Members present:

Dr Hendron (Chairperson)
Mr Berry
Rev Robert Coulter
Mr J Kelly
Ms McWilliams
Ms Ramsey
Mrs I Robinson

Witnesses:

Mr J Clarke ) Department of Health,
Mr D McGowan ) Social Services and
Ms M Reynolds ) Public Safety

The Chairperson: I welcome Mr John Clarke, Ms Marion Reynolds and Mr David McGowan from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Please give the Committee a general overview of the Bill and its explanatory notes and financial memorandum.

Mr Clarke: This is a short Bill with nine clauses. It will provide significant resources for young people leaving the care system. The essential backcloth is the Social Services Inspectorate’s report, ‘Promoting Independence: A Review of Leaving And After Care Services", that was published in October 2000.

Young people leaving care suffer several disadvantages in practically every area compared with their peers, and they have particular problems with education and accommodation. Essentially, the intention behind the Bill is to firm up the existing provision for leaving and aftercare services in article 35 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

The Bill will introduce provision for the assessment of young people’s needs. A personal adviser will be appointed for them who will act, as it were, as a good parent would for an older child. A pathway plan will be put into effect. That will be, in a sense, an extension of a care plan. It will focus on helping young people make the transition to independent adult living. That is the background to the Bill. Does the Committee wish to go into clause-by-clause consideration?

The Chairperson: I will leave that up to you, Mr Clarke.

Mr Clarke: I have heard that there has been some confusion about the categories of entitlement mentioned in the equivalent legislation in England and Wales. The Bill mentions eligible children, relevant children and former relevant children. I have a prepared an aide memoire, which I will share with the Committee. Sometimes the wording of legislation can be an obstacle.

The Chairperson: Thank you; that would be helpful.

Mr Clarke: The aide memoire basically states what the Bill is about.

Clause 1 introduces the concept of an eligible child, which is a 16- or 17-year-old who is, and has been, in care for a prescribed period. Prescribed periods will be set out in regulations made under the Bill. If we follow the same path as England, then the prescribed period will be 13 weeks. The prescribed age will probably be 14. However, although it is subject to discussion at regulation- making stage, it is something that should be considered now.

Trusts will be required to assess the needs of each eligible child with a view to determining what advice, assistance and support they should provide to young people while in care and when they have left care. It is important to realise that this transition activity will begin with an assessment of their needs, and preparations will be made before they leave care. All eligible children will have the right to a pathway plan based on the assessment. The plan will be reviewed regularly and it will cover education, training, career plans and the trust’s support in helping young people achieve their full potential.

Do any members have comments on clause 1, or will I move on?

The Chairperson: Please proceed, Mr Clarke.

Mr Clarke: Clause 2 will insert new articles into the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which will impose new duties on trusts for children and young people that they formerly looked after. Article 34B will introduce the concept of the relevant child as being a 16- or 17-year-old who has left care and was an eligible child whilst in care. Other children who are care leavers would still be entitled to the existing range of aftercare provision.

Clause 2 will also introduce the concept of the responsible authority, which will be the final trust that looked after young people whilst in care: that trust will continue to be responsible for them. That will ensure continuity in the child’s life and that they will not be passed from trust to trust and from authority to authority.

The responsible authority will be required to keep in touch with the relevant child and, where contact is lost, it must continue to make reasonable steps to re-establish contact. That will ensure that trusts will no longer be able to forget about children who have left their care; they will have a continuing responsibility.

The responsible authority will be required to appoint a personal adviser for each relevant child if this has not been done already when the child was in care and was, therefore, an eligible child.

Responsible authorities will be required to ensure that the relevant children have regularly reviewed pathway plans based on an assessment of their needs. The Department will be given powers through regulations to prescribe who is to be consulted about an assessment; how it is to be carried out; the recording of results and any other considerations to which trusts must have regard in carrying out the assessment.

Trusts will be required to safeguard and promote the welfare of relevant children by maintaining and accommodating young people, and providing such other support as may be prescribed by regulations.

The Department will also need to prescribe the meaning of "suitable accommodation". There is a concern about the word "regulation" — and I use that word lightly in this context — as regards the types of accommodation young care leavers can end up in. The Department will have to look closely at this when it is implementing the legislation. It will have to be realistic about what can be provided. However, the Department will have to pay due regard to the standards that must be applied to this type of accommodation because it would not fall within the category of children’s homes or other dwellings that are currently regulated.

Article 34D will introduce the concept of former relevant children; those who qualified for support as relevant or eligible children and who are now aged 18 or over. I hope that my aide memoire explains it fully because the term has been criticised by legal authorities. In fairness, there was probably no other way of wording the term, but perhaps there could be other titles.

The responsible authority’s continuing duties towards care leavers includes keeping in touch, re-establishing contact, continuing the appointment of a personal adviser for each former relevant child and continuing to keep the pathway plan under regular review. Legalistically, it is a continuation of the role of good parenting.

Assistance in kind, or exceptionally in cash, will be provided for expenses associated with employment, education and training. That will be particularly important to the long-term future of those young people. In assisting young people with education and training, trusts will be required to disregard any interruption in their attendance on a course if resumed as soon as is reasonably possible. In addition, trusts will be required to provide vacation accommodation, or the funds to secure it, where necessary. Vacation accommodation is a very important area, and young care leavers are potentially disadvantaged when compared with their peers. Accommodation during term time in higher education is relatively straightforward, but there is potential for particular difficulties with accommodation in vacation periods.

The duties of relevant authorities will continue until the young person is 21, except when assistance with education and training is being provided. In that case, assistance will continue until the end of an agreed programme, even if it runs beyond the young person’s twenty-first birthday. That is sensible. Throughout that time, trusts will be responsible for keeping in touch with the young people, and providing them with a pathway plan and a personal adviser.

Ms Ramsey: You mentioned the young person’s adviser several times. The written submission from Barnardo’s highlighted the issue of how that role would be resourced and how the adviser would be kept up to date with changes in housing and benefits legislation. How many young people will be affected? How many will slip through the net before the legislation is in place?

Will there be additional finance for this provision? The Committee’s inquiry into children and young people touched on matters such as residential care, and the Committee is aware of the issue about finance to children’s services in general.

I know that the explanatory and financial memorandum is not the be-all and end-all. However, paragraph 16 states:

Ms Ramsey: Uniformity of approach across trusts in respect of finance was discussed briefly following Mr McConaghy’s presentation. I agree with that, but has the Department taken on board the issue of the cost of living in different areas here? Many people will have questions about that, and we will return to it next week.

Barnardo’s have pointed out — and I am hearing it from the public — that the benefits system in England for care leavers has not worked well. Barnardo’s will be raising that as an issue. There is definitely a case for a single benefits system. Please explain the impact that the difficulties with the benefits system will have on young people leaving care.

Mr Clarke: Personal advisers will need to be thoroughly trained and be very familiar with the benefits and housing systems. It is a specialist role. Views differ as to who personal advisers should be; the legislation leaves it open. Some people may see it as being essentially part of a social worker’s role, but I do not necessarily agree. The role could be filled by a person with the relevant training — someone with the ability to communicate and empathise with young people and who can provide them with the necessary support. That might take it outside the social work field.

Ms Ramsey mentioned wider considerations in children’s services, and there may be an issue as regards the overall supply of trained social work staff. We will need to consider whether it is practical for social workers to take on every conceivable role as regards children.

Ms Ramsey: Young people asked First Key if they would get to choose their adviser: they do not get to choose their social worker.

Mr Clarke: The legislation will not provide for choice. Some young people have told me that they would prefer not to have their social worker. That is their view. Where it is possible to provide choice, it would be reasonable to do so, because we are asking someone to empathise with the young person and whom the young person can be comfortable with. There needs to be an element of choice, therefore, as to whether they want that role to be fulfilled by their social worker or not. It will depend on circumstances. Some young people will want that continuity but others will not. I have spoken to Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC) in the past, and some young people were adamant that they did not want their social worker as an adviser. The number of young people involved was mentioned. It is about 200 a year.

Ms Reynolds: The figure would be different if all eligible young people being prepared for independence were included. Some eligible children currently in foster care would not be included in the ‘Promoting Independence’ report figures. We would need to check that. The number would be greater.

Mr Clarke: There will be a build-up of young people under this legislation. It will immediately affect the 200 young people leaving care at that time. However, there will be an approximate doubling of the numbers in the second and third years as more young people leave care.

You mentioned the comment in paragraph 16 of the explanatory and financial memorandum, which is really about removing benefits. We have not reached that clause yet, but it is about young care leavers — 16-and 17-year olds — and their entitlement to benefit. We are conscious of the divergence of views, and I know that many people commented on the issue.

The Department’s intention is to improve the life chances of those young people and that financial support be co-ordinated through a single channel — that is the principle on which the Bill is based. The concern is that it will be perceived that the Department’s intention — through the introduction of the young person’s advisor and the new legislation — will be to view young care leavers as people who go on to the benefit system. Resources from the benefit system, which would be drawn into the Department under transfer arrangements, must be co-ordinated in a way that will assist young people in education and training designed to get them a job. I am not being critical of the benefit system. Those young people have particular needs, and resources need to be pooled to bring their future more into line with that of other young people.

Ms McWilliams: The Guardian Ad Litem Agency’s submission provides an overview of how the Department might involve itself in a comprehensive children’s strategy, and it comes to an interesting conclusion. It states that to implement the legislation will require detailed regulations, a significant increase in funding, an infrastructure that can deliver and a considerable commitment from well-trained and well-resourced staff. The submissions from the trusts state that leaving and aftercare service is very underfunded. How will the legislation work given that we do not have a comprehensive children’s strategy in mind?

We have been told that £400,000 in the current budget has been committed for the implementation process yet this seems to be a completely different way forward for this age group and will command an enormous amount of resources. If we are to get this right we need to have a completely different type of worker. In the absence of a comprehensive strategy and an infrastructure that can deliver well-trained and well-resourced staff, how can this be implemented successfully? Mr Clarke was present when Down Lisburn Trust gave evidence to the Committee about things that went seriously wrong with a much younger group. Things have gone seriously wrong in the whole area of children leaving care, and the Committee is concerned about huge promises being made but not delivered.

Mr Clarke: I agree. Undoubtedly the legislation must be placed within a wider strategy. In England and Wales the leaving care arrangements are part of the ‘Quality Protects’ initiative. That links with residential care and fostering because we are saying that children should be prepared for leaving care and should not be just "thrown out". There are links between all of the services.

The resources allocated for the legislative requirements of child and family care this year amounted to £1·5 million. However, those resources are currently allocated to boards for the enhancement of family and childcare services. The Department has assumed that £500,000 of that money would go to this piece of legislation. The £500,000 would not be for residential care; it would be specifically for these legislative requirements.

The resources have been allocated in advance of the legislation and it will be recurring money. It will go towards laying the foundation for the resources that will be required. With a view to implementing the legislation, we have identified an inter-agency group involving the voluntary sector. It is in a preliminary stage at the moment, since the legislation has not been passed. We will have to map out existing provision and future costs. The current information suggests that £500,000 will be required in the first year with higher amounts thereafter, when more people will become eligible.

Ms McWilliams: Have costs for the next three years been calculated?

Mr Clarke: Yes, but only on the basis of assumptions. A great deal of work has to be done to assess the additional requirement. The assessment comprises the baseline provision together with that of statutory and voluntary groups — no separation has been made. We must be careful that the additionality provided by the Department in this area will not be offset by a reduction in funding in another area. The baseline is important.

Ms McWilliams: I am glad we have reached that issue. We must be certain that we shall not lose funding in other areas, which has been a criticism in the past.

Mr Clarke: That is what I fear also.

Ms McWilliams: The Committee, in scrutinising future budgets, would like to be able to see that the money set down for this legislation has been secured. If that is not done then it will leave the Committee in the position of trying to calculate baselines for one year and projections for the next.

Would Mr Clarke provide the Committee with some indication of costs over the next few years? We are about to carry out the comprehensive spending review, which is based on a three-year prediction. The Committee would like to be able to secure funding for this legislation and ensure that money is not sliced from another area.

One evaluation concerning community care makes some interesting suggestions about personal advisers. First, we are assuming that the personal adviser will have to be a trust employee because the trusts, in their submissions, stated that if trust resources are to be committed, the person would have to be a trust employee. Is that correct?

Mr Clarke: I am not sure whether the personal adviser would be a trust employee or if the job could be created through a fee attracting arrangement. There are a variety of options. Trusts might employ people on a contract basis. I am not saying that would be the case, but it is possible.

Several trusts have said that they envisage the arrangement as being solely part of the existing social work set up. The Department would not want it to be as narrow as that because of some of the issues we have been talking about. We may wish to create a more flexible situation. Trusts would be responsible for ensuring provision but it would also be for them to decide the most suitable method.

Ms McWilliams: Could they sub-contract the work?

Mr Clarke: My view, in advance of detail, is that flexible approaches could be used, bearing in mind that the responsibility would be on trusts to ensure that the provision is made.

Ms McWilliams: Social workers will say that this is another duty being added to an already overloaded agenda.

Mr Clarke: I agree. Some trusts have said that the personal adviser must be a social worker. However, knowing the pressures on social workers, I would have thought that the pragmatic point of view suggests that a range of options be considered. It should not necessarily be assumed that every function involving work with children is necessarily for social workers.

Ms McWilliams: Some submissions have outlined the type of skills that would be required and they suggest that skilled negotiators would be required — people ready to work with challenging behaviour. Some people will be working with young people from offending backgrounds.

This will be a very demanding job if it is to be carried out properly. Community care suggests that it may involve two workers. Thirty young people leaving care were interviewed and they suggested that the best proposal might be to have a combination of social services and a second support worker. Have you heard similar imaginative proposals? If this is to be successful there must be continuity. Young people are being passed from pillar to post. They come from many different backgrounds perhaps never having built up solid relationships. Social workers are telling us that they do not have the time to provide such a relationship and that we may need to look at a different arrangement.

Mr Clarke: That is an issue. I spoke earlier about continuity and the importance of continuity of social workers for some young people.

The Chairperson: Clearly we are going to need more appropriately trained social workers.

Mr Clarke: I would not necessarily presume that. The danger in such a presumption is that the job is seen purely as one for social workers.

The Chairperson: I am concerned about the possibility of contracting out the work.

Ms McWilliams: The current wording in the Bill suggests that a young person’s adviser would be one person. The Committee may wish to consider an amendment to facilitate the possibility of more than one personal adviser for a child.

The Chairperson: I would like to bring in other Committee members. I am sorry Ms McWilliams, I know what you are saying is very important.

Ms McWilliams: Could I have a response to my question?

Ms Reynolds: One issue that arose during our inspections with young people is how many people are involved with them. Young people seem to resent that. They are asking for one person to look after their needs for an extended period of time.

The turnover of family and childcare social workers has created considerable problems because children not only have to deal with the changeover of placements but also the turnover of staff. There should be a specialist personal adviser who can be a focal point for the child and take care of all of the child’s needs rather than introducing the child to an increasing range of people. We should limit the number of people who come into the child’s life at this transitional stage.

Ms McWilliams: It has been suggested that there should be a combination of a social service employee working with a second support worker chosen by the young person. Currently there is a conflict because the word "appointed" is in the legislation, but we will return to that later.

Mr J Kelly: How many children would each personal adviser be responsible for? Will the new arrangements apply to young people previously looked after under an accommodation care order but who are in a juvenile justice setting under a juvenile justice order? In such circumstances clear mechanisms need to be established to ensure that trust assessors meet need and create pathway plans in appointing an adviser. How will that be arranged?

Will young disabled people, looked after within trust disability programmes, be eligible under the legislation? In some circumstances "leaving care" should focus less on making a move forward to independence and more on helping the young person make a smooth and successful transition to adult life.

Will disabled children, in receipt of respite care arrangements over an extended period, qualify under the new arrangements? Under the existing legislation, such children are regarded as being protected by social services.

Mr Clarke: The number of children each young person’s adviser would look after would have to be calculated; it will depend on the level of involvement.

Mr J Kelly: You mentioned 200.

Mr Clarke: That is across the whole Province, and there are already leaving and aftercare teams involved. Realistically, I cannot quote you a figure on how many children will be looked after by each young person’s adviser, especially as there is a range of options in the number of people that would be involved. We would have to ensure, through implementation, that there are enough advisers to provide the necessary support, and that will vary greatly from child to child.

Mr McGowan: It will also depend on the children because they would be involved in the choice. The trust will be able to draw from a pool of advisers. Each adviser will have a caseload, but we have not identified what that will be.

Mr Clarke: The qualification periods for the new arrangements will continue to operate for children being looked after by trusts under a care order. The timescale criteria will apply as long as the care order is in effect.

Mr J Kelly: Do children in juvenile justice care qualify?

Mr Clarke: The child must be looked after by a trust. Where a trust has a care order, that order will still run if a young person is in the juvenile justice system. The qualification relates to the care order.

The Chairperson: This is a general overview of the Bill. We will be going through the Bill in more detail.

Ms Ramsey: Mr Clarke said that the duty is on the trust to provide a personal adviser. The Bill states that no matter where the child goes the trust is required to provide the adviser. If the trust is in Derry and the child moves to Belfast, would the young person’s adviser follow the child?

Mr Clarke: The child remains under the care of the trust responsible. That is part of the continuity.

Ms Ramsey: I understand that; but the Department must be careful about how many children are assigned to each adviser because they could be spread over many areas.

Mrs I Robinson: I am concerned about confusion, overlapping and duplication between the young person’s adviser and the social worker. I do not understand how the duties will be separated to avoid confusion. It will take a lot of money to introduce this system and I am worried about how the Department will distinguish between the roles. Where will young people’s advisers come from? Surely, they would have to be employed by trusts?

Mr Clarke: The trust will be responsible for providing young person’s advisers. The important thing is to ensure that there is continuity for a young person before and after leaving care. That is a fundamental principle that everyone is agreed on.

Mrs I Robinson: Is the young person’s adviser not really a social worker with added responsibilities?

Mr Clarke: For some young people the continuity could be established through their social worker. However, that may not work for other young people, as some want to break away from social workers. It will be the trust’s responsibility to ensure continuity. The young person will have the choice to part from the social worker. However, the obvious person to act as a young person’s adviser is the one who has been working with the child while he was in care. However, for a variety of reasons, that may not be practical.

Continuity is important and this will be emphasised by the fact that work on leaving care must start before the child leaves care. The legislation will provide for a pathway plan, among other things, to be started while the child is in care. The young person’s adviser will be introduced before the young person leaves care.

Mr Berry: I would like more clarification about the young person’s adviser. I understand that trusts will be responsible for appointing the young person’s adviser. There seems to be some confusion. In its submission, Armagh and Dungannon Health and Social Services Trust stated:

Mr Berry: Why are the trusts asking who the advisors will be?

Mr Clarke: One thing we must be clear about is that this is the legislative framework; the implementation will be carried out by the trusts and the voluntary sector. We have been discussing who the young person’s personal adviser would be. The legislation simply provides that trusts will be responsible for ensuring that there will be a young person’s adviser.

The detailed arrangements that the trusts are getting into will have to be taken forward when the procedures are being implemented. The appropriate regulations and guidance have to be drawn up, and the implementation group will include representatives of the trust and the voluntary sector. The issues will become clearer as we progress towards implementation.

This Bill is a framework; the regulations and guidance will underpin it. Arguably, that is where the meat will be, and that will be the subject of consultation. The Committee will be interested to see the outcome.

Rev Robert Coulter: I am worried when I hear the word "assumption" at this stage. How many extra staff do you assume will be required, and will they be administrative staff?

Mr Clarke: We do not have an answer on the numbers of administrative staff that will be required. Leaving and aftercare services are already subject to statutory provision, and teams are already in each area due to existing legislative requirements. We are talking about enhancing and realigning that.

Rev Robert Coulter: How many extra staff do you assume will be required to implement the legislation?

Mr Clarke: I do not know whether we can make a precise assumption at this stage. Different areas will have to be looked at during the implementation stage, including whether the young person’s adviser would be one person or whether support staff would be needed.

Rev Robert Coulter: We are dealing with a Health Service that is already underfunded, overburdened with administrators and strapped for cash in carrying out its remit. Nevertheless, we are looking at more legislation that will add more staff, and we are not being given a definitive statement about the extra burden that will put on the Health Service.

Mr Clarke: We are working on an assumption, and £1·5 million of extra resources will be provided this year towards legislative requirements arising out of the child and family care services. We are already putting in resources.

Rev Robert Coulter: And those resources will be ring-fenced.

Mr Clarke: That is a wider issue, and the Department’s position on ring fencing is known. I cannot add anything to that.

Rev Robert Coulter: Clause 5 says:

The Chairperson: Thank you. We will be looking at this important subject again.