I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 7, page 11, line 38, after “support” insert “and staying put support”.

This amendment would include staying put support in the support provided by local authorities under this section and extend the provision of Staying Put for young people to the age of 25.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 12, line 7, after “support” insert “or staying put support”.

See Amendment 12.

Amendment 14, in clause 7, page 12, line 10, after “support” insert “or staying put support”.

See Amendment 12.

Amendment 15, in clause 7, page 12, line 11, after “support” insert “or staying put support”.

See Amendment 12.

Amendment 16, in clause 7, page 12, line 14, after first “support” insert “and staying put support”.

See Amendment 12.

Amendment 17, in clause 7, page 12, line 22, at end insert—

“(5) ‘Staying put’ has the meaning given by section 23CZA(2) of the Children’s Act 1989.”

See Amendment 12.

I am pleased to move amendment 12 to clause 7, on extending Staying Put for children in foster care to the age of 25. This group of amendments seeks to address the potential two-tier system that the Bill will create by extending provisions for Staying Close but not Staying Put.

Many care leavers face a cliff edge in care at the age of 18. Staying Put is a scheme that has been introduced to enable young people in foster care to stay with their foster carers until the age of 21 to support them into adulthood, whereas Staying Close is for young people in residential care. In the UK, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to reach independence at the age of 21. In fact, the Office for National Statistics published a report last year showing that the average age at which young people move out of the family home is 24. The independent review on children’s social care recognised the disparity between young people in care and their non-care experienced peers, and it recommended that both Staying Close and Staying Put be extended to the age of 23.

It appears that the Bill has responded to that recommendation by putting in place provision to extend Staying Close to age 25, but it does not do the same for those in Staying Put arrangements. I tabled this probing amendment to ask the Minister to explain the justification for that disparity and for the effective creation of a two-tier system for young people in those situations.

Evaluations of Staying Put have found that it significantly reduces the risk of homelessness for care leavers. The care review found that it would contribute towards savings of £84 million over five years, mostly due to reduced homelessness. Of course, the financial savings are not the primary motivation; it is about what is best for young people and ensuring that they have the best possible opportunity to successfully transition into adulthood. Foster carers and young people consistently report that the extension of Staying Put would result in better outcomes for young people, providing them with the choice—not insistence—to remain in the family environment.

In the words of a foster carer who recently spoke to the Fostering Network:

“The increase in the age for staying put would be of amazing benefit to care leavers. At the age of 21 many young people who have had the opportunity to go to university are just obtaining their qualification and then have to face negotiating their next huge step, the job market, and to find that they are possibly homeless due to leaving their placement. This is a catastrophic step backwards.”

I warmly urge the Minister to consider ensuring that there is parity in the Staying Close and Staying Put schemes, given that foster care and a family environment have the best long-term outcomes for young people in care transitioning into adulthood.

I wish to speak briefly in support of the amendments. I was talking to the director of children’s services for the London borough of Richmond upon Thames earlier this week, and he told me that we use Staying Put quite a lot in a borough like Richmond, where housing costs are astronomically high and social housing is barely available. We all know that there is a housing crisis across the country, but it is particularly acute in London. Extending this provision would allow young people who are already in care, where there is a strong family relationship, to stay with those family connections. I appreciate that there is a cost attached to this, but actually for many local authorities it is cheaper than trying to find housing for these young people, who will almost always struggle to find housing on their own. I urge the Minister to seriously consider the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.

On amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, and the comments by the hon. Member for Twickenham, I recognise the case that has been made, but we want to prioritise the young people, often with the most complex needs, who are leaving residential or similar care placements at 18. The existing Staying Put duty requires local authorities to monitor and support Staying Put arrangements, where former children stay with their former foster parent after leaving care. The duty lasts until the young person reaches the age of 21. This allows them to leave stable and secure homes when they are ready and helps them to enter adult life with the same opportunities and life prospects as their peers.

We remain committed to the Staying Put programme, but it is essential that we prioritise filling the gaps in current support, in particular for young people, often with the most complex needs, who are leaving residential or similar care placements at 18. That is why we have prioritised the introduction of statutory Staying Close duties. Former relevant children, as defined by the Bill, under the age of 25, including those Staying Put or who have left the Staying Put arrangement, will be eligible for Staying Close support. Any eligible young person up to the age of 25 will be able to access the wraparound practical and emotional support package provided as part of the Staying Close duty.

To be clear, we are aware of the financial pressures for young people, carers and families and local authorities at the moment. We are committed to further reforms to children’s social care in future spending reviews to make sure that every child, irrespective of their background, has the best start in life.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 28 January at twenty-five past Nine o’clock.

CWSB39 Charlotte Deakin

CWSB40 Disabled Children's Partnership and the Special Educational Consortium

CWSB41 End Child Poverty Coalition

CWSB42 Home for Good and Safe Families

CWSB43 Humanists UK

CWSB44 Magic Breakfast

CWSB45 Make it Mandatory, Sex Education Forum, End Violence Against Women Coalition and Brook

CWSB46 Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG)

CWSB47 RE Policy Unit

CWSB48 Article 39

CWSB49 British Rabbinical Union

CWSB50 New Forest Uniform Campaign

CWSB51 Dame Rachel De Souza, Children’s Commissioner for England

CWSB52 Hardeep Irish

CWSB54 Philippa Mitchell

CWSB55 Rachel Evans

CWSB56 Adele Taylor

CWSB57 Susanna Butler

CWSB58 Kati Morrish

CWSB60 Sarah Stevens

CWSB61 Sarah Howett

CWSB62 Julie Spriddle

CWSB63 Jenny and Simon Cahill

CWSB64 Amy Turton

CWSB65 Joanna Burr

CWSB66 Leonie Lawson

CWSB67 Debbie Adshead

CWSB68 Amie Miles

CWSB69 Louise Owlett

CWSB70 Helen Gwither

CWSB71 Tom Denton

CWSB72 An individual who wishes to remain anonymous

CWSB73 S H Hodkinson

CWSB74 Julie Holland

CWSB75 Nikki Twigg

CWSB76 An individual who wishes to remain anonymous

CWSB77 An individual who wishes to remain anonymous

CWSB78 An individual who wishes to remain anonymous

CWSB79 Caroline Biggs

CWSB80 Amy Halls

CWSB81 Kathryn Wilderspin

CWSB82 Becca Kind

CWSB83 Charlotte Freeston