Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360
- 376)
MONDAY 24 JANUARY 2005
PROFESSOR HEDY
CLEAVER, MR
RICHARD THOMAS
AND DR
EILEEN MUNRO
Q360 Chairman: You have reminded
me of a very early LSE lecture I had about information and needles
in haystacks. Apparently the Intelligence Service in the United
States knew exactly that Pearl Harbour was going to be bombed,
yet there was so much information that it got lost in the information
flow. We are talking about the same thing, are we not?
Mr Thomas: There is a far more
recent example, the Soham murders. Data protection was quite wrongly
blamed for what went wrong there. The Bichard Inquiry entirely
vindicated data protection. The truth was that the Humberside
Police had a lot of information but did not always know where
to best find it.
Q361 Jeff Ennis: In your written
evidence, Dr Munro, you had four main concerns, one of which encapsulates
the problem we have, which is your concern no.3: "The proposed
policy includes the power to breach confidentiality about low-level
concerns and concerns unrelated to abusive parenting; and this
will be detrimental to relationships with families." This
is the problem we have. How can we ensure that children are protected
at the same time as enhancing family support? It seems that we
are struggling with two extremes in the parameters, as it were.
Dr Munro: I think you have to
be clear that supporting families includes treating them with
respect, and taking it that on the whole they have their child's
best interests at heart far more powerfully than any politician
or professional. We also need within children's services, which
are basically within a supportive attitude, a more suspicious
and coercive element at certain times. The more that we can spell
it out, both for professionals and for families, where the threshold
is that we will stop treating them with respect and start to challenge
them, the better it is. The idea that there is a hazy scenario
of dodgy families that would not co-operate but which are not
abusive, needs to be spelt out, because if they exist I would
like to know more about the nature of the problems that they are
creating. Unless everybody concerned is clear about what point
we criticise a parent, then having a major observation of what
they are doing will feel frightening to parents, and it will be
threatening.
Q362 Helen Jones: As I understood
Professor Cleaver's evidence, there had not been much emphasis
on IT in the trailblazer areas, but there was a lot of information-sharing
and then perhaps setting up of IT. Do you have any information
to give us on how parents reacted to the new systems? What affected
their responses?
Professor Cleaver: There was quite
a lot of consultation and information putting-out to parents and
children and young people, and most of them did it innovatively,
because they had to tell families that this was all going to be
happening. They spent a lot of time putting stuff through in all
sorts of different ways. They did quite a lot of consultation
with the children, again exciting consultation—they had
play-acting and what it would be like, et cetera. The children,
on the whole, thought information should be shared about them
if it was going to improve the services they had, but they wanted
to be consulted and informed. They did not want the information
shared with bad people, and they were very worried about databases
because they felt that they could be hacked into, and unlike Neolithic
people like myself—
Q363 Helen Jones: By them?
Professor Cleaver: They were saying
things like they could get into the Pentagon database so you could
definitely get into East Sussex. They just did not believe all
those wise words of the Government, saying it would be secure.
They just did not believe it and they wanted very little information
kept on those databases because they were frightened that paedophiles
would find out, particularly if there was a flag of concern. You
can identify vulnerable children, because there was the name,
the age of the child and the school they went to, so that you
could go and visit, and there was a concern; so you knew immediately
that this was a vulnerable child—"goody, goody".
They were very concerned about that. They wanted agencies to talk
to each other, if they asked them first.
Q364 Helen Jones: That is very interesting,
particularly the children's view on it, because in my experience
they know far more about IT systems than the likes of us. Mr Thomas,
you mentioned earlier your concerns about the accuracy of information
held, and following on from what Professor Cleaver has told us,
about the security of the system. Can you tell the Committee your
thoughts on how any such system can be kept accurate and secure?
Mr Thomas: There are a lot of
questions there, but on security there are standards in the IS/IT
industry, and one of the data protection principles is that personal
information must be kept secure; so one can have appropriate levels
of security. The point I want to make here is that it is fundamental
to get it right in this area. We have had complaints in this area
of social services, where it seemed that everybody in a local
authority department knew that a complaint had been made that
a parent was abusing the child, and that was an example of the
gossip spreading too far. In terms of accuracy and keeping up
to date, I have given some examples of some of the logistical
problems when you have these massive numbers and just keeping
track of people. Let me give you a graphic example of where circumstances
changed and yet the records were not kept up to date. A case was
brought to our attention when a child was overheard in the school
playground to say—and please forgive the language—"my
Dad bonked me last night". The social services through the
school quite rightly investigated that. They carried out a full
investigation and discovered that a fair had been held in the
town; the father had won an inflatable hammer and had said to
his children, "bonk, bonk, bonk". As far as social services
were concerned, that was the end of the matter. They were quite
clear that there was no concern at all, but the records of that
incident relating to the child, the sibling, the parents and to
the grandparents were kept on another system and were never amended
or deleted until it came to light some time later. That is an
example of the harm that can happen where records are not scrupulously
kept up to date. Another example came to our office some time
ago where a father was alleged to have been abusing his child.
Another person was then prosecuted for that matter and the father
was entirely innocent, and yet the records were not updated, and
that was still there against that particular parent's name. It
is fundamental not just to keep track of the names and addresses,
but to keep track of the changes of circumstances as the various
processes move forward.
Q365 Chairman: While we have you
in front of us, Richard—and we would not like you to have
to face us twice, we are also looking at prison education. One
of the matters that comes up all the time is whether prisoners
can use the Internet for educational purposes. One group of witnesses
told us absolutely that there are secure systems where there is
no danger of prisoners accessing pornography or getting in touch
with victims and so on. There is another group that said there
is no system that is foolproof. Which camp would you fall into?
Mr Thomas: I am not going to answer
the question fully, Chairman. I need to have notice of that question!
I would say no more than that it is my role as Commissioner to
be somewhat sceptical, somewhat concerned, and to make sure the
systems do what they are intended to do. If one has clarity about
the purposes and security arrangements, one then has to make sure
that they are actually delivered in practice.
Q366 Chairman: What is your interpretation
of the 2004 Act, section 12? One interpretation is that there
will be a database, and we are on this road to ruin—we have
got to have it because it is in the Act. There is another interpretation
that there is a power to develop a database. Which is it?
Mr Thomas: I read section 12 as
a lawyer, Chairman—forgive me—but I think it is talking
about the Secretary of State "may" do this, that or
the other. There is no duty on the Secretary of State. There is
nothing which says that this has to happen. Indeed, there was
very considerable scope and flexibility to decide what, if anything,
is going to happen in this area. I have welcomed the fact that
the primary legislation has become a little more precise than
in the original clause 8 of the Bill; we have more elaboration
now on the face of the Act. As always in these sorts of situations,
what comes out will be the content of the regulations. They have
yet to be made. I hope that we will see some draft regulations
in due course. I have had the same debate vis-a"-vis
identity cards. I am bound to say that the safeguards and arrangements
on the Identity Cards Bill that is currently going through Parliament
are a great deal more elaborate and discussed, and more fully
articulated, than what we have seen on the face of the Children
Act. I do have some concerns, frankly, that as this Bill went
through Parliament all the attention was on smacking, and these
provisions got almost no attention at all. I do think there are
some issues and debates to be had amongst the population and within
society at large about these proposals, about which there is still
not very much detail on the face of the Act.
Chairman: I do get the feelings sometimes
in these hearings that we are conducting a rather late pre-legislative
inquiry. There is now one last section on the resource implications
of the ISA programmes.
Q367 Paul Holmes: Professor Cleaver,
from your study of the initial trailblazers, is there any evidence
about the cost of setting up a proper system in any given area?
Professor Cleaver: One of the
concerns they have is that the funding would have to continue.
I do not think they are expecting it at the very generous rate
that it was, but you would have to fund first of all somebody
to keep the databases up to date. That is absolutely essential,
otherwise you have rubbish information on them, as we have just
heard, which can be very dangerous. You need to have some funding
for the lead professional, if you are going to have a lead professional.
There are huge funding issues, and you need funding to continue
the training, because a lot of them have invested a great deal
but know it will have to continue, even in the trailblazers; but
for the non- trailblazers they have not started. They have done
some work towards it, but it has got major cost implications.
Having said that, if you removed the database and said you would
not go for databases, it has still thrown up the fact that if
we want greater inter-agency collaboration, we will have to fund
it.
Q368 Paul Holmes: What were the generous
amounts initially for the trailblazers?
Professor Cleaver: They had £1
million for local authorities or groupings of local authorities
over a year to do it.
Q369 Paul Holmes: If you multiplied
that up to cover the whole country, instead of trailblazers, what—
Professor Cleaver: It would be
a lot of money! It is 135 non- trailblazers.
Q370 Paul Holmes: You said in some
cases it would be groupings.
Professor Cleaver: Yes, there
were pairs. I do not have a calculator and would have to work
it out.
Q371 Chairman: There has been an
estimate of £1 billion.
Professor Cleaver: Okay.
Q372 Jeff Ennis: Do you think that
ISA systems will represent a good investment, or would money be
better spent elsewhere within children's services?
Dr Munro: I think I have answered
that very clearly already, have I not? This is the wrong place
to be looking for improving the quality of services.
Q373 Chairman: I want this on the
record: I have in my notes that you said in an article published
in Political Quarterly where you said the real problem
is with limited funding of services for early intervention. "Adequate
funding would do far more to improve outcomes for children than
creating an intrusive, expensive tracking system to reveal what
parents and professionals already know, that there are more children
needing help than services available."
Dr Munro: Yes, I put it quite
well, did I not?
Mr Thomas: Frankly, I do not think
I can personally answer Mr Ennis's question. Can I just use the
opportunity to make one final point, if you are winding up now?
I am conscious that we have all been somewhat negative this afternoon.
These are desperately serious issues and we must be as positive
as possible. I am aware that within those concerned with the welfare
of children, there is a lot of misunderstanding, misconception
and anxiety about so-called legal and other constraints, including
data protection, on the sharing of information. I want to make
it very clear—and I have talked already to such bodies as
the Association of Social Service Directors—that the more
guidance we can give to people about the legal framework, about
what can be done within the data protection environment, the better.
I am very, very committed to making data protection as simple
as possible, and to clarify the guidance in this very, very important
area. If nothing else, I want to end on that very positive note.
We are going to do what we can to explain to all the childcare
professionals what they can do in this area, a lot more than many
would perhaps think.
Q374 Chairman: Your use of plain
English helps a great deal in that.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Chairman.
Professor Cleaver: The enthusiasm
in the trailblazers for greater inter-agency collaboration was
across the board; they all thought that this was the way forward.
An awful lot of work had been done that was very good, and I think
that will and should help improve the outcomes for all children,
not only the very vulnerable who were on child protection registers
but also children who are children in need as defined by the Act
and children who are not even at that level of concern—children
within schools, if there is greater sharing of information. As
I say, there is a great enthusiasm for greater sharing of information
when they are working together with the co-operation of parents.
You have to have parents and children in there.
Q375 Chairman: Is there anything
you think we have missed in terms of our questions?
Dr Munro: I have a concern about
the social work workforce, because I am a social worker. You do
need to remember that until the mid 1990s children and families
social work was the elite branch, which was highly competitive.
If you went to any children and families team in London you would
have found people there who had been in post for 10 or 20 years,
and you had these really experienced, competent teams. They have
all been driven out. Unless you can understand why you drove them
out, and get them back in, I do not think we are going to capture
the skills that we need to make the system function properly.
Q376 Chairman: This has been an excellent
session. All of us who are experienced Members of Parliament do
know what has been happening in social work over the years. I
am always amazed when I talk to my health visitors and social
workers particularly, professions very much at the sharp end and
dealing with human misery and challenging circumstances, that
we do not have better human resources bases where people can be
moved to different duties and then back. Large numbers of social
workers at the front line have such a job that they do need a
very careful human resource approach to developing their profession.
Dr Munro: They do.
Chairman: It has been a very good session
for us. Thank you for us being gentle with us, being newcomers
on the block! I am grateful to all the witnesses today, and the
nodders and the shakers in the gallery! Will you please keep in
contact and allow us to contact you again because we want to make
this a good report? Thank you.
| 
