Examination of Witness (Questions 40-59)
THURSDAY 27 MARCH 2003
LORD LAMING
Andy Burnham
40. You have said before that the Children's
Act is basically sound and the will of Parliament just needs to
be implemented. Sometimes the balance is not right between the
wishes of a family and the wishes of a child. Sometimes too much
weight may be given to the views of the child. I am talking just
from constituency experience where a child can be putting themselves
at risk by their own behaviour yet social workers who are dealing
with that case are listening far more to the views of the child
than the views of the parents and others around that child and
allowing them or almost letting them do what they want and indulge
in the behaviour that is putting them at risk rather than hearing
that counter-balancing view from the parents. I just wonder, is
that balance right in the way the legislation is drafted and the
way it is implemented?
(Lord Laming) I fully recognise that this is tough
work that involves a lot of conflict. Human situations are the
most difficult that anyone deals with. There is no tick box answer
in this kind of thing; you have to be making judgments. But I
think it is wrong that those judgments are not regularly monitored
and scrutinised so that there can be a degree of objectivity in
the system. That is why I believe that it is very important that
employees who have this difficult job to do—and I am full
of admiration for the people who do it well—need to operate
within the context of a system which provides for regular scrutiny,
regular monitoring and proper supervision and support. It is true
that in any one situation it is possible to err either on the
side of the adult or on the side of the child and what I am hoping
for in all of these situations is that there will be sufficient
review and scrutiny to make sure that there is a proper balance
struck between the rights of parents to bring up their children
in accord with their own lives and a definite child centred approach
where the well-being of the child is in danger of being put at
risk.
Dr Naysmith
41. I return to the structure that you are proposing
and some of the details of it. One of the things that you have
made clear this morning is that you expect directors of social
services to take much more interest in micro-management in determining
directly the outcome of the services they are charged to deliver.
You have been a director of social services yourself and been
an inspector. You must have seen a lot of others in the context.
How realistic, in the light of what you know of the way local
government works, is it for you to expect that to become the widespread
norm?
(Lord Laming) I am absolutely staggered with people
I have read saying that directors of social services cannot know
every case in its area no more than a chief executive can. Where
in the Report does it say the director of social services should
know every case? It is impossible. I was director of social services
for a county that had a population of a million. There is no question
that I expect directors of social services or elected members
or chief executives to know about every case. What I do expect—and
this is what the Report is aiming to achieve—is that people
in leadership positions should make sure that they have systems
in place where, if things are going wrong, they are identified
very early and they are corrected quickly. This is what I expect
of directors of social services. I expect them to recognise that
their first responsibility is about what happens at the front
door of the agency. If they do not, then they have to question:
"What is the agency there for?" I cannot believe that
in the rest of the life that we have—the public life, economic
life and commercial life—that people would see that people
in management positions have no accountability for what happens
at the front door. That is why you have managers, to make sure
the system works and works efficiently. I believe directors of
social services must be accountable but not for all the bureaucratic
process. What you need is the director of social services to be
accountable for the way in which services are delivered. When
I was a director of social services—if I may be personal
about it—I did not think that I managed the best managed
department in the country, far from it, but what I did expect
to know is what happened at the front door of the services. I
spent a lot of time at the front door of the services and what
is more, I had people in management positions who operated a system
that I believe strongly in which is that life has enough surprises,
we do not have to create surprises, and therefore anything that
is predictable—anything that people know about—I need
to know about. At the end of the day, I am accountable for what
happens in the organisation and that is what I want to see in
the system.
42. In a sense we have already talked about
this this morning. What you are talking about could be delivered
under the present system. I am pretty sure that directors of social
services—and actually directors of other services run by
local authorities—if they so undertook, could make provisions
now to make sure that they knew when the service was failing.
Many of them probably do. What is it in this great structure that
you are proposing—that starts with safeguarding children
whether it is social services, police, health service and others
and goes right up to the Ministerial Children and Families Board—that
is going to achieve that change that you want to achieve?
(Lord Laming) I believe that what you and I want to
see could be achieved in the current system. There is no guarantee
that the agencies that are essential to the well-being of children
at a local level—of which there are numerous agencies, not
just the public services, but the community agencies—will
actually work together in the interests of children. If you look
at the police service the well-being of children is a very small
part of an overall operation. If you look at the health service
there is a huge agenda in the health service of which the children's
services are a very small part. If you look at local authorities
there is a huge agenda that they have to address of which the
well-being of children is a very small part. The current system
depends upon a bureaucratic structure which I have already touched
upon (I will not go through the figures again), hundreds of different
agencies, but more than that it depends on the people who lead
those agencies being committed to inter-agency cooperation and
sharing work. What I believe is that that is far too precarious
and what we need to have is a system which ensures that there
is a certainty of things working well at the local level. Frankly,
at the present time, there is too great a gap between what Parliament
expects and what Parliament can be assured actually happens. I
believe Parliament deserves better as I believe children deserve
better.
43. Can I finally put the point to you that
the Association of Directors of Social Services argued in response
to your Report that because of the changes that have taken place
in local government, Cabinets and Scrutiny and Executive Members
and so on with specific portfolios of responsibilities, that already
the focus of accountability has changed since the situation that
you were looking at. They say—this is a quote from one of
the documents—that the proposals "do not sit easily
with the structure that will be in place in most local authorities".
They are suggesting that changes already taking place render at
least part of your proposals unnecessary. What do you say to that?
(Lord Laming) I think it will be for others to think
whether that is remotely convincing. It does not convince me in
the slightest. I think that it is another illustration of people
being wedded to internal bureaucratic processes rather than about
having a clear focus on outcomes for children.
Chairman
44. You talk about what Parliament expects and
one of the things that I have learned in 16 years in Parliament
is that the vast majority of MP's have not the least idea of the
reality of working in a social services team. I think that is
a weakness of our system. I worry about the way we are drawing
conclusions from a specific set of circumstances in a London Inner
City team and whether we are wrong to assume that the reality
here is the same all over. When we make decisions they may apply
in London but may be different elsewhere. How do you feel about
those points? My frustration here is that we send MP's on industry
and Parliament Trust schemes all over the place but we never send
them to social services departments. It would be very helpful
to bring about an awareness of the kind of circumstances that
these people are working in. I am sitting here thinking of situations
that I have lived through like you have lived through and trying
to work out where we go from here. You say a manager is responsible
for that front door decision and I am thinking, I was a manager
at one point and I have also taken front door decisions. My managing
depended on me getting my front door decisions right and sometimes
I have got it wrong, but it is down to the individual assessment
of the social worker. At the end of the day it comes down to the
front door assessment by a social worker. I fear in Parliament
that what we have given social services does not enable people
to make that right decision. I worry when you imply that Parliament
is doing the job in a way that enables the grass roots people
to function; I have serious questions about that assumption.
(Lord Laming) You know the respect I have for you,
Chairman, but I have to say that that smacks of council despair
as far as I am concerned in that I think within any organisation
you have to be clear about what the purpose of the activity is
about, what you are there for.
45. I talk to social workers. I have worked
in a busy inner city team that was demoralised, it was overwhelmed
with work. I have had a child death, I have had a social services
inquiry on a case, I have had inquests where I was told by senior
managers to give information that was incorrect. I have been through
the mill on this and I think sometimes when I sit in this place
and listen to the views of MP's, most MP's do not have the least
idea of the reality of what goes on.
(Lord Laming) You and I are agreed about that, but
I thought that we were trying to make sure that we could try to
correct that and not have that arrangement. Frankly it is no use
MP's or anybody else getting terribly excited when there is a
death of a child like Victoria Climbieé and not being prepared
to see it through and to make sure that something actually happens
from it. The Report is trying to ensure that something actually
happens. Since the Report was published I am sure you will understand
I have been invited to address these issues in a number of places
in the country to different groups, large and small, from different
services. Not once, in any of these meetings, has somebody said
to me—they might have thought it but they did not say it—all
of this is a reflection of what happened in north London in one
particular case. What they have said—and I would like to
think they intended it—is that what you have done is that
you have highlighted some fundamental deficiencies within the
system. Since the 1989 Children Act actually came into operation
there has been a huge change. When MP's and government ministers
in my view rightly get concerned about the number of cases that
come along—like Mr Amess suggested—I take it that
they actually want to do something about it. People can present
what I have recommended as being bureaucratic if they wish to
do so. What I say is simply this: if we have, in this country,
a system which is intended to achieve good outcomes for children,
we need to have alongside it a system which ensures the delivery.
It is no use willing the end and not making sure that you actually
achieve the end. I think that what I have recommended is not intended
to be hugely bureaucratic; it is intended to have a focus, an
outcome for children and a certainty of delivery.
Mr Burns
46. In your Report you fairly comprehensively
and clearly considered and rejected the idea of a National Child
Protection Agency. I was wondering if you could just briefly tell
us why.
(Lord Laming) I think that one of the rather devastating
aspects of the evidence of the inquiry was the way in which people
wanted to put labels round children's necks about child protection,
sometimes when they had not been seen, but certainly without recognising
that a child is not only living through a period of change but
their circumstances can change at any time. I think it is a total
nonsense to think that child protection can be separated from
the child's circumstances or the wider issues within the family
structure. Most of all I believe that often the best way to secure
the safety of the child is to ensure that the family unit—however
it is constituted—receives help in the right way at the
right time. A Child Protection Agency I think is fundamentally
misguided.
47. I am interested to hear that because a lot
of people with varying degrees of knowledge and understanding
of the whole area may find it possibly in a simplistic way an
attractive proposition. What I was wondering was, has your view
on the concept of a stand alone agency shifted in the light of
your work on this inquiry, because we do know—presumably
when you were chief inspector—that it was muted there was
an attraction in the late 1990's for a sort of stand alone agency.
I was just wondering whether, in the light of your experiences
from your inquiry, you have shifted your views or if you have
always thought that this was not the panacea that some people
might think it would be.
(Lord Laming) My views have changed very considerably
during this inquiry. I think that it is superficially an attractive
idea to have an agency that is dedicated to a particular function.
Also, it is attractive to think that you could put into that agency
people from a wide range of different backgrounds with different
roles and responsibilities. I concluded through the evidence of
this inquiry that first of all it is absolutely essential that
all of the different agencies recognise their separate and distinctive
responsibilities to the well-being of children. Although collaborative
work is obviously very important and at the heart of much we want
to achieve, collaborative work should not take place in circumstances
that we saw whereby one agency restricted the freedom of another
agency to fulfill their duty. When police officers say, "I
couldn't investigate this because social services didn't want
me to and after all social services are in the lead" social
services are only in the lead in a particular function. Only the
police, at the end of day—whatever the collaborative exercise—can
investigate allegations of crime. Similarly, the questions I received
earlier from Dr Taylor about the responsibilities for medicine.
So I came to two very clear conclusions. First of all, it is essential
that each agency fulfills its distinctive responsibilities and
is not deterred from doing so by any other agency. Secondly, keeping
the agency identity is of immense importance otherwise there is
a tendency to create teams where the responsibilities are blurred
and where there would be even more confusion than there is at
the present time. I also came to the conclusion that this tendency
to think that we only act if there is a referral that includes
child protection where everything is written up and is in much
more vivid language, where concerns about children are not shared
at a much earlier stage, is a real snare. What we have to do is
to get agencies to work collaboratively, recognising their distinctive
function but to act in the interests of children at a much earlier
stage.
48. Can I go back to the day that your Report
was published. In response to the publication the Secretary of
State for Health highlighted the issues of poor communication
and coordination between the services. He commented, and I quote:
"the only sure fire way to break down the barriers between
those services is to remove them altogether". He went on
to indicate that the establishment of Children's Trusts offered
such a way forward. What is your view on that? Do you think that
is right?
(Lord Laming) We took no evidence on Children's Trusts
and it would be quite wrong of me to comment on them other than
to say that I do not know what is in the Secretary of State's
mind about Children's Trusts. What I hope is that the principles
that are set out in this Report will be achieved, whatever the
structural arrangements that are ultimately settled.
Chairman
49. Your career goes back to pre-1974—as
mine does—and some of my colleagues get bored silly to my
reverting back to a system that applied before 1974. When functions
such as health visiting were separated from social services at
local level my personal feeling is that the subsequent child protection
system was not as effective. What is your view on that point,
because you would have been working in the system at the same
time and seeing those changes.
(Lord Laming) I think that my general view is that
we have gone in for—and this is not a party political point
because it goes back a long way—ad hoc piecemeal
change and I think that what we have often done is look to achieve
one objective without realising the negative side of that and
the overall impact it would have on children and families. One
of the reasons why I recommend that there should be a National
Agency dedicated to children and families is simply because I
think you have to see children and families within a much wider
system than we do at the present time. Decisions that are made
about asylum seekers, about homelessness, about financial benefits,
all of these decisions can have a huge impact upon the well-being
of children and families and I think it is very important, one
way or the other—whether you like the way I have recommended
or any other way—that we actually achieve some coherence
in the system rather than a kind of piecemeal approach that we
have all been involved with.
Mr Burns
50. Given your past experience over many years
of social services and children's issues, what is your view of
what Children's Trusts are?
(Lord Laming) I hope that you think I have come to
this Committee to be as helpful as possible, to be open, frank
and transparent. I am afraid that I cannot comment at all about
Children's Trusts because I am not privy to any of the thinking
that has gone on about Children's Trusts.
51. Given that not only are you the producer
of the Report and you have come up with a range of recommendations
that you believe are the best way forward to seek to improve and
enhance services to try to prevent a breakdown which the subject
of your Report highlights, presumably in that respect you will
want, in a benign way, to protect your recommendations because
you believe they are a positive and best way forward. If there
were to be suggestions, inputs and recommendations that you felt
threatened those recommendations of your own, would you not feel
it your duty to highlight the error of those alternative recommendations?
(Lord Laming) I did say earlier on that I thought
that Government ministers had behaved impeccably during this inquiry
so they did not in any way try to influence the outcome of the
inquiry. I am not only grateful for that, but I was determined
that it would not happen. I think it is a credit to them. As they
were developing, thinking about Children's Trusts was running,
if you like, parallel to the inquiry. I produced a Report that
was based upon the evidence to the inquiry and as there was no
evidence to the inquiry about Children's Trusts I really cannot
be helpful. With regard to the wider point that Mr Burns made,
I hope that I have conveyed to you that I only see structures
as a means of delivering outcomes. It is a means to an end and
I am not wedded to any particular structure. What I have put before
everyone to consider is what I believe is a realistic approach.
If the Government—in its wisdom and with its many greater
resources than I have—come up with something better I will
be the first to applaud it, but I would want to judge it by whether
it had in it the means of delivering what I believe are essential
which are the child-centred approach, accountability from top
to bottom, transparency and something that has teeth to actually
make things happen.
52. I think it is only right that you should
applaud those ideas and proposals that come up that are going
to move the issue forward in a positive way. The opposite of applaud
is to criticise or seek to protect people from the error of their
suggestions. Will you be doing that as well?
(Lord Laming) The task of chairing an independent
inquiry actually finishes the day the Report is published. My
standing in this situation is only a standing that anybody is
willing to give me. You have kindly invited me here this morning,
which I appreciate greatly. If, when the Government produces its
green paper on this Report, anyone is kind enough to ask if I
have a view on the matter, then I quite imagine that I might,
in all humility and modesty, offer a few thoughts.
Andy Burnham
53. Can I tempt you now to comment on the way
the ADSS responded to your Report. In particular we were talking
a little bit earlier about the incredibly basic nature of some
of the recommendations that you made with regard to social care.
With that in mind, were you disappointed at their response that
many of the early requirements for a recommendation raised resource
issues and could not be implemented within current resources?
(Lord Laming) Let me say what my position was from
the outset of this inquiry which is that I was very strongly committed—perhaps
more committed than I can convey to you—that the process
of the inquiry—the way it was managed and conducted—should
be above criticism. The recommendations are fair game for anybody
to criticise and if, in fact, the recommendations stimulate a
wide debate about how we deal with children in this country then
I regard that as entirely healthy. I see the ADSS as one—but
only one—of a number of very important organisations who
have a proper voice in these matters. Frankly I do not have a
view about it.
54. Let me put it a little bit more bluntly
then. In some ways I think they reinforce some of the points you
made earlier. The default position, some might say—someone
in social services—is to throw their hands up about funding
rather than getting on with the job. Do they not make that point
forcibly in responding in that way?
(Lord Laming) It has been the nature of my experience—and
I suspect of yours also—that when people see a problem they
always think first of all about resources and funding. As I have
grown older I would be much more convinced if there was some intellectual
rigour behind it that actually produced evidence to support such
claims. I take those kind of comments as being well intentioned
and okay so far as they go, but they do not take it much further,
to be frank.
55. I have a lot of sympathy for the financial
position within the social services that has been operating for
many years. I think that that has determined the culture in which
they operate. As I say, I have some sympathy with that. One of
the recommendations they did make—which I do support—is
that the time has come for an exercise to be carried out, akin
to the Wanless exercise for the NHS, for social services and social
care. What is it that the state needs to be financing going forward?
Should it all come from local taxation? What is the balance. Do
you agree with that? Is there a need for that kind of exercise?
(Lord Laming) I did not mean to be quite as dismissive
as I obviously sounded. You have to excuse my limited ability
to convey what I think sometimes. I did not mean to be dismissive,
but what I meant was, where does it actually take us? How much
further down the road does that kind of approach take us? I really
do believe that resources are very, very important, but not just
about money that goes in the budget, but about staff training,
about equipment, about so many things that I could immediately
reel off. What I believe is that we have moved from a time when,
to be absolutely blunt—and I suspect the chairman was a
very good example of it—we could get resources by appealing
to people's hearts because it was a good cause and children matter,
and we have moved into a situation where there really needs to
be more than a commitment to the ideal; there needs to be some
intellectual substance to it all. I am not privy to Mr Wanless's
report on the health service because I have had other things on
my mind, but I do think that the funding of services is a really
critical issue, but it is a big issue that is not going to be
dealt with by just an off the cuff comment that finds its way
into the media.
56. You say that social services have taken
children as a cause that is dear to people's hearts, but actually
the funding of social services is not one of the top pressing
political priorities. The NHS will always be that; it is an obvious
political priority. Social services are relying on a mixture of
revenue support grants and local taxation. Is that a satisfactory
basis to fund such services which are utterly crucial?
(Lord Laming) Yes, but the bigger the challenge, the
bigger the need to rise to the challenge. I think secretaries
of state in seeking funding and local councillors in seeking funding
for social services, local agencies, if they are not everybody's
favourite place to place funding, have to have a much more solid
and sound case which is based upon an analysis of what money can
achieve and what more money would achieve and what impact it would
make. It is not that I am unsympathetic and of course I have believed
for many years that social services in general are underfunded.
Of course I believe that, but I do not feel that that takes us
much further in winning the battle unless there is a much more
substantial case to be made which is going to convince Treasury
both locally and centrally.
57. So what you are saying is that we need less
whingeing and more getting on with the job.
(Lord Laming) Absolutely. I think that at end of the
day I expect people in managerial positions to have in place systems
that evaluate need at a local level, that are able to demonstrate
how much of that need is being met through a variety of ways,
not just through service provision, and what need is not being
met. That need should be articulated up the line. At the present
time I suspect there is a lot to be said about the need for more
resources but not much by comparison is being said about the dangers
of not having it and the weaknesses there will be in the services.
Dr Naysmith
58. Can I just press you on a question that
Mr Burnham has already pressed you on and you have been very careful
in your answers. I put it to you quite directly that in the Report
you talked about a number of things that can be done right away,
in three months, and some that can be done in six months. The
ADSS said that that implied it could be done with current resources.
You are saying that they can be done within current resources
and they are saying they do not think it can be done within current
resources. Who is right?
(Lord Laming) I am saying that it should be done.
I am not saying it can be done in current resources. I am saying
it should be done. It should be part of the life blood of organisations
to behave in that way. We did not take evidence on the funding
of local governments.
59. If it can be done in three months or six
months, it can be done within this year's budget.
(Lord Laming) What an opportunity I have provided
them with to make a valuation of their services and to tell Government
the reality of how it is on the ground. What an opportunity. I
have not heard the thanks come in yet, but you never can tell.
After today it could well be that I will be walking on air.
|
