Does the Southwark Judgement create moral hazard?

I know little to nothing about children’s services – mostly to my great relief, I wouldn’t sleep at night if I had a frontline job making life-changing decisions for vulnerable children and young people. I have been involved, once, on a project about the fate of vulnerable children when they become (generally similarly vulnerable) adults, and I have a certain amount of experience on the question of how schools relate to local authorities (which I imagine will be topical again in the near future) both on the staff side and for a little while as a school governor.

Therefore I speak only from a position of genuine inquiry when I ask the above question. The case of G vs. Southwark has been talked about a lot, mainly in the context of what it is going to cost to implement. In short it appears to say that if someone aged 16 or 17 presents as needing housing and can be defined as vulnerable, they must be housed by the local authority under the (more generous and comprehensive) terms of the Children’s Act 1989 and subsequent homelessness legislation, rather than the more restrictive and more discretionary general housing functions available to the local authority. I’ve probably got that horrendously wrong but that’s the principle.

We can see how this costs money, which apparently the Government is not making available – the general principle that the Government funds Councils for any new duties is not applied here since the Government argues that this is not a new duty, merely an existing duty the Councils were not discharging properly hitherto. It also means that if you think you are going to be thrown out by your family, or your family made homeless, or whatever, there is a real incentive for it to happen when you are 17 years and 364 days old, not 18 years and 1 day, since as well as the help provided on the basis of you being a child, a continuing responsibility will arise.

While the one key thing I learnt on the project mentioned above was that the local authority’s work should be determined by the situation and development of the individual rather than their precise chronological age, that’s an impossible thing to set down in legislation – it is always going to be subjective. It’s understandable therefore that the court has reached this decision in a hard case. So, what do to? In principle I would argue in favour of giving as much discretion as possible to frontline children’s services and housing staff to ‘do the right thing’. In practice I know how much budget pressure both those departments are in, how much worse it is going to get in the next few years, and that “discretion” in the future will necessarily be interpreted wherever possible to mean “do the least possible” or “make it someone else’s problem”. We have seen this in funding for old people’s care, which is probably a vote-winner, so in comparison “teenage asylum seekers” are unlikely to fare too much better.

A little side-issue of course is that in those areas of England which are served by both District and County Councils the ‘ping-pong’ is even more acute, since the housing function will be a cost on the District, which has the housing, but the Children’s Act legislation designates the County as the relevant authority. This comes up a lot when families claiming asylum have their claim rejected – they then have “no recourse to public funds” under the legislation, but the Children’s Act takes primacy over that legislation, so the County has to house them if they have ‘vulnerable children’.

Another story where Government and Parliament will the ends (or more specifically the media narrative) but fail to will the means. I’d welcome comments from someone who understands this better than I do, though.

Quick edit: People are getting here by searching for “Southwark Judgement”, so here’s a link to a proper briefing by the National Care Advisory Service – likely to be a great deal more useful than my ramblings.


4 responses to “Does the Southwark Judgement create moral hazard?

  1. The G v Southwark case was the last in a series of cases in a build up to ensure homeless children aged 16 and 17 yrs old actually get some support. In virtually every case the good old housing department fulfilled their functions to the letter (hostels, B&B etc) and in virtually every case the young person failed miserably. Would all these youngsters have succeeded with the substantial help of social services under s20 of the Childrens Act? possibly not. Would they have all been given a fighting chance? very likely.
    Finally as the CLG reminded Local Housing Authorities, social service departments are only expected to be doing exactly what they were supposed to have been doing all along…….

  2. The Children Act (1989) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) clearly define a child as someone who is 16 to 17 years old. Local authorities have been ignoring this fact for 20 years. Children who are asylum seekers and alone in the UK have been provided with this level of support since the 2003 Hillingdon Judgment. Parity now exists for all 16 and 17 year olds.
    England has always has a large schism on it’s attitude to young people and has along history of treating children who are 13+ as mini adults. There has been a long standing view that when working class young people become 16, they should get on with societies manual unskilled labour needs. IE: Expendable – it was not so long ago that children in Care had to live independently without much support from age 16……

  3. I’ll call back later rollyo bbs
    Tory Lane was put on this world for one reason and one reason only…to fuck! She is one dirty fucking bitch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s