Lord Watson of Invergowrie:

Moved by Lord Watson of Invergowrie

84: Clause 7, page 12, line 8, after “support” insert “and staying put support”

My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this group of amendments, half of which are in my name. Before I go on to them, I will say a word about yesterday’s spending review. I apologise that I could not be here for my noble friend Lord Livermore’s session, just before we started the Bill.

There was significant spend announced yesterday on wider children’s social care. The review stated:

“This settlement will improve support for England’s most vulnerable children and young people by setting aside £555 million over the SR period from the Transformation Fund for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government … and DfE, as well as total capital investment of over £560 million to reform the children’s social care system and support the refurbishment and expansion of the children’s homes estate. This will help more children and families stay safely together, expand support for care leavers and fix the broken care market”.

It obviously remains to be seen how that will shake down, but I think it is a very promising start and a real indication of how seriously the Government view the current situation as far as the children’s social care sector is concerned.

In its present form, the Bill extends Staying Close support only to young people up to the age of 25—that is for any relevant child in residential care—but not Staying Put support for those former relevant children who are living in foster care. The increased support that the Bill provides for care leavers is welcome, but it risks creating a two-tier system for care leavers in residential and foster care. More needs to be done for young people in foster care who want to remain with their foster family beyond the age of 21. The amendments in my name in this group seek to extend entitlement up to the age of 25, with proper funding. I suggest that the figures I have just quoted would be a suitable source for at least part of that.

The last issue may be a sticking point for the Government, but it need not be. Even if the money I mentioned is intended for elsewhere, in the long term there would be significant cost benefits to the Treasury if young people were allowed to stay in foster care beyond the age of 21. Both Ministers will be familiar with that argument, because it was set out in the widely respected Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, published three years ago, commonly referred to as the MacAlister report. That report quoted figures from 2020, which showed that the average cost of a residential care placement was £3,830 a week, annualised to £199,000. By contrast, an average foster care placement was costed at £71,000 per year, or just 35% of a residential care placement.

The benefits of foster care were recognised in the Children and Families Act 2014, which extended the right of young people in England to stay with their foster family from the age of 18 to the age of 21 under what became the Staying Put arrangement. The Fostering Network has shown that many young people and foster carers would like the children they are fostering to stay with them beyond 21 but that most often cannot, because there is currently no provision in law for this or funding to support it. I very firmly believe that there should be.

On average, a young person living with their birth parents does not leave home until the age of 24, though if they do not want to leave home at that age—and there are very often strong financial reasons for not doing so—they simply remain where they are. It just seems wrong to me that children in foster care should be forced to leave their foster parents unless those parents are in a position to replace the support previously provided by the state.

The MacAlister report stated that the current cliff edge that care leavers face puts them at a severe disadvantage when navigating adult life. It is widely acknowledged that young people experience better outcomes when they remain in family environments through foster care, adoptive care or kinship care in comparison to residential care. It is known that foster carers are often best placed to prepare the young people in their care for independence, because they are the most trusted adult known to the young people. Surely they should have the same support and opportunities to stay beyond 21 in the environment they feel most comfortable as those living in residential care.

When an amendment to extend Staying Put support for young people up to the age of 25 in line with Staying Close support was tabled in another place, the Minister refused, stating that they recognised the case made but felt the need to prioritise young people in residential care, who often have the most complex needs. That is all very well, but young people in foster care also have complex needs, and many young people are placed in residential care only because there are not enough foster places available for them, or, beyond the age of 21, because they have nowhere to go. Ofsted reported in 2022 that one-third of children in residential care had foster care on their plan when they arrived.

I certainly would not want to give the impression I am seeking to pit the needs of those in foster care against those in residential care. Through the Staying Close provisions in Clause 7, the Bill greatly benefits a relatively small but nonetheless significant group of vulnerable young people in care by extending Staying Close to 25. Some young people either wish to or need to be accommodated in children’s homes, and often that is because, for whatever reason, foster care has not met their needs, resulting perhaps in multiple unsuccessful placements. It is important to say that the amendments in this group would help those in residential care, as well as those in foster care. These young people—essentially the same group of young people—should not be subject to a two-tier system, not least because it is well-evidenced that it is generally in a young person’s best interest to live in foster care and a family environment post-18 to improve outcomes as they transition into adulthood.

I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will remind your Lordships’ Committee that an extension of Staying Put to age 23, as proposed by the MacAlister report, was committed to by the previous Government in their response to MacAlister, though of course it was never actually introduced. I say to my noble friend the Minister: please do not allow this Bill to be a missed opportunity to provide support for care leavers by extending the Staying Put scheme to enable children in foster care to remain with their former foster carer beyond the age of 21. I beg to move.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Watson, having attached my name to all the amendments in this group that include extending Staying Put support for young people up to the age of 25. The noble Lord has already made the case very well, so I will not repeat all the stats and the recommendations that we had from the MacAlister report et cetera, but it is worth reflecting on how hard it is today for young people to be independent at the age of 21. The Office for National Statistics report last year showed that, across our society, the average age at which a child moves out of their family home is 24. Surely the state should also be providing the kind of care that children are getting in families.

I also have a genuine question that I have not been able to establish the answer to. These amendments and the Government’s plans cover both children in foster care and those in institutional arrangements. My understanding is that about 40% of 17 year-olds are staying in unregulated or independent accommodation, and it would appear that at the moment they are falling through the cracks and not being covered by either these amendments or what is happening here, so I would like to ask the Minister whether that is indeed the case and whether the Government have plans to act on that.

It is perhaps worth setting out the kind of story of what is happening now, which I doubt anyone in this Chamber would disagree is unacceptable. Last year the Big Issue reported on the case of a young man called Duncan, who was in care with a foster family that he had been with since age 11. He came home from college one day and found that all his bags had been packed up. It was a week after he turned 18. The foster carers were happy for him to stay, but social services simply said that was not an option and could not happen, and packed his bags up. Think about how utterly damaging that would be. Duncan was then put into supported accommodation. At 3 am the next morning, someone was knocking on his door looking for somebody else. There was drug dealing happening all around him. He had a bottle flung in his face by someone who was trying to throw it to someone else in that supported accommodation. That is what the state, as a corporate parent, is doing to a child at the age of 18. There are some places where some people are able to stay, but surely that should be the absolute standard provision. We need the parity in the Staying Close and Staying Put schemes, which is what these amendments would achieve.

My Lords, I rise very briefly to lend my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, regarding extending the Staying Put scheme to the age of 25. My Amendment 130 does exactly the same thing but for some reason is in the next group. I will say a few words about it when we get to the next group, but I just want to underline my support. I think it is a very important issue.

My Lords, I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 164 to introduce a national offer for child care leavers. This is strongly recommended by Barnardo’s because this amendment would end the postcode lottery of support for care leavers and help remove barriers to opportunity. Each year around 13,000 young people leave care without the support they need, and the outcomes of these young people remain much lower than those of their peers. That is why we at Barnardo’s—and I declare an interest as vice-president—believe that there should be a new minimum standard of support for care leavers: a national offer regardless of where they live. It should include measures recommended by Barnardo’s, which I hope the Government and the Minister will agree to.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 97 and 99 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, who cannot be here today. His support for Amendment 99, and mine, is grounded in—

Those are in the next group.

I apologise; I am just so keen.

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and Amendment 164 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.

I am a retread, a hereditary Peer who originally came here not very long ago, in 1981, left in 1999 and was recycled, like an old tyre, in 2014. I made my first maiden speech in 1982 and my second in 2015, on the subject of Staying Put. At that time the Minister for Children was the rather wonderful Edward Timpson, the younger brother of the Department of Justice Minister here. He had grown up in an extraordinary family. Apart from having full-blood siblings, while he was growing up his amazing parents fostered more than 90 children. So Staying Put was put in place by an individual who had a deep understanding of the issues faced by young people unfortunate enough not to be able to live with their natural or even unnatural parents. Staying Put was a result of that. The debate in 2015 was to welcome the fact that it had been extended, having been deemed such a success.

It is very fitting that now we have another Timpson in government, albeit in a different department, we again look at this and recognise how successful it has been. What we are asking for in this amendment will not involve a vast number of children or a vast amount of money. It will, however, be transformative for that small number of children. In economic terms, the benefits of giving them support up to the age of 25, if they need it, will be more than repaid by some of the problems that might cost rather more if they have to leave earlier. For all those reasons, I request that the Government look at this sympathetically and see how it can be fitted in.

On the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, in so many parts of our society there is a postcode lottery. That is not surprising given how the highly centralised country of England, with all roads leading to London, coexists with a piebald mosaic of different local authorities and different organisations of all kinds, which to some extent relish the English creative impulse to reinvent the wheel in your own image. As a result, there is considerable variation. If you asked a variety of organisations providing support for those in care or coming out of care to define succinctly, in two or three minutes, exactly what their care offer was, you would get rather different answers.

For those reasons, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, it would be very beneficial to have clarity about the core elements of the offer and to do everything one can to make sure it is understood and, as far as possible, complied with across the country.

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 164 in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool. I omitted to declare my interests as a teacher and a kinship carer, but your Lordships probably know of those by now.

I am going to quote the Drive Forward Foundation again and belatedly acknowledge the Family Rights Group for its work on kinship. We have seen first-hand the immense potential of care-experienced young people and the systemic barriers that prevent them thriving. Despite the Government’s role as a corporate parent, care leavers face disproportionately poor outcomes. They are three times more likely to be NEET, twice as likely to suffer from mental health issues and are at significantly higher risk of homelessness. By forcing the Government to publish a local care offer and then making local authorities have a duty to publish their minimum standards for that offer, we should avoid many of the traps that capture care leavers.

These provisions should include the following specific new entitlements and services for young care leavers aged 18 to 25: all public bodies to offer a specific care leaver internship scheme using the civil service care leaver internship model; the local authority or corporate partner to act as a guarantor and provide rental deposit; free NHS prescriptions; a dedicated mental health offer in every local authority; for those eligible for universal credit, the rate should be the same as for those aged over 25; and local authorities to create and embed local protocols for reducing the criminalisation of children in care and care leavers. The Government are serious about improving the lot of care leavers. This amendment would make it even better.

My Lords, I have Amendment 94 in this group. It is very much the same as my amendments in the last group. If we can get local authorities to say clearly what they are doing and what they have achieved in a year, then they will wish to do better next year.

I just want to say a few words, especially in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I remember that 14 years ago this issue was discussed during consideration of the Children and Families Bill. We all sort of huffed and puffed and said, yes, this is really important, but nothing came of it. I just wish we had seized that opportunity then. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, rightly said, we do not want to make this a missed opportunity. Some young people are ready to leave, but many are not. If you look at the figures for young people who are not in care and not fostered—I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned 24 year-olds—sometimes we see people in their 30s still living at their parents’ home. What happens in those families should be reflected right throughout our society. Sometimes young people are not emotionally ready. We heard of “pack the bag and go”, but I can tell of the opposite: foster parents, at their own cost and in their own time, being prepared to keep on their foster children for several years afterwards. That is amazing.

I turn to the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Having each local authority publish what its national care offer should be seems such an obvious thing to do. I just hope that the Government will seize this opportunity and do that.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 85, 89, 92 and 93 in my name. Clause 7 introduces new requirements for local authorities in England to assess whether certain care leavers aged under 25 need Staying Close support; and when such support is deemed necessary, the local authority must provide it. This provision builds on the Staying Close pilot scheme, which gives care leavers safe and secure accommodation along with a trusted adult relationship for emotional and practical support. I am very grateful to the charity Become for sharing its expertise in this area with me. As the Minister knows, each year thousands of young people face what we might describe as a care cliff edge. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, vividly described, when they leave the system, they are expected to leave home at around 18—often abruptly but, I hope, not always as abruptly as in the case she described—losing vital relationships and support when they most need help transitioning to adulthood.

Research by Become shows that

“the transition from care to ‘independent living’ is often poorly planned and managed, and many young people feel unsupported”.

Evidence from the Staying Close pilots demonstrates

“improved outcomes for care-experienced young people … including better ‘independent living’ skills, increased happiness, better stability, increased participation in … education and employment; and a reduced risk of homelessness”, and that extending Staying Close support to age 25 will benefit thousands of young people leaving care. We warmly welcome that.

However, we have concerns about the drafting of Clause 7, which could limit its impact. First, Clause 7(2) requires local authorities to assess whether Staying Close support serves the young person’s welfare, but without providing specified assessment criteria. We worry that this could lead to the rationing of support or a postcode lottery. Our Amendment 85 seeks to address that by explicitly setting out the factors the local authority must have due regard to, including the

“wishes and preferences … accommodation requirements … emotional and practical support needs … and existing support network” of the young person. Our ever-optimistic Amendment 92 would give the local authority flexibility to offer additional support where it is judged to be appropriate.

The current wording defines Staying Close support merely as providing advice and information or making representations to help with accommodation and services. The Minister will know that “making representations” does not always translate into a service. That narrow definition does not reflect the comprehensive support that was offered in the pilots, so our worry is that it will not achieve the same positive outcomes that the pilot did.

Our Amendment 89 aims to strengthen the voice of young people and ensure that a record of their wishes is kept. The Bill does not reference young people’s wishes and preferences. We believe, and I know that the Minister agrees and has been a great leader in this, that young people’s input is vital when determining support.

Lastly, our Amendment 93 gives a strong legal entitlement to an opt-out for all care leavers, ensuring young people’s preferences guide decisions about their support and create consistent assessment criteria. I very much hope the Minister agrees that these are reasonable and practical amendments that the Government could turn into their own.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, very generously pointed out the response of the previous Government and put the case for extended Staying Put support extremely ably. I am sympathetic to the spirit of his amendments; indeed, he or another noble Lord mentioned that, when asked, 75% of children said that they would like to go on living with their foster parents beyond the current limitations. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that. I am also sympathetic to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 94. Having clarity and good performance-management data should always lead to better outcomes.

I feel rather mealy-mouthed not to be more enthusiastic about the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 164. I absolutely do not want to sound preachy, but I worry. Of course it is extremely important that information is accessible and easily accessible, but, as we often discuss in your Lordships’ House, some of that comes from the culture and the attitude to young people in care and the relationships that we have with them. I suppose my only hesitation is that information without relationships does not get us much further, but I know that all noble Lords know that.

My Lords, in responding to these amendments, I start by re-emphasising that we all know that care leavers have some of the worst long-term life outcomes in society and that many have not received the care and support that we would want and expect for them. We are committed to ensuring that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong, loving relationships, and are engaged in education, employment and training. The ongoing work and the measures in Clause 7 are geared to improving outcomes for those eligible and will help address any cliff edge of support they may face when leaving care.

On Amendments 84, 86 to 88, 90 and 91 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, I thank him for highlighting the issues and for going through the background so thoroughly, but also for highlighting the very positive measures that were announced in the spending review yesterday. We look forward to further detail on how this will feed through into supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our society.

These amendments together would require local authorities to provide former relevant children under the age of 25 with Staying Put support where their welfare requires it. They seek to probe why the Bill makes provision for Staying Close support to be offered to eligible care leavers up to the age of 25 when the Children Act 1989 puts duties on local authorities to support former relevant children and their former foster parents to maintain a Staying Put arrangement until the former relevant child reaches the age of 21.

I acknowledge the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett; of course, it would not be appropriate to comment on an individual case but I am sure that many of us in this Chamber could put our minds to similar extremely stressful and difficult examples that are based on the real experience of some young people. That is exactly why we have the Bill before us and what we are trying to achieve with it.

We fully recognise the importance of these duties and remain strongly committed to the Staying Put arrangements. But, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, as well as my noble friend Lord Watson, we believe at this moment that it is essential that we prioritise filling the gaps that exist in current support, in particular for young people transitioning into independent living, including those who may have been in residential care, who often have the most complex needs. It is difficult to have to prioritise and focus, but this is the place we are in at the moment.

We are doing this very positive work through the introduction of Clause 7, where all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those in or who have left a Staying Put arrangement, will be provided with Staying Close support where their welfare requires it. Staying Close support includes support to find and keep suitable accommodation, and support to access wraparound services.

On Amendments 85, 92 and 93, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I start by reassuring her that we agree with the sentiment of the amendments and that Clause 7 is already very much in that spirit. We are very keen, of course, to make sure that everything we do links and aligns with the different opportunities: for example, how we can bring pathway plans into the mix and make sure that there is a seamless direction of travel. There will be more to discuss on this as we go forward, as I understand she acknowledges.

Amendment 85 would require local authorities to have due regard to the person’s wishes and preferences, accommodation requirements, emotional and practical support needs and existing network when assessing what Staying Close support is required in the interests of that particular young person’s welfare. Clause 7 sets out that Staying Close support is provided to a former relevant child for the purpose of helping them to find and keep suitable accommodation—I think the “and keep” is absolutely relevant here—and to access services relating to health and well-being, relationships, education and training, employment, and participation in society. Alongside this, the new statutory guidance that will accommodate this duty will set out that the local authority will be expected to have due regard to the wishes of the relevant person and to keep a record of that person’s wishes.

Amendment 92 seeks to expand the definition of Staying Close support to include

“any other support the local authority deems appropriate”.

As previously stated, the duties in this clause require the local authority to provide any Staying Close support that it considers appropriate where that person’s welfare requires it. This clause already allows for the inherent flexibility that the local authority needs to assess the individual needs of the young person and provide bespoke Staying Close support accordingly. Clause 7 makes it clear that the new duties imposed on local authorities by this clause are in addition to other duties that already exist to support care leavers.

Again, the noble Baroness’s Amendment 93 seeks to make explicit that young people can opt out of receiving Staying Close support if they choose to. We agree that it is an essential principle that any support from local authorities must consider the wishes and feelings of the care leaver, and this includes support under the Staying Close duty. I repeat, and I will repeat on every occasion, that the voice of the child or young person is fundamental in all these areas and everything that that we are striving to achieve. Statutory guidance for the Children Act 1989 outlines that local authorities must respect the right of young people to decline support. This principle will also apply to Staying Close support and will be made explicit in the guidance produced.

Amendment 89, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, also draws attention to the important principle that local authorities are always expected to consider the wishes and feelings of their eligible care leavers. In assessing what Staying Close support is required in the interest of that person’s welfare, the local authority will be expected to have due regard to the wishes of the relevant person and to keep a record of that person’s wishes. I am repeating this, but for a good purpose: we have to make sure that this message gets out there, is heard and, most importantly, is acted on. The guidance will also cover how we expect Staying Close consideration to form part of the young person’s pathway plan in developing and maintaining the plan and support arrangements. Within this, again, the views of the young person are expected to be considered.

The Children Act 1989 provides for certain former relevant children under the age of 25 to have access to advocacy services. This entitlement is not just for times when they wish to complain; it also offers situations where the young person might want to make representations about their care and support provided by the authority, where they have spotted gaps or where, with their peer group, they have recognised that other things need to be taken into account. The way that local authorities bring young people with care experience together is a very rich area to get that sense of what is possible and what is required.

On Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked for clarity and it was suggested that local authority performance in relation to Staying Close support should be more visible so as to drive improvement. It is, of course, essential that we have the powers in place to ensure that local authorities fully carry out their duties and ensure young people receive the best possible care and support. In December 2022, Ofsted updated the Inspecting Local Authority Children's Services framework to include a separate judgment on the experiences and progress of care leavers, and that began in January 2023. We expect Ofsted to review local authority performance in relation to the delivery of such support within its care leaver inspection of local authority children’s services; these inspections are published once complete.

On Amendment 164, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to a postcode lottery. The amendment asks for a consultation on and then publication of a “national care offer”, which would set out the minimum standards of information that local authorities must publish as part of their published local offer for care leavers. Care leavers’ legal entitlements are already set out in the Children Act 1989 and accompanying statutory guidance. The department has also recently launched a nationally accessible website that clearly sets out available support to care leavers.

Picking up on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I have a huge amount of respect for the work that she does and for Barnardo’s. This is an example where young people themselves have determined how they will get their information; they do not get their information in the ways that we might have thought appropriate. In particular, they have asked for it to be accessible, online, available and interactive. This is an area where there is a huge potential to move forward and, through the young people themselves and through peer group pressure, hold to account those that are not living up to the expectation.

Alongside this, Clause 7 of the Bill requires local authorities to offer Staying Close support to eligible care leavers under the age of 25, where their welfare requires it. Clause 8 requires local authorities to publish information about the arrangements that the local authority has in place for the purpose of supporting and assisting care leavers in their transition to adulthood and independent living.

Through Clauses 21 to 25, we are introducing new corporate parenting responsibilities on each Secretary of State and, importantly, on relevant public bodies. These measures aim to ensure that policies and services that affect this cohort better take account of the challenges they face and provide opportunities for them to thrive. I would express this by saying that it is time that everyone realises that looking after children is everyone’s business. Every department has a role to play, and everyone across the piece—including the private sector—has a contribution to make.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, commended the internship model, leading by example, and also the mental health offer, which is something that we will come back to. These measures, alongside wider work—such as the recently launched national website that I mentioned, which clearly sets out available support to care leavers, including support that is provided by central Government—will signpost the support already available. The purpose of this is to make it much more likely that the support available is accessed and used to its best ability. Of course local authorities—referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—will have a significant part to play in the offer.

However, I urge noble Lords to be careful that we do not reduce the opportunity here by being too prescriptive. We must make sure that there is flexibility to take advantage of the very best that is available locally and let local determination set the bar and spread improvements on a much wider footing. Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Before the Minister sits down, I asked about the fact that, apparently, 40% of 17-year-olds turning 18 are in unregulated or independent accommodation. Could the noble Baroness perhaps write to me about that?

I apologise: I knew that I had missed the noble Baroness’s question. Yes, of course I will write on that important point.

My Lords, the Minister will have noticed the difference between the answer she gave on the last group and the answer she gave on my amendment in this one. Channelling the reporting through guidance to the virtual school head is doing something that would be immediate, current and present and would affect the day-to-day way in which a local authority and its team conduct their business; something that may or may not appear in the depths of an Ofsted report every three years is not at all as effective. I encourage the Minister, between now and Report, to consider whether it would not be much better for the continual improvement of the Staying Close services if they were reported on annually and personally by the team responsible for delivering them, so that it becomes much more visible and a much more current thing for them to keep improving, rather than something that they hope will get lost in whatever else Ofsted is saying about the local authority as a whole.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, both of whom spoke forcefully in support of the amendments—which may not be surprising, since they added their names to them, for which I also thank them. I say in passing to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the point she raised about 16 and 17 year-olds living in unregistered accommodation, that there will be an opportunity to debate that in group 8 today, if we get that far.

I also thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply, although, of course, it is disappointing. I noticed a nuanced difference in her response—if she will forgive me, it could probably be described in three words, “We’re staying put”, which is effectively what she said—whereas her opposite number in the other place said that the Government were not in favour of extending Staying Put because they wanted to concentrate on young people in residential care, who, she said, had the most complex needs. My noble friend today said that the Government want to concentrate on filling the gaps in current provision. Neither is unimportant, but I think that, where there are gaps in current provision, yes, they can be filled, but that does not mean that there are no gaps in the provision beyond the age of 21 for young people Staying Put.

My noble friend said that, when people in foster care reach the age of 21 and leave for whatever reason, they will have Staying Close to fall back on in certain situations, and of course that is right. But, overall, we are dealing with a relatively small number of people who want to stay on in foster care beyond the age of 21. We are not talking about thousands and thousands, so the cost in additional resources required to do that is relatively modest. I have to come back to the point that I started off with, which is that there was a very positive statement yesterday in the spending review, which may offer the opportunity to deal with this as well, although of course there will be many competing demands.

As I said, it is disappointing. I request the opportunity of discussing this issue a little further with my ministerial colleagues before Report, but I again thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 84 withdrawn.

Amendments 85 to 94 not moved.

Clause 7 agreed.

Clause 8: Local offer for care leavers