Select Committee on Lord Chancellor's Department Minutes of Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 23 July 2003