Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

My noble friend Lady Sharp and I added our names to Amendments Nos. 62 and 66 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for all the reasons which I expressed earlier today in moving other amendments on the need for older young people to have ongoing support after they have left care. I shall not say any more about that. But, in the spirit of trying to be helpful and getting the debate moved on in the allotted time, we have also grouped Amendment No. 82 with those amendments, so I shall say a few words about it. Looked-after children may have additional learning and behavioural needs. Indeed, special educational needs are more frequent in this group than in the normal population of children. It is important therefore that the provisions under Clause 19 refer to the SEN code and the transition post-16 plan, which is generally prepared for young people with a statement in year 9 of their schooling. Paragraph 9.14 of the SEN code of practice says: "““The Transition Plan should draw together information from a range of individuals within and beyond school in order to plan coherently for the young person's transition to adult life””." When first drawn up in year 9, a transition plan is, "““not simply about post-school arrangements. It should also plan for on-going school provision, under the statement of special educational needs as overseen by the LEA””." This amendment would ensure that the planning process is carried out in conjunction with other agencies through transition planning, rather than by single agencies in isolation. Again, Every Child Matters has supported this amendment. In addition, assurances are being sought that young disabled people who have looked-after status will have access to personal advisers, because it was felt that paragraph 6.45 in the White Paper was somewhat confused on that point. Perhaps the Minister would respond to that in writing. Transition to adulthood for disabled young people was described in the parliamentary hearings on services for disabled children as being like a black hole. I know that the Government have recognised that concern by allocating £35 million within the Aiming High for Disabled Children framework to fund a new transition support programme. However, the concern about outcomes for disabled young people in transition is magnified for those young people who are attending residential provision, many of whom are not in regular meaningful contact with their home authority because they may be some distance away. This amendment requires local authority staff responsible for SEN transition planning and pathway planning for care leavers to collaborate effectively to ensure the best possible outcomes for young disabled people leaving care. Collaborative planning and multi-agency working is very much the fashion these days for very good reason and should be applied in this case.