Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 28: 28: Clause 8, page 6, line 6, leave out subsection (2) The noble Earl said: My intention in proposing to remove this subsection is to allow a general debate on the implications of the requirement on local authorities to place children locally, save in exceptional circumstances. I hope that it will be helpful if I raise two matters. First, as I indicated at Second Reading, I am concerned that the imprudent application of this clause might result in the loss of vital good-quality specialist provision. Secondly, I am anxious that good-quality foster placements near to a child’s home but in a neighbouring local authority should not be lost. In the past, efforts to encourage local authorities to place more children in borough appear to have resulted in disruption to placements. The policy is right in principle, but it is the practice that matters. Guidance on this clause needs to be carefully drawn and its implementation must be carefully monitored. I understand that in Wales, where requirements to this effect are in place, there has been disruption to proximate out-of-authority placements. I am awaiting detailed information on that and will it forward to the Minister as soon as I receive it. I was grateful for the Minister’s reply at Second Reading, but further reassurance would be welcome. Three years ago, a letter was sent from the DfES, as it was then, to local authorities requiring them to place children within a 20-mile radius of their home, unless it was against the interests of a child to do so. I paraphrase the letter, but it was explicit that local authorities should avoid disrupting out-of-authority placements. None the less, some local authorities appear to have interpreted it as meaning that they should pull the plug on out-of-authority placements. A questionnaire from the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care found that 24 per cent of respondents had experienced such premature removals. Fifty per cent of commissioners and 79 per cent of providers agreed that, when commissioning, price was a more important motivator now than two years ago. Half the voluntary and independent providers reported reduced occupancy and two-thirds said that they were receiving insufficient referrals. It is therefore essential that we see the guidance in draft as soon as possible. Can the Minister say whether we might see it before Report? This occurrence adds all the more weight to the request by my noble friend Lord Laming that local authorities should be obliged to produce a commissioning strategy for their looked-after children. Local authorities need to be proactive rather than crudely reactive. I welcome what the Minister said on an earlier day in Committee about the improvements being planned for commissioning and those that have already been undertaken. I look forward to meeting some of his advisers during the passage of the Bill to discuss this further. Specialist provision can be more costly in the short term. Children are often prematurely withdrawn from such services. A child appears to be better, and the local authority therefore removes him. In fact, the removal of the symptoms may be only the first stage of addressing the fundamental needs of a traumatised child. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children service for young abusers in north London, albeit a non-residential service, has often had such experiences. The Mulberry Bush School in Cambridgeshire provides residential care for the most troubled children. I have visited the school, which has very good Ofsted reports. A documentary to be broadcast later this year shows children arriving who kick, punch and spit at staff. They often need to be restrained by more than two staff members. The programme shows how, over time, the children’s behaviour changes. There is a particularly touching scene of a child’s bedtime, when his carer holds him tenderly. The Mulberry Bush is so well respected that I doubt whether this clause would impact on its clients commissioning its services. However, the institution illustrates the value of highly specialist residential provision. If local authorities avoid using out-of-authority specialist residential provision in future, there is the danger that some children will experience increased levels of multiple placement breakdown, something about which we are all most concerned. Will the Minister seek to monitor this by introducing a mechanism to check how many children have more than five, 10 and 12 placements each year? I welcome the Government’s PSA target on ensuring that children have no more than three placements a year, but as I understand it there is no lever on local authorities. It does not really matter much to the child how many more times over the limit they are placed, whether it is four, five, six or seven times. If the limit of three is exceeded, there does not appear to be any mechanism to prevent the child from being shifted around. It would be helpful to know how this is monitored. I welcome the reduction in the number of children who experience more than three placements a year and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.