the Minister cannot predict with confidence that that legislation will be passed.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there might be a Machiavellian plot to phase the transfer? If it results in a flood of care leavers moving to Scotland to go onto benefits, would that not be a powerful incentive for the Scottish Parliament to pass the same legislation?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

No, I think not. Having made the point—it has been made before, as the Minister rightly said—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

INTERPRETATION, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT, WALES AND SHORT TITLE

John Hutton (Labour, Barrow and Furness)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. At the heart of the Bill lies one simple but powerful idea—that children in care deserve the same chance to get on in life as any other child; but that has never been the reality. Very few young people in care have ever enjoyed the opportunity to thrive and develop. The facts speak for themselves. Children in care make up 25 per cent. of those sleeping rough on the streets of London. Young men previously in care make up 22 per cent. of the prison population and that figure rises to 39 per cent. of those under 21. Fewer than one in three leaves care with a single GCSE pass, compared with 95 per cent. of children overall. That is not the failure of the child in care; it is a failure of the system of care. At long last, we are now beginning to address that. The Bill, together with the other measures we have taken to strengthen and improve children's social services, will lay the foundations for new opportunities for young people in care to get a good education and a good job, to have a stake in and some hope for the future, and to enjoy the same on-going support and help that other children receive as they become adults and move towards independence. It has been in those areas that the care system has let down children in care, often with terrible consequences. By passing the Bill tonight, we have the opportunity to say that we will no longer tolerate those failures in the care system, that we have acknowledged our responsibility to see to it that young people in care get a decent chance in life, and that what is good enough for our own children must, in future, become good enough for every child in care. Children get only one chance in life to grow up—and for them to grow up safely and realise their full potential, they need the active care, help and support of their parents. The new duties and responsibilities placed on local authorities under the Bill will, I believe, help to ensure that looked-after children receive this from their corporate parents. We all recognise that achieving those objectives will take more than a change in the law. Neither can we afford to be complacent about the scale of the challenge, which is real and significant, but the changes made by the Bill will provide a strong impetus to the new approach and culture that we want to see spread across children's social services, where we have higher ambitions for looked-after children so that social services provide young people not just with care, but with a real chance and opportunity in life, equipping them with the skills and knowledge that they need for their future success. The Bill will allow local authorities to do all that for the children in their care and, backed by the new resources for children's social services in the spending review, we are now taking the necessary and essential steps towards meeting the collective responsibility that we owe as a society to looked-after children. Many people have helped ensure that we have taken those steps forward—not only with the Bill tonight, but with the Government's other measures in this area. I should like to thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for both his leadership and his commitment to children in care throughout his time as Secretary of State for Health. He, more than any other person tonight, is entitled to take credit for the Bill. I should also like to thank young care leavers such as Marie Piper and Tommy Turner, who helped us to prepare the Bill and make sure that it addresses the concerns of children in care. Finally, I should like to thank members of the Standing Committee for their positive and helpful scrutiny of the Bill. The Bill marks the beginning of a new deal for young people in care. It signals our determination not only to end the all-too-obvious failures of the past, but to build a new and brighter future for some of the most vulnerable and socially disadvantaged people in our country. It is a good and decent Bill and I ask the House to support it tonight.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I welcome the Minister's remarks. All Opposition Members support the idea of a level playing field and seek to redress some of the disadvantages that children leaving care clearly face compared with those who have been more fortunate and perhaps have had more opportunity to enjoy their childhood and prepare for adult life. We welcomed the Bill when it was introduced. We have consistently welcomed measures that improve the protection of vulnerable children in our society, but that does not mean that we have no significant issues to raise. Some of those issues involve important points of principle, but there has never been any doubt that we support the underlying purpose of the Bill. The Minister has acknowledged that on many occasions. My noble Friends in another place played an important part in mapping out the final shape of the Bill. It builds on the Children Act 1989, which remains the basis of our system of child protection and child support. I am glad to say that there has been a large degree of consensus even when we have needed to debate the details. We have identified weaknesses and failures in a system that is supposed to protect vulnerable children, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that it is time to correct those weaknesses and failures or collectively share the responsibility for allowing them to continue. I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to consult Opposition parties on the regulations. As so often happens, an unnecessary level of tension is created during the passage of the primary legislation because we do not have sight of the regulatory structure that will inform its operation. We have to assume the worst, but I hope that we will be satisfied and reassured by the regulations in respect of many issues on which we have expressed grave concern. In general, if it were possible for Departments to produce draft regulations for hon. Members to consider alongside the primary legislation, we might find that we needed to spend rather fewer hours arguing about things that might never happen, but which we cannot be sure will never happen until we see the precise form of the regulations. I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising his desire for consensus throughout the proceedings on the Bill. As I have said before, I believe that on a matter such as child protection we can only proceed by consensus. The Opposition certainly hope that we will proceed in that way in future, to continue to strengthen and reinforce the body of child support and child protection legislation.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

It is useful to spend a little time reflecting on the importance and qualities of what everyone should regard as a fine piece of legislation. It is a particularly fine measure not only because the Government have drafted it well, prepared it well and consulted on it well in the first place, but because they have altered it and improved it in response to well-informed opinion. Frankly, the best-informed opinion and the highest quality of advice that the Government have received have come from young people with experience of the care system. I dismiss entirely the view that the Government are arrogant or do not listen, and I can cite examples of some of the most vulnerable young people in our society who have been welcomed by Ministers and civil servants and have been fully involved in the crucial work of the Department of Health on areas of concern about which they know so much. That is tremendously to the credit of the Government and those officials. This is very fine and much-needed legislation. I first had formal responsibility for young people in care in 1987. We had in-care meetings and conferences, and young people's concerns about leaving care were always the same. They were left bereft and felt that they were pushed out into the world without support, training or induction or any on-going involvement from local authorities. They were expected to cope independently at an age at which none of us in the Chamber would have been able to cope. It is a testimony to their bravery and resilience that a proportion of those young people came through that experience successfully. Some of the finest people I know have been through the care system and coped with experiences that would daunt anyone, in care and after leaving. There are some individuals who make great efforts. A woman in my constituency runs a children's home, and every Sunday young people and adults as old as their late 30s go back to the home to visit. That is a matter of working way beyond the call of career and duty, through professional and caring values. Of course, we also try to find solutions and put measures in place with housing authorities. I started working with young people in care before the Children Act 1989. There have been many references to that Act tonight. It is a great piece of legislation, embodying the finest principles and making children the focus of concern, with their needs made paramount, but it was left full of holes. Section 24, in particular, which gave powers to local authorities, did not change the situation for children leaving care. There are good and decent people of all parties in the House, but the care system in which I worked up to 4 April 1997 was a disgrace. It was completely inadequate. There may be consensus now on the broad basis of the way forward, but the Labour Government inherited a care system that had palpably failed. When I was working in the system, it did not seem that the Government were listening to our concerns. They seemed not to care about the vulnerable people in the system. They had other values, expressed in statements about there being no such thing as community or society. Their priorities did not include young people in care. When I came to the House, I saw it as a fantastic opportunity to try to change the care system. At a conference three years ago, I outlined what changes I wanted in the care system. I wanted investment, and we are getting an extra £290 million in a five-year programme through quality protects. I wanted attention to standards, and we are getting that through the Care Standards Act 2000. I wanted more money for training, and we are getting that. I wanted attention to be paid to children's rights, and the Government, to their enormous credit, are funding a children's rights director and a new national organisation for children and young people in care. I wanted attention to be focused on the issue of leaving care. If there is one outstandingly excellent thing about the Bill, it is the extension of statutory duties to local authorities for young people up to the age of 21. That is profoundly important and good, and the Government should receive the great credit that they deserve for this excellent measure.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

I join the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) in rejoicing in the Bill. We have gone a long way since the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) gave evidence to the Health Committee and made a commitment to extend local authorities' duties of care to people up to the age of 21. We have had a hiccup or two, but I am glad that we have arrived where we have. There are one or two disappointments. It is sad that the collective brilliance of parliamentary draftsmen could not come up with some way of describing this group of people as young people, rather than children. Nowadays, when people reach 16 they no longer see themselves as children, although technically they might still be so. It is a pity that we have to stick to old-fashioned definitions even when we are discussing what is undoubtedly progressive legislation. Our debates here and in Committee have been very interesting. The concept of a local authority as a corporate parent interests me greatly. One could interpret that in more than one way. One could be corporate in the sense of being a corporation. Sometimes, one got the impression that we were discussing not care plans but business plans, that something had to be delivered against a target, and that there would be no reward unless the target was met. I hope that the framework is firm enough where it has to be, but flexible enough in other areas, so that the corporate parent can act as a tolerant parent. My experience of young people in care is that they are there because their parents were either totally intolerant of them or ignored them, neither of which is very acceptable. The worst situation would be to have a rigid framework in the care planning that disaffected the young people even further. That raises my main concern about the implementation of this excellent Bill. How will it cope with the care leaver who is not motivated to be the good son or daughter of an excellent corporate parent? Most of us have the privilege of 16 years' experience before we start looking after a 16-year-old. It will be a very hard learning curve for local authorities to be able to meet this very important responsibility, which goes far beyond handing out resources and telling people what they can or cannot do. Careers advisers or representatives of the Benefits Agency can do that, but more is involved in the task facing local authorities. Resources are important, and there will never be enough cash resources, but I am more worried about having enough human resources. The Minister has been most helpful in that he has not been too specific about what type of human resources are required. However, the human resources involved should be of high quality, and they should be supported. Our deliberations have not touched on the need to support the advisers and social workers who will have to implement the Bill and work with the children involved. The House has done its best with the Bill, which will pose major headaches and responsibilities for local authorities. We must be tolerant of those authorities and support them as their new role evolves. It is easy to pass legislation that tells people what to do—but much good legislation has failed because the difficulties of implementation have not been resolved. Many hon. Members have experience of the real world. However, I hope that Ministers, who have been so flexible in the guidance that they have created, also understand the need to support the people charged with the vital task of helping children leaving care. Finally, I congratulate the Minister on steering the Bill through the House, and all the members of the Standing Committee. The Minister will not wind up the debate. I am used to ending my contributions by saying that I look forward to what he has to say, but I have heard it all now—often more than once, but then the question has often been asked more than once too.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

Yours have.

Peter Brand (Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight)

I am usually pretty selective in my questions. However, I and my party support the Bill entirely. I hope that its implementation will be a great success.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

I shall be brief. I welcome the Bill very much. Like other hon. Members, I was a social worker for many years, in both the statutory and voluntary sectors. In that work, I saw how much we failed the young people in our care. I can think of young people who were cast adrift on society and who ended up in prison or on the street. The Bill is a tremendous tribute to the Government, and I rejoice in its passage through the House today. I am especially keen to pay tribute to the young people who came up from Wales to the House. They put their views forcibly to hon. Members, from Wales and elsewhere, and were instrumental in some of the amendments that have been made to the Bill in its passage through the two Houses of Parliament. The consultation on the proposals for regulations is taking place in Wales, and issues remain to be worked out. For example, three local authorities have suggested that professional advisers should be volunteers, while others have suggested that they should be paid. Such matters need to be sorted out, in consultation with the young people. I hope that children will never again be cast out into society in the way common when I was a social worker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and everyone involved in the Bill—and especially the young people whom I mentioned earlier.

Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru, Ceredigion)

I, too, welcome this Bill. I am pleased that it has gained so much consensus in the House, and I look forward to its early implementation. Some of the worst care scandals happened in Wales, but it has since been revealed that similar problems have happened in England as well. One of the Government's primary tasks was to restore the confidence and trust of the public—especially of young people—in the care system. That had been lost over the years, for reasons that hon. Members set out in the debate tonight. This Bill and the Care Standards Act 2000 mean that that trust is being restored. The Government are paying attention to what young people and hon. Members have said, and the Bill is part of a package of measures that will improve the lot of young people in care, and of those leaving care. The Bill is slightly better now than when we first considered it three months ago. I welcome the amendments that the Government have made, especially the one that takes account of the need for further education to be considered alongside higher education. That was an important issue, especially for young people leaving care in rural areas. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said, much of the Bill's implementation depends on the guidelines that the Government will set out. The situation in Wales is slightly different from that in the rest of the country, as devolution means that the National Assembly for Wales will decide what those guidelines should be. The hon. Lady mentioned advisers, but the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) also made an important point about advocacy. I hope that the guidelines in Wales, at least, will seek that independent voice in the advocacy services. The right organisations exist in Wales to provide that service, if they are given the right responsibility under the Bill. I am pleased that the Government have resisted the more sanctions-based approach advocated by some hon. Members, and that they have rejected an approach that is based more on the stick than the carrot. Although some young people may not be able to cope with the pathway plan and will not therefore emerge from the system with the proper support, the Bill means that every effort will be made to encourage those young people to work in co-operation with the people charged with looking after them. That is a much better approach. We have to accept that there will be some failures in the care system, but we must ensure that the legislation that we pass is as permissive, enabling and empowering as it can possibly be. The Bill goes a long way towards achieving that. My one concern is that the Bill misses an opportunity to assist former relevant children—young people leaving care—by helping them with training and education up to the age of 24. The Bill is permissive on that account, but I should have liked it to place a duty on local authorities to offer that support. We have some experience of the permissive and discretionary role that local authorities have, and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) mentioned the opportunities in the Children Act 1989 that have been missed. That small chink in the Bill was explored in Committee. I know that the Government are keen to ensure that it does not become a gaping hole, but the Bill could have placed a duty on local authorities to support former relevant children up to the age of 24. We know that 75 per cent. of care leavers have no qualifications, and one of the Bill's primary tasks is to provide a framework to improve their lot. However, that is the only weakness that I can detect in the Bill. That is a wonderful thing to be able to say. The Standing Committee discussing the Bill was my first experience of such work, and I was very pleased to serve on a Committee considering such a progressive and empowering piece of legislation.