Examination of Witnesses (Questions 252-259)
MR ANTHONY
HEWSON AND
MR JONATHAN
TROSS
22 MAY 2003
Q252 Chairman: Good morning, Mr Tross,
Mr Hewson; welcome. We are looking forward to hearing from you.
As no doubt you will have followed closely, we have been conducting
inquiries into CAFCASS, its past, present and future, over recent
weeks, and this is to us a very important session in which we
hear from you and we give you the opportunity to deal with some
of the issues that have been raised, and we look forward very
much to talking to the Minister later this morning as well. But
I wonder if I could clear up, to start with, one issue which has
arisen in the course of this inquiry. Can you make clear to us
that you have not, in any way, discouraged CAFCASS employees from
giving evidence to this Committee, in relation to this inquiry?
Mr Tross: Can I say, Chair, no.
What we did was, when the Select Committee was announced, we issued
a note to staff, explaining that the inquiry was happening and
that we would give evidence. As you know, you have had evidence
from the Managers' Association. I was asked by one of those whether
I saw any problem with them giving evidence, I said no, and you
have had that evidence.
Q253 Chairman: Did you say, at any
stage, to regional managers, or encourage regional managers to
say to staff, that issues which employees should be resolving
within CAFCASS should not be rehearsed before the Select Committee?
Mr Tross: Not to my knowledge.
I certainly have not said that.
Q254 Chairman: Are you concerned
that you are thought to have said that by some employees of CAFCASS?
Mr Tross: There is quite a strong
sort of network within CAFCASS, where lots of stories can get
passed around. I really do not know what the origin of that is,
and, clearly, if there is any evidence that anybody was trying
to discourage people from exercising their right to report to
the Select Committee then, obviously, I would be interested in
the evidence, and we will follow that up. But that is not a message
that has come from me.
Q255 Chairman: And Mr Hewson can
confirm that, from the Board point of view?
Mr Hewson: Absolutely. I would
just like to say, I would be quite horrified if that was about,
and I am concerned that that sort of issue is around. I have to
say, this Committee obviously has seen a considerable amount of
evidence about our history. One of the issues we have had to tackle
is the whole issue around communications, and those matters, I
think they have improved substantially over the last year, but
actually we are trying to create a transparent and open organisation,
not one that is closed, to the sort of agenda that you have described,
Chairman.
Chairman: I am glad we have that on the
record.
Q256 Mr Soley: Good morning. What
we have heard over the weeks is that most people support the idea
of CAFCASS, but there is a considerable amount of disappointment
that it has not been as successful as people were hoping it would
be; and one of the reasons for that does seem to be the delay
and the management of time on cases. So, although I recognise
that there has been an increase in demand, can you tell us, first
of all, why it is that you think those delays are still there?
Mr Tross: I think the issue is
that there have been increases in demand. In the six months to
end March, we have had an increase of something like 15% over
the period of the equivalent year; in the six months to March,
we received 3,487 care cases, and in the equivalent six months
of the year before we received 3,028, so there has been a big
increase. What has been happening is that, by and large, we have
been matching the inflow, so that, if you take the last three
months, we have received 3,489 requests and allocated 3,404, so
that is 98% of the inflow; so most cases, most of the time, have
been allocated. Where the problems are, if you like, is that there
is a stubborn problem of unallocated cases, which happen in some
parts of the country. We do snapshot figures at the end of each
month, and at the end of March, which is the latest national figures
I have, we had 639 unallocated public law cases, which is about
5% of the workload. There are problems particularly in London,
Wales, the North East, Yorkshire and Humberside, which account
for about three-quarters of those delays. There are parts of the
country where there are not those sorts of delays; in the same
month, the South West, for example, had four unallocated cases,
and that is an area where, nine months ago, there were real concerns
about rising delays, so we have handled that. And it is very encouraging
that, in Kent, which is the place where the judicial review originated
from non-allocation, there is now no waiting list, and we have
people waiting to take cases. So the position fluctuates. What
we have not done is, in parts of the country, particularly London,
where in the first year of CAFCASS a delay built up, we have not
yet succeeded in getting rid of that. I can go on, if you would
like me to say a bit more about why I think those delays, or those
problems, are in the system.
Q257 Mr Soley: I would like to know
why there are delays in areas outside London, leave London for
the moment, because it is rather different in many ways?
Mr Tross: I think the first is
the increase in demand.
Q258 Mr Soley: In those areas?
Mr Tross: In those areas. Wales,
in particular, has a big increase. It is not just in Wales, I
think the North West, where I think you have got evidence of the
general good health of the state of the system, has also had an
increase, but there have been particular increases there. I think,
in some of the areas where there have been particular problems,
as I think our written evidence has said, there is quite a variation
in the average hours worked on a case; so, if you take an area
like Manchester, the average hours that a guardian works on a
case is around 110, if you come down to London, it is 164. Now
I think the reasons why it takes more hours, and therefore a given
number of people go less far in those parts of the country, is
complicated, it is a mix. I think the single, most important thing
is the time that the cases themselves take in the courts, so where
there are long time-scales in the courts, unsurprisingly, it tends
to increase the amount of work that CAFCASS has to do, and that
is because the longer a case goes on the more likely, within the
family, there are changes of circumstance, more things need to
be assessed. So I think there is something about the overall length
which is a particular problem in places like London.
Q259 Mr Soley: Let me be clear about
that. What you are saying then is that, in London, a large part
of the cause of the delay is actually the courts and the blockages
in the courts and is nothing to do with CAFCASS?
Mr Tross: No, I am not saying
it is nothing to do with CAFCASS. What I am saying is, there are
delays in CAFCASS allocating, but equally there are delays in
parts, and I think that also applies in the North East, where
there are delays in the overall time that it takes to do a case.
Clearly, if CAFCASS is delaying allocating, that does not help,
but the overall problem of delay in those cases goes wider than
the guardians. What is important, in that, is that we have been
working with LCD and the judiciary to develop, I think, near the
end of its work, a Protocol on judicial case management, and the
aim there is to set standards which will apply both to the judiciary
and the courts in managing it, to social service departments,
in the way they present their cases, and equally to put a challenging
target on CAFCASS to allocate cases. So I think really to solve,
if you like, what are some of the structural systems issues, it
will involve us doing better but it will involve us working with
others as well.
|
