| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman refers to social worker posts and the work required under the 2002 Act. Do his figures take account of the many voluntary agencies that do that work for local authorities?
Tim Loughton: Indeed, I have made that point on many previous occasions and shall probably make it later. There are many different schemes involving many different people, and the biggest problem is that they tread on each other's toes. There is an awful lot of poaching from one scheme to another, including the poaching of full-time social workers who work for social services departments.
I have not mentioned the increasing rush for early retirement by directors of social services, but 40 out of 150 social services directors in England took early retirement in the past year.
Mr. David Cameron (Witney) (Con): Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), is my hon. Friend aware that some voluntary bodies involved with social services such as the excellent Family Nurturing Network, which is based in my constituency, are concerned that the setting up of the new heads of children's services in every social services department might make it more difficult for them to continue to provide good services to vulnerable children and families? What should the Government do to address that particular point on behalf of important voluntary bodies such as the one that I mentioned?
Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and underlines the need for much greater local autonomy in the way that local authorities, working in concert with voluntary organisations, provide crucial services to vulnerable children. As I shall explain, the children's fund schemes were about to have the rug pulled from beneath their feet. Much good will and trust has been lost as a result of Government action, which might have undermined many schemes that offer extremely worthwhile activities.
Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tim Loughton: No, I will not, as I want to make progress; otherwise, there will be no opportunity for Back-Bench Members, among whom there is great enthusiasm and interest, to make speeches. In any case I do not want to deny the House another opportunity to hear the hon. Gentleman rubbish the previous Government, as he does whenever he makes a speech.
I have spoken to or visited many social services departments throughout the country in recent months, and nearly all of them point to a crisis in recruitment. As one London authority put it:
- "The biggest issue is recruitment and retaining staff and maintaining a consistent direction, which is hard with so many initiatives being pushed our way. We have had Quality Protects, Sure Start, Connexions, Children's Trusts, the Climbié audit, the Hillingdon Judgement, the CPA, the SSI, and the Leaving Care Act—all of which impose different sets of 'Priorities' on a frequent basis . . . Resources which are already scarce are being redirected on a continuous basis by government intervention."
Tim Loughton: One moment, I have more.
- "The biggest problem is money, with a forecast overspending for children's services of £4.6 million or 18.9 per cent. for the year 2003/04. We have 563 children looked after compared with 521 in 2001, 440 new referrals in December 2003 and increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining foster carers. We currently have 226 registered foster carers compared with 265 in 2001."
Tim Loughton: Yet again the hon. Gentleman has entirely misrepresented my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, and no doubt his Front-Bench colleagues will do so as well. He should remember that at the forefront of those proposals was continued spending on health and education.
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): It was health and schools.
Tim Loughton: It was health and education, and there will be pooled budgets, which the Minister for Children
is trying to pool in any case. Children's services would not be affected, so let us not hear any more nonsense—[Interruption.] Members on the Front Bench can scoff as much as they like it, but I am afraid that that expenditure is a plain fact that they chose to ignore.One west country authority proposes to recruit qualified social work staff from Canada. There is also a great shortage of foster carers, which is posing a serious problem everywhere. The Fostering Network estimates that although there are 32,000 foster families in England, there is a shortage of more than 6,100 foster families. Just over two thirds of the 60,800 children in public care in England live with foster families, who offer the best refuge for vulnerable children, and their best chance of returning to a stable home environment. As we know, the state makes a bad parent, yet 60 per cent. of foster carers receive no more than a basic contribution towards costs. As no minimum level is set by the Government, allowances vary widely between local authorities.
- "The amount spent on a few expensive placements for a small number of very difficult to place young people continues to escalate."
Local authorities have been caused major frustration by the Government's delay in coming forward with firm proposals and legislation despite the urgency of the Climbié case, which arose more than four years ago. The Green Paper on child protection was first promised by the Prime Minister in October 2002. The response to Laming, which was promised in spring 2003, eventually arrived as a Green Paper in September last year. That was followed by a short consultation period, but no White Paper. Finally, we are promised the Bill tomorrow. No pre-legislative scrutiny period was allowed, which makes it all the more important to get it right.
Throughout that time, local authorities have been in limbo, keen to get on with the important business of overhauling their approach to child protection post- Climbié, but held back by not knowing what may be imposed on them by the Bill. Will a central model of a director of children's services combining education and children's social services be imposed on everybody? We have been getting mixed messages from the Minister's own departmental colleagues as to whether the director will have a managerial or a strategic responsibility. The position that is being created could be very important, controlling as much as 70 per cent. of a local authority's budget, so it is vital to get it right and to have proper lines of accountability. The Local Government Association says:
- "we are concerned that the proposals for a single director, accountable for children's social services and education are unduly prescriptive. Managerial arrangements must be a matter for local discretion depending on local circumstances; the same arrangements will not work across the board. In many cases the degree of prescription will force authorities to unpick arrangements that are working well to introduce less effective arrangements."
- "Councils and their partners are best placed to organise the management of services for children, according to local circumstances, not civil servants in Whitehall"—
There has been concern that central Government have been slow in integrating children's services in the way the Green Paper proposes local authorities and their local partners should. As one northern shire authority puts it,
- "The Government seems to have forgotten to tell NHS colleagues that they are supposed to be involved, and have given the PCTs and other health trusts a set of priorities which don't include children and young people's services."
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Members on the Treasury Bench should not keep chattering while the hon. Gentleman is addressing the House—they would not expect the same if the situation were reversed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |