Legal Updates

The House of Lords has finally heard three linked cases which may have important repercussions for the way part III of the Children Act 1989 is interpreted by local authorities ( A and W v London Borough of Lambeth, G v London Borough of Barnet) .

What follows is a summary of the arguments presented to the court on May 12, 13 and 14.

All three cases concerned children where councils were refusing to provide accommodation for the children with their families pursuant to section 17 of the act. Surprisingly, as the Children Act 1989 has been in force for 14 years, this is the first time that the courts have considered the extent and the nature of the duty owed to children in need.

The issues considered by the House of Lords include the following:-

1. Is the duty under section 17 (to provide a range and level of services appropriate to the needs of children in need), an absolute duty which can be enforced by any child in need who has unmet need?
2. Once there has been a needs assessment of a child in need, which includes a decision that such a child does have needs for services which can be provided under section 17, can a child enforce the provision of those services?
3. If a council has a choice as to whether to provide accommodation to a child alone or with its parents (for example, where a family is homeless), then is it a breach of the right to respect for home and family life (article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights) to decide to house the child alone (especially where it is cheaper to provide accommodation for the family as a whole).

The councils involved in the case argue that they have nothing more than a duty to strive to provide sufficient services to children in need as a group, and there is nothing an individual child can do if, in doing its best to meet needs as a whole, the council is unable to meet his or her needs. Limited resources, human and financial, are prayed in aid of this argument.

The response to this is that the argument makes the duty to provide services under section 17 completely toothless, and that the resources of councils should not determine the services that children should receive. 

The judgment of the court is not expected for a number of weeks.

Stephen Cragg

Doughty Street Chambers