Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540
- 559)
WEDNESDAY 9 FEBRUARY 2005
RT HON
MARGARET HODGE
MP
Q540 Mr Greenway: Let us change tack
completely and talk about some of the practical issues about delivering
this policy. How important is the creation of databases and child
indices in ensuring the exchange of vital information and greater
co-operation between professionals? Rather than pursue that, would
it not be preferable to focus effort, first and foremost, on improving
frontline employees' ability to work together?
Margaret Hodge: Of course we have
to focus on frontline professionals working well together. The
whole lesson we learn from the Victoria Climbié tragedy,
and from every other report that I ever read on the death of a
child, is that there has been a failure of the professionals to
communicate with each other; a failure to work together. That
is why, when I talk about building services around the needs of
children, young people and their families, the principle underpinning
that is to get professionals working better together. That is
why locating professionals together in SureStart Children's Centres,
extended schools, multi-professional teams, whatever it is, is
so important. That is why having a common assessment framework
is so important. That is why developing core competences right
across all professionals, so that they have a joint understanding
of language, of child development, of child safeguarding—all
that is all about getting people working better together. Information-sharing
is yet another tool to support better working together by professionals—nothing
more, nothing less. It is a tool. It is an important tool that
in the modern world we ought to employ, which will help professionals,
save time, identify other professionals who are working with a
child; it will help them intervene earlier in that child's life
when they first spot that there are things going wrong, and it
will lead to better outcomes. But it is nothing more or less than
a tool; it is not an end in itself.
Q541 Mr Greenway: The legislation
to create these databases was enacted before the results of the
information-sharing assessment pilots were fully known. What further
analysis and risk assessment do you plan to do before progressing
to the commissioning and implementation stages of these databases?
What is the timetable for doing so?
Margaret Hodge: The legislation
provided us with a framework. In fact, one of the reasons we got
into slight difficulties during consideration of the legislation
was this concern which people felt that there was not sufficient
detail on the face of the Act to give comfort to some of the concerns
about privacy. So it is no more or less, again, than a framework.
We are working towards developing the information database in
a very steady, focused, staged way. We are not moving faster than
we can. For example, we have now employed a number of pretty high-powered
people to support the development of the project; we have external
expertise that we bring in; we are very closely monitored by the
new Government review process; we keep learning from the trailblazers—I
meet with them regularly; we are developing a business case. We
will go slowly and steadily to make sure that we do not get another
government IT project wrong.
Q542 Mr Greenway: You have anticipated,
probably by the look on my face, the question that I was going
to ask. Do you worry that the record of successive governments—let
us be fair about this—in commissioning IT databases, which
were going to be all-singing and all-dancing, do everything for
everybody, is not spectacularly good? I agree with you completely
regarding your opening comment in answer to my first question:
that it is when information does not get shared that something
goes wrong. So this could be where the fault lies in the future,
and the same kind of tragedy happens again.
Margaret Hodge: I do worry. I
accept that the record is not good. All I can tell you is that
we are determined to get this right. If you look, for example,
at the recent media coverage on the NHS system, one of the mistakes
made there was a failure to get user involvement in developing
that. We are making sure that we do have user involvement. We
are keeping it as simple as we can. I think the key to this is
simplicity, and I am determined to have that. So every decision
we take is trying to get the simplest solution. We are not trying
to develop new technology. We are using well-tried and tested
technology; so we are not inventing new systems. But—and
let me put this to you—I genuinely think the Committee would
benefit from a session with the trailblazers, Chairman. I have
read a lot of your evidence, and I honestly think that you would
find a seminar or something with the trailblazers really helpful.
When you talk to the trailblazers, which I do regularly, we are
beginning to unlock something really important. They all talk
about the project supporting much better cross-professional communication
and working-together. They all talk about that. They all talk
about the fact that they are identifying more children with additional
needs—which is interesting in itself. So we are able, through
this system, to find children earlier and to respond to their
additional needs, so that their development is not halted. They
all talk about earlier intervention. They all talk about the same
sort of thing. It is quite interesting. When I talk to professionals
across the piece, at the moment we do not even share a language
across the professional divides. We all use words like "assessment"
in a very different way. Assessment to a social worker will be
different to assessment to a teacher, to a youth worker, to a
Connexions worker—all that sort of stuff. We are beginning
to break down those barriers and boundaries. I think that the
fear that has been engendered around information systems being
an end in itself is false. I think that the fear that has been
engendered that we are wasting time and money is false. The understanding
we are getting from the trailblazers fills me with optimism that,
as long as we go steadily, slowly, and every move we take we think
about, re-examine, re-justify and have certainty of it—I
think that this will probably be a pretty groundbreaking development,
which will help us serve children's interests better.
Mr Greenway: We will move on to training,
if we may.
Q543 Chairman: Before we do, perhaps
I could ask a supplementary on that. How are you evaluating the
evidence that has been given to the Committee by the Information
Commissioner and other, leading experts? You do not have a very
good track record in IT systems in the Department for Education
and Skills, have you, Minister?
Margaret Hodge: Across government.
We have not got a good track record. The Government does not have—
Q544 Chairman: Let us just remain
with your department. You know of a number of things we have investigated
in this Committee that touch on IT. We are already writing up
the e-University saga. Individual Learning Accounts are fresh
in our minds. The evidence we have is that some people estimate
we have spent a billion pounds on an information system, when
it is finished, that could have gone to frontline services. That
is what they are saying.
Margaret Hodge: I think that the
two examples you use from our department do not help your point,
with the greatest respect. Both ILA—
Q545 Chairman: Did you say that I
was abusing your department?
Margaret Hodge: No—do not
help your argument.
Q546 Chairman: My cold is affecting
my hearing.
Margaret Hodge: Because I would
say, on both ILAs and e-University, it was the policy and not
the implementation.
Q547 Chairman: No, I am sorry. ILAs
certainly was the implementation. Our criticisms of Capita in
that respect, and the contract between your department and Capita,
are still very fresh in my memory, Minister, if not in yours.
Margaret Hodge: I am not sure
that it was the system.
Q548 Chairman: It was a system totally
open to fraud.
Margaret Hodge: No, it was a policy
which had not built into it—
Q549 Chairman: The Information Commissioner
told us he would not believe that this could be a secured system.
Margaret Hodge: Which one? Ours?
Q550 Chairman: Yes, the one you are
developing.
Margaret Hodge: On the security
of the system that we are developing, it will be a secure system.
All I can say to him—
Q551 Chairman: He is the expert;
you are the Minister.
Margaret Hodge: No, he is not
the expert in ICT systems; he is the expert in information. I
shall just read you a list, because I thought that you might ask
it, having read his evidence.
Q552 Chairman: I hope it is not a
long list.
Margaret Hodge: It is long. What
we will cover is security policy definition; organisation security;
asset classification and control; personnel security; physical
and environmental security; communications and operational management
security; systems access control. The list goes on and on. I have
read about half of it to you. So we will ensure that we have a
secure system. Having said that, we are working with the Information
Commissioner. We do understand that he is raising concerns which
we need to address, and we welcome his help, the help of his officials,
and the co-operation we are having from him in developing this.
Q553 Chairman: So all of the evidence
we have taken—you scoff at that really, and they are wrong
and you are right?
Margaret Hodge: All I am suggesting—I
think that you had evidence from three individuals—is that
you talk to the trailblazers who are developing a system for us
on the ground. If after you have had that balanced evidence, one
argument on one side and one argument on the other side, you come
to the same view, of course we will take your consideration seriously.
All I can tell you is, on the ground, where these information
systems are being developed, where the protocols to share information
are happening, it is leading to better outcomes for children.
That is the whole purpose of what we are trying to do.
Q554 Chairman: The Information Commissioner
said that, in terms of the quality and security, the professionals
will not use it and it will be a white elephant.
Margaret Hodge: I do not agree
with him. The reason I started reading the very long list and
stopped halfway through is that I think we can ensure security
and, by keeping it as a simple system—as simple as we can—we
will ensure that it is of the quality necessary to provide that
tool which will support better sharing of information between
professionals.
Q555 Paul Holmes: Some of the evidence
that we have received on that was from Professor Cleaver. Professor
Cleaver had undertaken an analysis of the trailblazers, I think
for your department. So she had actually looked at the implementation
of the trailblazers. She was saying that the advantages that were
coming through the scheme were not actually from the computer
project and the database, it was from getting people in local
areas to talk together and getting professionals to work together.
The database was irrelevant. She said, having done the analysis
for your department, that this was a total waste of money. This
money ought to be going into frontline services and not into a
big computer system.
Margaret Hodge: I was very bemused
by her evidence, because she had been at the last seminar I had
with the trailblazers and was singing a rather different tune.
I just have to say that to you, and I really do not understand
that.
Q556 Chairman: She knew she was singing
on the record.
Margaret Hodge: Indeed, and I
remain bemused. I would suggest that you read her report to us
to see whether there is consistency between the evidence that
she gave to you in open committee and the report, which is in
the public domain, of the evidence that she gave to us when she
did it. But the interesting thing is—and that is why when
I responded to Mr Greenway I said this—she is right to say
what matters is getting professionals to work together. I completely
agree with that. The whole purpose of all we are doing is to get
professionals to work together. We see this as a powerful tool
to enable that to happen. Mr Shaw will no doubt question this,
but maybe he will accept that when he was a social worker, trying
to track down all the other people who were working with a child—if
you were suddenly worried about a child—might take you days.
If, through having this very simple tool—and we will keep
it simple—you can save time and have a swifter conversation
about a child about whom you will have concerns, that is good;
that is to the benefit. It will save the social worker time; it
gets a better outcome for the child; it gets swifter intervention
in that child's life. Of course it is not an end in itself. I
have to keep saying that. We do not think we want just an all-singing,
all-dancing, massive IT project. What we want is an effective
tool to support professional work.
Q557 Chairman: Which is every child
in the country on a database?
Margaret Hodge: The reason we
want a universal database—there are some very powerful reasons
for this and we went through the argument very carefully when
we took the decision to go for a universal database. Let me just
go through them. Again, the thrust of our policy intent is to
move to early identification and early intervention. If you simply
have a database of only those children that are at risk or in
care, you have started to intervene too late. So we want a system
which enables this early intervention. The second thing is, the
analysis we have shows that probably—and it is quite an
interesting figure—a third of children throughout their
childhood and young adulthood will have an additional need. So
it is a lot of children we are talking about. It will be very
different sorts of needs, but a third of children at some point
may require extra support and intervention to ensure that they
fulfil their potential. In that, if you want to identify that
third early, it makes sense to go for a universal database. Thirdly,
if we do not have all children, it is very difficult to identify
a particular child, it is very difficult to plan services. Think
of the children missing out on education. Take that as an example.
At the moment, it is terribly difficult to track those kids who
are missing from education. We have got runaway projects—we
have all these projects running. We do not really know them all.
If we have a universal database which identifies all children,
it is much easier for us to track down those children who are
missing out on the universal services, which again will ensure
that they fulfil their potential. The final thing I would say
to you is that a universal database is much less stigmatising,
and therefore much easier to operate than one that is simply focused
on children who are on the at-risk register of a social services
department presently in local authorities.
Q558 Paul Holmes: Clearly there is
a need for you to have some positive conversations, because one
week we can have you and your officials saying, "This is
what we are going to do, and it works", but a couple of weeks
earlier we have Dr Munro, Professor Cleaver and the Information
Commissioner sitting there saying, "It's a total white elephant
and bad use of the money". So there clearly needs to be some
conversation somehow. But can I just press you on one particular
point about funding? Apart from the few trailblazers, the local
authorities which have been given £100,000 each—which
amounts to £15 million across the country—for IT equipment,
the actual cost is going to be a billion. Is this billion pounds
going to mean you get another billion that comes from other savings
you are making?
Margaret Hodge: Let me first of
all say it is not to develop IT systems: it is to develop protocols
for better sharing of information across professional boundaries.
That is the first thing. The second thing is we are not talking
anywhere near billions. It is too early to give you—we will
develop a business case and share it with everybody. I am all
for having a completely open development of this particular aspect
of our policy. We are into the low hundreds, if anything.
Q559 Chairman: You are committed
to doing further analysis and cost accounting?
Margaret Hodge: We have an estimate,
but it would be too early—
| 
