Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 85: 85: After Clause 20, insert the following new Clause— ““Statements: looked after children In section 324 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) (statement of special educational needs), after subsection (8) insert— ““(8A) Where a statement specifies a school or type of school that would result in a child not being ordinarily resident with their parent, the child is to be a looked after child for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) from the date the statement is implemented, unless the authority decides that it is not in the child’s best interests be a looked after child. (8B) In determining the child’s best interests for the purposes of subsection (8A) the authority must have specific regard to the likelihood of the child’s parent maintaining regular and ongoing contact with the child during the placement.”””” The noble Lord said: I move the amendment to introduce an important safeguard: promoting the safety and well-being of disabled children living away from home. I am grateful to the three Members of the Committee who have added their names to the amendment, thus giving me cross-party support. Currently, disabled children in 52-week residential school placements do not have the protection of looked-after status. These are some of the most vulnerable children and young people in society. They are in effect living away from home permanently; they are mostly a long way from their family home and often parents can find it difficult to visit them. We know that disabled children living away from home are more likely than others to be abused, because research shows that, in general, disabled children are more than three times as likely to be abused as other children. Looked-after status acts as an important safeguard for those children who do not live with their families. It means that a plan is drawn up which considers all of the child’s needs, including arrangements for them to keep in contact with their families wherever possible. There is a legal requirement that a designated social worker visits regularly and formally reviews how the child is getting on at set intervals. That gives an extra level of protection that I am sure we would all want for all children living away from their parents. Without looked-after status, those safeguards simply do not exist. For disabled children in residential special schools, the law says that the school should review a child’s statement of special educational needs annually. However, research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that many local education authorities do not attend these meetings and, when they do, they tend to focus only on the child’s education, not on their other needs. This does not promote the welfare of the whole child, which is what children and young people who are living away from their families need. Of course, some parents whose disabled children are placed away from home do have the time, resources and capacity to visit their children frequently and regularly. My amendment therefore gives discretion to local authorities so that, when they are certain that a child enjoys ongoing contact with their family, looked-after status is not necessary. While I welcome the Bill’s new measures outlined in Clause 16, which propose an annual visit to children in residential placements, I am concerned that they will make little practical difference. They are dependent on Sections 85 and 86 of the Children Act 1989, which require home authorities to be informed when children are in long-term health or educational settings. However, government-commissioned research shows that this is not happening. As a minimum, we need guidance to remind health and education services of their notification duties. However, what we really need is for these children to have full looked-after status. After all, is one visit a year enough to protect a vulnerable child with severe learning disabilities and, perhaps, no speech? Why should disabled children have a lesser level of safeguarding protection than other children placed away from home? Mencap, the organisation of which I am proud to be president, has a long-standing relationship with Sunfield School, a residential special school in Worcestershire for children with severe and complex learning disabilities. The school insists that all children placed there have looked-after status and the regular visits and monitoring of the child that this brings. This is not done to stigmatise the child’s family, but simply to recognise the fact that the child’s family is not there. The child is cared for by the school, not by the parents. Sunfield School feels that, without this, children are more vulnerable because they are far away from home and have little involvement with their families. The school takes the issue very seriously and the amendment would ensure that other schools and local authorities would follow its excellent example. The amendment is not just about safeguarding, it also tackles the issue of accountability. Residential placements of 52 weeks are expensive. Do you want to spend £100,000 on average each year on a residential placement for a child and not want to be regularly updated about how that child is progressing? In response to my speech at Second Reading, the Minister stated that the issue of looked-after status should depend, "““on the assessment of the particular needs of each child and the nature of their disability””.—[Official Report, 26/11/07; col. 1097.]" We agree that each child’s individual needs should be paramount. This is why the amendment would give local authorities the freedom to decide on looked-after status based on whether it is in the child’s ““best interests””. But the crucial difference, if the amendment were to be accepted, is that looked-after status would automatically be conferred on the disabled child placed away from home, unless their best interests prove that to be unnecessary. I hope that our shared desire to safeguard and protect some of the most vulnerable children will mean that the Minister is able to offer government support for the amendment. I beg to move.