Nottinghamshire motion to protect people in care pulled at 11th hour after concerns

Terry Galloway, who campaigns for better rights for those who have lived in the care system, has been attempting to get councils across the country to adopt better protections.

Local authorities, including Independent-controlled Ashfield Council, have been passing motions to make being care-experienced a ‘protected characteristic’ as a result of his work.

This means the council has a responsibility to ensure their lives are not impacted by their circumstances, with former looked-after children previously having trouble finding homes, jobs and opportunities later in life.

Mr Galloway has been attempting to get Nottinghamshire Council to pass a similar motion, but said the authority created one which was “toothless” and would not give care-experienced people protected status.

He feared the administration had been “playing party politics over lives of children in care” in trying to push a motion over the line before any other political party.

The motion was set for discussion at the latest full council meeting, but was withdrawn the day before.

Coun Chris Barnfather, council Conservative group business manager, said: “The motion was intended to enshrine the ethos of recognising ‘care-experienced people’ have and may continue to face significant barriers throughout their lives and that additional consideration should be offered to them, that their needs and those of any vulnerable person should be at the heart of all our decision making and we should actively seek their views when developing policies.

“Regrettably Mr Galloway did not feel the motion went far enough in its current form, without the wording including ‘support treating care experience as a protected characteristic in equality impact assessments’.

“Indeed, he wrote to the council requesting that, in the absence of this phraseology being included, he would prefer the administration withdraw the motion.

“While the council fully understands the importance of the term ‘protected characteristic’ to Mr Galloway, the term itself is a statutory definition predicated upon an individual’s personal physical and/or emotional characteristics rather than their life experiences and, having consulted with relevant government agencies, do not feel the term is appropriate in the circumstances as outlined.

“Therefore, in accordance with Mr Galloway’s wishes, we took the decision to withdraw the motion.”