Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-319)
MS ROSIE
WINTERTON MP, AND
SALLY FIELD
22 MAY 2003
Q300 Peter Bottomley: Can either
of you recall what the theology was that led to CAFCASS being
a non-departmental public body, rather than being an executive
agency?
Ms Winterton: There were three
models put out for consultation. One was, I think, retaining it
more in-house, the other was an arm's length NDPB, and the idea
of an executive agency. It was generally felt, from the consultation,
that the NDPB would be the best model, not least because the Lord
Chancellor's Department obviously runs the Court Service, and
it was felt, that degree of independence of the organisation,
in terms of being parties to proceedings in court, and so on,
there would be that separation. In addition, I think it is very
important that, in bringing together the separate organisations
that existed previously, you do create a body that is able to
be a children's champion, and to have that distance, that independence,
and the expertise that we can bring together on the Board, to
be able to say to my Department, to Government, that this is the
way the organisation can move forward and have almost a policy
input as well, I think, is extremely important.
Q301 Peter Bottomley: It might be
helpful, again, at some stage, for the Committee to have in writing
the kinds of characteristics that the Lord Chancellor's Department
thinks should be on the Board, assuming it is for the Lord Chancellor's
Department actually to pick the Board members. I think we can
assume that one of the lessons that has been learned is that CAFCASS
should not have been set up on the timescale that it was, that
it would have been better to take an extra two years and have
a service which could maintain the service that was there before
and improve it during the first year. What other lessons do you
think have been learned?
Ms Winterton: I think some of
the risk assessment could have been improved, and we have perhaps
learned some of those lessons. I suspect that, if there had been
a bit more experience, perhaps, or a bit more notice taken of
the problems that might occur with the Inland Revenue, that would
have made some difference to the approach that was taken, which
to a certain extent came slightly—it was not anticipated
quite in the way that it should have been.
Q302 Peter Bottomley: Who had the
job of challenging the Inland Revenue?
Ms Winterton: There were discussions
held with the Inland Revenue, but eventually it was a group of
self employed guardians in the North East who went to the Inland
Revenue and who said that the current way of operating probably
would cause difficulties in bringing together the unified organisation.
I do not know whether Sally Field would like to add anything else
about lessons.
Q303 Peter Bottomley: And while that
is being answered, was any of the work of the Project Team withheld
from CAFCASS?
Ms Winterton: Not that I am aware
of.
Ms Field: No. Perhaps I could
start with the guardians dispute first. It was a group of guardians
themselves that raised the issue with the Inland Revenue, and
the difficulty was, of course, the contracts that they had had
did not provide the clear water that Jonathan Tross was referring
to earlier, and so the Inland Revenue said then, "Well, this
is not going to be acceptable, when we come to looking at their
tax status." And, I think, though the Project Team knew about
this and certainly did some work on it, and worked up some proposals
for different sorts of contracts, the actual impact assessment
of that going wrong was not recognised sufficiently. But, obviously,
we did not know at that point either that there were going to
be judicial review proceedings brought, and that brought it to
a head and also imposed a different timescale, and exacerbated
the situation because, subsequently, as a result of that judicial
review, there was quite a freeze on recruitment and so that a
time of rising workloads, recruitment, was very, very restricted,
and that compounded the problem. So, I think, from one initial
difficulty, several other things went awry and they conspired
to make a much larger problem than was first anticipated.
Q304 Peter Bottomley: And is either
of our witnesses aware of whether any of the project work was
withheld from CAFCASS?
Ms Field: It was not withheld
from CAFCASS. I think the first problem was that, although the
Project Teams handed over work, the executive team in CAFCASS
was not fully in place until June of the first year, and then
they were consumed almost immediately by the guardians dispute
and all of that work, so really it was put on hold. And, I think,
as new people came into CAFCASS and were recruited directly into
the executive teams, they wanted to look particularly at what
had been done. I had seen the customer service work that was done
by one of the Project Teams, and, although you cannot say, overall,
all seven recommendations were implemented, actually CAFCASS has
been doing some of the things that were recommended by that Project
Team; so it is not as if they were not utilised. And we did make
sure, last year, that CAFCASS did have all of the previous records,
the reports from the Project Teams.
Q305 Chairman: So they did not actually
lose any of the reports?
Ms Field: I would not say "lose",
no; lost sight of, perhaps.
Q306 Chairman: And if they had, copies
were still available in your Department, were they?
Ms Field: Yes.
Q307 Keith Vaz: Minister, if you
were giving CAFCASS marks out of ten, what would be their score?
Ms Winterton: Rising.
Q308 Keith Vaz: It sounds like a
ministerial answer. You have been the Minister responsible for
the last two years, the service was launched when you were a Minister,
even though the policy decision was taken by your predecessor.
It sounds as if there is a very complacent attitude coming from
the LCD. It appears that you are going round the country meeting
distressed staff, trying to find out what the problems are, you
have a Chairman who talks about difficulties, we know you have
new management in there, but do you not think that the attitude
of the LCD is a little complacent, bearing in mind the evidence
that we have heard, which, I know, you have watched on television
and have read on the website? Is not this a bit of a complacent
attitude?
Ms Winterton: Far from it; far
from it. I have kept in very close touch with the Chairman and
the Chief Executive throughout this period. I think, when you
heard the Chairman and Chief Executive talking earlier, the Chairman
referred to the fact that we moved very quickly to put an acting
Chief Executive in post. I have certainly travelled round the
country meeting staff and practitioners, but that is because I
was very anxious to understand how they were seeing things, how
the service was working on the ground. I have also been very keen
to ensure that we have been able to move to resource the organisation
adequately, and I think that, putting those things together, the
attitude from the LCD, I can assure you, has been far from complacent;
quite the opposite.
Q309 Keith Vaz: But it sounds like
it is short of an action plan. I understand that you are concerned
and you are going round the country visiting people, but, presumably,
you have had a chat with the Lord Chancellor about this? This
is the Lord Chancellor's Department, this is to do with children,
you have heard what the Chairman has said about the denial of
justice, this is the Department that is supposed to deliver justice
to children, and this is not happening with CAFCASS. Tell me that
there is something more than a programme of visits and Ministers
saying that there are difficulties; for example, why is Mr Hewson
still in his job after three years?
Ms Winterton: I think Anthony
Hewson has played an extremely important role in taking the organisation,
first of all, as we have already said, from a far too quick time,
in terms of set-up, difficult problems during that first year,
which he had to take control of, as Chairman of the Board; he
has moved the organisation on, with Jonathan Tross, and I think
it is now stabilising. When you look at the particular problems
that were faced, followed on by the judicial review, I think it
was inevitable that there were going to be quite severe problems,
but the fact that the organisation has come through that and is
stabilising is very important. I think you heard earlier, as well,
that the Lord Chancellor and the Permanent Secretary and myself
have moved quickly to ensure that, for example, when there were
previous management difficulties, Jonathan Tross was installed
very quickly.
Q310 Keith Vaz: But this is the problem,
there seems to be a lack of clarity of the lines of accountability,
you are dealing with a Board, on the one hand, you are then dealing
with management, but, in the end, it must rest with Ministers.
What we have seen here is a lack of direction. Is there, following
a meeting with the Lord Chancellor and your Permanent Secretary,
a ten-point action plan which you have said to your officials
must be implemented within a specific period of time, or is it
still very vague, because it sounds very vague, to me?
Ms Winterton: No. Obviously, there
are strategic objectives which are set. The Department works closely
with CAFCASS to agree targets for improvement. In terms of major
crisis points, then there were the appropriate meetings with the
Lord Chancellor, working with the Chair, to agree a way forward,
to move quickly, in a very difficult situation that occurred at
that time, and I think that officials within the Department have
tried to work closely with the organisation to bring it forward.
On the one hand, it seems as though we are criticised for overmanaging,
but, on the other hand, we are criticised for not being in touch
close enough. I think that I would say, in the circumstances that
there were in the difficult first months, actually we struck the
balance right. But I accept that there will be criticisms, I accept
perfectly well that there will be criticisms about the initial
timetable and the fact that that was ambitious; but I feel that,
since then, we have worked to resolve an extremely difficult position,
but, I have to say, we are not complacent about it and continue
to do all we can to make sure the organisation moves on.
Q311 Chairman: I would just like
to clarify something which arose from that, indeed, from your
understandable response to it. It appears that you have found
it necessary, and indeed have been encouraged by Mr Vaz, to go
far beyond the responsibilities that the Department has in relation
to a non-departmental public body, to exercise a level of influence
over management as well as the Board, to deal with the real mess,
because the situation was so bad. And what you should actually
have done is appoint the right people to the Board in the first
place, and that you were left using influence rather than powers
which Parliament gave you to try to resolve the problem. Is that
not a fair summary of what has happened?
Ms Winterton: I think, during
one very difficult period, obviously, the Permanent Secretary
of the Department is accountable to Parliament as the Accounting
Officer, the Lord Chancellor is accountable to Parliament under
the legislation. I think we would have been failing if we had
not tried to work closely with the organisation to help resolve
the difficulties. I think, given the matters that were raised
in Parliament, if I had sat back and said, "That's for somebody
else to worry about," that would have been quite wrong, and
we are talking about children in a very vulnerable situation.
At the same time, what we have to do is empower the Board, because
a lot of the appointments, obviously, have to be done with the
approval of the Lord Chancellor, particularly the Chief Executive,
so it is difficult to see how we could not have taken an interest,
given that it has to come to us for the final decision.
Q312 Keith Vaz: Minister, I do not
think the Chairman of this Committee is criticising action, I
think what we are criticising is lack of action, or action being
taken at the wrong or inappropriate level. There is a command
structure here, which requires you, as the Minister, to see on
a regular basis the Chairman. What the Chairman is saying is,
why did you not get the Board to do this, because the Board is
in the pyramid, right at the top of the structure that has been
created; you seem to be intervening at different levels, at different
times, responding to this criticism, and ending up in a muddle?
Ms Winterton: I do not think that
that is the case. I would just reiterate that I think, at the
time, when there were clearly problems because there was a lack
of a Chief Executive, for one reason or another, it was important
for us, as a Department, to move very quickly, and, as I say,
the Board has to come to us for approval of these actions, and
so, therefore, to make sure that we worked closely with the Board
and assisted them, and, particularly in respect of the Accounting
Officer responsibilities, it was the right thing to do. And certainly
I do not feel that we could have not moved quickly in those circumstances,
and I think I would have been heavily criticised for not doing
so, frankly. I do not know whether Sally wants to say anything.
Ms Field: Just one point perhaps
about these levels of accountability and how they operate, because
obviously the meetings that Ministers have with the Chairman,
the Chairman is now representing the Board, and, in fact, there
have been meetings with other Board members present also; that
is the strategic level and accountability of the Board. But also
to have, as we have, a lot of contact with the Chief Executive,
who is responsible for the day-to-day management and the actual
operations and has a grasp of all of the detail and the specific
action plans that are being put in place, because he is responsible
to the Board for making sure that what they want actually is implemented.
And so a kind of dual role. We are very comfortable with it, because
Ministers are able to hold the Board accountable, through the
Chairman, and also the Chief Executive, as the Accounting Officer.
Q313 Keith Vaz: And that is the problem;
the problem is that you are intervening at different levels, and
therefore muddle is being created, instead of having a very clear
line of communication. Clearly, Ministers and officials want to
react when things are going wrong, but I think you need to look
at that structure and the way in which accountability is achieved.
My final question is, when do you intend to see Mr Hewson again;
is there scheduled in your diary a meeting with Mr Hewson?
Ms Winterton: I have meetings
at the moment with the Chairman and the Chief Executive approximately
every three weeks.
Q314 Keith Vaz: Right; and you will
bring out a piece of paper, saying, "Three weeks ago,"
or six weeks ago, "we said we would do this; have we done
it?"?
Ms Winterton: Yes. We have action
points.
Keith Vaz: Good.
Q315 Dr Whitehead: I understand that,
as Sally Field mentioned, you may be fairly comfortable with the
relationship with CAFCASS, but do you think perhaps, on reflection,
it might have been a better idea, as it were, to deconfuse the
structure in the first place, that, for example, perhaps set up
CAFCASS as an executive agency rather than an NDPB, or, better
still, perhaps make sure that if CAFCASS were to be an NDPB actually
it had a framework document that reflected its status rather than
an agency framework document?
Ms Winterton: I think that, as
I said before, there was quite an important point about the independence
particularly of practitioners, in terms of the court proceedings,
but I think also that it is a very effective way of ensuring that
the organisation can be a champion for children. And what I want
to see coming out of it is an independent voice, that says "This
is how we see, through the expertise, for example, we have on
our Board, combined with the experience of practitioners on the
ground, how we believe policy should move forward and changes
should be made." I think, also, from my point of view, in
terms of promoting the work of the practitioners within Government,
that the fact that there is that independent voice there is good
in terms of raising its profile. And what I have certainly tried
to do over the past year is make sure that other government departments
are more aware of the very important work done by practitioners
in this field, of which, I must say, I do not think there was
entirely the awareness that one might expect. I know, on this
Committee, there is a lot of expertise and awareness of some of
the work that has gone on; that is not universal. And I think,
if we are to make sure that the service works closely with other
service providers and other agencies, that this is actually a
very effective way of achieving that, and helps me to raise the
profile within Government as well.
Q316 Dr Whitehead: But, with respect,
if I were a member of the Board of CAFCASS and someone issued
me with a framework document, and I read that document and I realised
it was indistinguishable from an agency framework document, and
indeed the Lord Chancellor announces his pleasure at the new agency
that has come into being in the Introduction to that framework
document, I think I would be rather hopelessly confused, would
I not, about my relationship that was then expected of me with
Government?
Ms Winterton: I can understand
that if that says the new agency then there might be some confusion
about that. But certainly I feel that the framework document has
set out quite clearly the way that the organisation should work,
but I do not know whether Sally Field wants to comment on the
closeness of it to an agency document. I am afraid, I do not feel
entirely expert on the different, particular points that you are
saying are exactly the same.
Q317 Chairman: Is not this a triumph
of hope over experience, that here you have a body which is so
preoccupied with trying to solve the problems that it has encountered
in organising itself that the idea that it could stand on the
independence which it is supposed to have, as a non-departmental
public body, and turn to you, as the Minister, and say, "I
want to spend this meeting discussing how I think policy could
be changed," something an agency cannot do but an NDPB can
do, they are in no position to do that, because the meetings are
occupied entirely with you discussing with them what is going
wrong in the structure?
Ms Winterton: No. There is no
doubt that at the moment I am having quite regular meetings to
learn more about how the problems are being overcome; but I think
you will see, and I think it has been shown from some of the evidence
that has come forward, that the organisation is moving on to other
things. I would not have expected, in that first year, given the
difficulties, given the difficulties of the judicial proceedings,
that the Board would have been able, in a sense, to look beyond
that. I can understand why there was a desire to concentrate on
stabilising the organisation, and, indeed, from the point of view
of knowing the difficulties that would be caused for children
if it were not sorted out, I would not have wanted it to do anything
but stabilise. I know, from going round the country, that a lot
of the practitioners felt that the work that they had done on,
for example, domestic violence, contact centres, and so on, had
been slightly parked, and wanted to know where that had gone,
but I do feel that, now we are out of that difficult period, things
are moving forward. I think Jonathan Tross talked about the compact
that had been signed with the National Association of Child Contact
Centres, for example; there is work that is moving forward on
mediation. And I think that as the Board is able to sit back slightly
then that work can move forward; but, equally, I am clear that
they will not want to do that until they feel that some of the
problems that they are facing are sorted out.
Ms Field: Perhaps I could just
add there, actually I have meetings with CAFCASS opposite numbers
every two months about policy developments; that has been going
on since the early part of my tenure in this job. Initially, of
course, we were concentrating on lots of the new policies, such
as the Adoption and Children Bill that was going through at the
time, and now the Act, and we have had CAFCASS representatives
on a number of our policy development strands, through the Increasing
Contact work and the stakeholder groups there, and indeed are
now involved in the LCD Reducing Delay Programme Board.[2]
So there is a very high level of contact at official level, and
at the moment they are responding very well to what we are proposing
and they are jointly developing with us. There is not yet, but
I expect there to be in the future, their fresh policy ideas coming
in to us to consider.
Q318 Dr Whitehead: But this is what
I would expect of the relationship between Government and a good
agency?
Ms Field: I think, to the extent
that an NDPB has that independence, it is not the case that we
can, as we could with an agency, just instruct people to do what
we wanted, we do actually have to recognise and understand their
independence, that they need to be able to tell us, freely and
frankly, if they think that something we are proposing is not
going to work, or there is a different way to do it, where they
can make it work.
Ms Winterton: I think also there
is a point that it might be worth making, which is that the status
with the NDPB has allowed some of the changes, in terms of the
contracts and perhaps terms and conditions of the guardians and
self-employed, to be altered with more independence, so that they
have been able to do some of the work of attracting people that
we have been asked to do.
Q319 Mr Dawson: Essentially, with
regard to the Adoption and Children Act, those of us who were
on the Bill were really very pleased, I think everyone was, when
the Government brought forward Section 122, allowing for the separate
representation of children in private law proceedings around residence
and contact. Are the difficulties that CAFCASS has had and is
continuing to have, is that going to colour the view, Rosie, of
when that Section of the Act should be fully implemented?
Ms Winterton: No. Obviously, we
have to look at all the resource implications of some of the changes
under the Adoption and Children Act; as you know, there was not
only that, there were changes in terms of domestic violence safeguards,
and so on. What we are doing at the moment is starting to consult,
through children's organisations, for example, with children,
to find out, because, obviously, one of the things that we are
trying to achieve is to make sure that, in these circumstances,
and I know of the close interest you have taken in this and I
know that we agree that in not all cases will this be the appropriate
way forward, children would not necessarily always want to be
put in a position of choosing, so to speak. And so what we want
to do, first of all, is try to find out exactly, when we are looking
at that representation, what children want. Now, as you know,
it is possible for this to happen at the moment, this simply reflects
the desire actually to enshrine it in statute, but once we have
finished that, which we are looking to do, we hope, by the end
of the year, then we will start a wider consultation about how
we can actually implement more of it. It is quite interesting,
in different parts of the country separate representation is more
common; in Yorkshire, for example, it happens much more frequently
than in other areas, and I think we need to look at all those
issues. I heard some of your evidence before, I think one of the
people who gave evidence said that they thought it was something
like 7% of cases might be appropriate; we have to make that kind
of assessment.
2 Note by witness: Overseeing the implementation
of the judicial case management protocol for public law Children
Act cases. Back
|
