Housing and Regeneration Bill

moved Amendment No. 64: 64: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause— ““Duties in relation to care-leavers’ housing (1) In exercising its functions under this Part, the HCA must have regard to the duty of local authorities to provide housing for young persons leaving care under section (Duty to provide housing for young persons leaving care). (2) The HCA may, in co-operation with the relevant local authority, facilitate the provision of such housing.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment and Amendment No. 191 at the request of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who is unable to be with us this evening. He tabled an amendment on the same subject in Committee, but these two amendments are rather new. I respect the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we should beware of management by legislation. We need to take care about that, but we also need to find ways of protecting the most vulnerable people in our society. I am aware that the Bill has a wide remit. Now that I am listening here today, what I have to say feels as if it is on the edge of that remit. Children leaving care are just one of a number of vulnerable groups of young people. The Minister has made clear her reluctance to single out that particular vulnerable group, and I understand an argument for that approach. I am also aware that she is committed to a light-touch approach with local authorities. I am nevertheless hopeful that she will recognise the importance of these amendments, which offer two routes to achieving strategically planned, appropriate housing for all care leavers. It is perhaps worth noting the direct link between these amendments and government Amendment No. 46. It says that the HCA may assist in, "““the prevention or reduction of anti-social behaviour or crime””." It seems very clear to me that the amendments would do more than almost anything I can think of in helping the HCA to achieve that objective. It is worth thinking about that, and I hope that the Minister will consider the relationship between these amendments and her own. There is a strong rationale in favour of the Government taking a special responsibility for these care leavers. Quite simply, where parents have shown themselves unable to exercise their parental responsibilities, the state takes on responsibility for these children. That is entirely different from the state’s responsibility to other vulnerable young people. Parental responsibility does not, of course, come to an end when the child reaches 16, as anyone in this Chamber who is a parent knows all too well. Our responsibility seems to continue until our children are into their 20s, their 30s and, heaven forbid, even beyond. I hope that Amendment No. 64 meets the Minister’s wish for a light-touch approach. It requires the HCA to, "““have regard to the duty of local authorities to provide housing for young persons leaving care””." It enables the agency—it does not force it—in co-operation with the relevant local authority, to facilitate the provision of such housing in the context of its remit to invest in the provision of social housing. Amendment No. 191 is a more direct approach to the problem. It places a duty on local housing authorities to plan, in conjunction with children’s services, for the provision of sufficient appropriate housing for young people leaving care in their area. It is very difficult to imagine that local authorities should not be doing just that, yet we know that many simply do not. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned to me informally that the needs of children leaving care are not just a matter of bricks and mortar, and of course they are not. That is why the amendments refer to appropriate housing. Most of that should be supported housing; we use ““appropriate”” to cover any eventuality or special need. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is not asking anything unreasonable. She may take the view that the amendment would fly in the face of the soft-touch approach. I want to indicate a number of policy areas in which the Government have not taken such an approach, and for very good reasons. I urge the Minister to do what she needs to do to ensure the provision of sufficient appropriate housing for this group of young people—care leavers. I am sure that she will agree that the Government need a careful mix of clear policy direction on the one hand and a soft touch on the other. The Minister will be aware of many areas where departments already direct local authorities to take much needed action. I do not dispute any of that. There is, for example, statutory guidance from various departments to deal with serious social ills. However, the DCSF and DCLG guidance on these matters is not yet on a statutory footing. Will the Minister bring this guidance into line with other similar guidance in giving it statutory force? I hope that she will consider this. I point to a number of existing policies which, with minor amendments to guidance or regulations, would help to achieve the objectives of Amendments Nos. 64 and 191. For example, the Homelessness Act 2002 requires the local authority to develop a strategy for tackling homelessness. We should not require care leavers to become homeless before the requirements on local authorities kick in. I strongly support the National Leaving Care Advisory Service in urging a small change to the guidance to transform the prospects of care leavers. The guidance should say, ““This strategy must include a section on care leavers””. Will the Minister respond to that modest proposal, which would enable or encourage earlier intervention to prevent homelessness rather than wait for it? Another example of a clear government policy directing local authorities in certain ways which could be tweaked is the Children Act. One might say that that has nothing to do with this department, but children's trusts are required to include health, education and social services organisations. Will the Minister consider proposing the additional words, ““and housing authorities””? That is to say that the regulations should surely require children's trusts to include representatives from health, education, social services and housing authorities to make sure that the roof over the head of a child with support is considered by children's trusts. If they do not consider that bit, you can be quite sure that the education, health, employment and everything else will simply not happen. I want to refer to one other helpful way to promote the objectives of our amendments—to provide sufficient appropriate housing for young people leaving care. I want to emphasise that all these proposals are complementary with these amendments. If we had it all we would be making a dramatic impact. If we had some of it, it would be very helpful. As noble Lords will know, successful joint working between children's services and housing authorities is greatly assisted by joint protocols at a local level. The recent joint guidance between the DCSF and the DCLG recommended that such protocols be in place. Would it not be reasonable to tweak the joint guidance to say that such protocols ““shall”” be put in place? Surely that is not unreasonable. I would be interested to hear the Minister's views on that. I have taken noble Lords’ time to explain the purpose of Amendments Nos. 64 and 191 and to spell out other changes to guidance and regulations that could together radically improve the life chances of young people leaving care. I argue that they would radically improve the chances of success of government Amendment No. 46. I remind noble Lords of one reason why this is so important. Ninety per cent of children in children's homes are as mentally unwell as young people and children entering tier 4 in-patient units, and I happen to know a thing or two about the state of health of those children. That is a truly terrible statistic. Those young people are generally looked after with no medication, not in a therapeutic environment and by unskilled people with maybe an NVQ level 1, and at the end of that experience those children are pitched out into housing, unregulated and unsupported. It is no wonder that many of them finish up in prison—hence the importance of government Amendment No. 46. In conclusion, while some local authorities do well and provide appropriate housing for many of their care leavers, the fact is that many simply do not. You can find good practice if you look for it, but it is surely the responsibility of all of us to deal with widespread failure. I hope that the Minister will respond in her usual positive way to Amendments Nos. 64 and 191. I beg to move.