Kevin
Brennan: Bearing in mind what we have just debated, I will
be reasonably brief. Cause 2 restricts the functions that local
authorities can delegate to social work practices. Those restrictions
are important to ensuring quality and focus in the services offered.
The first restriction will ensure that the independent reviewing
officer role will remain with the local authorities. The independent
review officer will have an extremely important role to play under the
social work practice model, as they are the mechanism by which the
local authority will be able to quality assure the work of the provider
of social work services in relation to individual children. In that
context, the independent review officer will attend care-planning
reviews, as now, to monitor progress and make decisions about changes
as necessary. In undertaking that role, the independent review officer
will build up an important bank of knowledge about the effectiveness of
the social work practice, including its strengths and weaknesses, how
well it works with other agencies and the quality of its relationships
with children. Consistent with the IRO role, that information should
then be fed back to senior managers regularly, whether as part of wider
contract management meetings or by some other means. That information
flow will be absolutely crucial to enabling the local authority to hold
the social work practice to account meaningfully.
The second
restriction will ensure that social work practices cannot carry out the
local authority’s functions as an adoption agency unless the
practice itself is already a registered adoption agency. That is
because we want to ensure that children who are likely to remain in
care long term are the focus of social work practices, and those are
the children who seem to suffer most from the problems with the current
system that we and other members of the Committee have identified.
Social work practices will be of most use when they develop innovative
and effective strategies for working with that group of children that
can be transferred to the local authority context and implemented
across the country. Indeed, the processes for preparing for adoption
are obviously
different. The
third restriction that will apply to the provider of social work
services will be any restrictions applicable to the local authority by
reference to its area, such as restrictions on out-of-area placements.
That is intended to ensure consistency of treatment, despite the fact
that the functions will have been delegated between children with a
social work practice and those who remain in the care of the local
authority directly. Finally, the clause will require local authorities
to be satisfied that the functions it is to delegate to a provider of
social work practices will be discharged by or under the supervision of
registered social workers, as we have
mentioned. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
2 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
3Effect
of arrangements under section
1 Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Kevin
Brennan: Clause 3 is extremely important for ensuring a
strong framework of accountability for the work of providers of social
work services. It is important to be clear that under the social work
practice model the local authority will remain the corporate parent for
looked-after children and the local authority will remain accountable
for what happens to them. Local authorities will use the children and
young person’s plan to set out their priorities for local
children, including looked-after children, and inform the commissioning
of a social work
practice. The
local authority’s director of children’s services will
have oversight of the operation of the social work practice, just as
they would in relation to other local children’s services
delivered directly by the local authority. In that respect, the
contract between the local authority and the social work practice will
be absolutely crucial. It is through that contract that the local
authority will set out the outcomes that the social work practices must
deliver and the framework within which they must work, including
requirements for multi-agency working and other issues relevant to the
delivery of local authority services.
Once the
contract is agreed, there must be rigorous, frequent and engaged
contract management, as there is no question of the local authority
tacking its foot off the accelerator simply because of its contract
with the social work practice. We envisage a relationship of
partnership between the local authority and the social work practice,
involving regular meetings to spot potential problems early and agree
steps to put them right. The close management of the social work
practice will be important in the light of the local authority
remaining the corporate parent and retaining responsibility for the
discharge of its functions. As I explained earlier, the IRO will be
another key mechanism for ensuring
that. Clause
3 confirms that the local authority will be accountable for the acts
and omissions of the social work practice, without removing the
accountability of the practice itself. That is vital for ensuring the
proper protection of children and families supported by providers of
social work services. The local authority must remain responsible for
the discharge of its functions in relation to looked-after children,
even if it delegates some of those functions to a social work practice.
As I have said, that means that it will be accountable to the service,
provided that it remains the corporate parent of the children it looks
after, so children and their families can have the reassurance of
knowing that that claim could be pursued against the local authority
directly if things go wrong. Local authorities will require a
comprehensive contract and proactive contract
management. That
does not mean that the social work practice will escape liability for
its actions and failures. Its work will be sensitive, the decisions it
makes will be critical and we want to ensure that it is directly
accountable to the children and families it serves. Although clause
3(1) ensures that the local authority is accountable for the acts and
omissions of the social work practice, clause 3(2)(c) confirms that
claims may be brought against the practice in the usual way if things
go
wrong. Concerns
were raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and my
hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about the human rights
implications. I confirm what I said in response to those interventions.
Social work practices will be liable for their acts and
omissions under the Human Rights Act 1998. Social work practices will
discharge public functions and our view is that they will automatically
come under the definition of “public authority” in
section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act. We take that view because the
functions are imposed by legislation on the local authority and the
discharge of those functions will be paid for by the local authority
out of public
funds. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
3 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
4Regulation
of providers of social work
services Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Kevin
Brennan: Clause 4 provides for the regulation of social
work practices. It will require social work practices to be registered
with Her Majesty’s chief inspector of education,
children’s services and skills and they will be subject to
regular inspections. The clause will also enable us to issue national
minimum standards for social work practices and make regulations under
the Care Standards Act 2000, as we have for other
establishments. We
do not intend to bring the clause into force immediately. The pilot
period in clause 6 will end when clause 4 is brought into force after
there has been an evaluation of the pilots and a decision has been made
to roll the model out more widely or five years after Royal Assent,
whichever is sooner. We do not think it appropriate for social work
practices to be regulated under the 2000 Act during the pilot phase
because to introduce a new regulatory system for such a small number of
pilots would be unduly burdensome and bureaucratic. Nevertheless, we
will have the range of mechanisms that I set out earlier to monitor the
work of social care practices and assure their
quality. Social
work practices will be within the scope of the annual assessments by
the inspectorates, including the chief inspector, from 2009 through the
new comprehensive care assessment and through programmed inspections of
services for children in care. Moreover, they will have to ensure that
their functions are carried out under the supervision of social workers
who are registered with the
GSCC.
Tim
Loughton: Will the Minister say what would happen in the
scenario of a social worker who was working for one of the pilots being
struck off during the pilot period? Would it differ from what would
happen if they were working for the local authority? What additional
inspection safeguards would be triggered for such a social worker
practice, given that it would not be subject to the
GSCC?
Kevin
Brennan: My understanding is that such a social worker
would not be able to work for the social work practice any longer. I
will correct myself if that is wrong. If there were wider implications
of that scenario for the social work practice, ultimately there would
be provision for the Government to take action centrally. Long before
that, the local authority would have the ability to terminate the
contract if events were serious
enough. If there was systematic failure in a social work practice, I
would expect the contract to be terminated at quite an early
stage. At
local authority level, there will be proactive contract management by
the local authority with input and support from the Department and
those acting on its behalf, including Government office staff. That
might involve participation in the commissioning process and attendance
at contract management meetings. They will give general advice and
guidance on commissioning and contract management issues. That will be
complemented by the individual case reviews by the independent
reviewing
officer. 11.45
am Finally,
there will be an independent evaluation of the social work practice
model, which we mentioned earlier, which will gather and report on
performance measuring it against a range of indicators at regular
intervals. Until we have evaluated the operation of the pilots, we will
not know whether the practice model will be extended beyond the pilot
phase and local authorities, but if it is to be continued to be used,
the services should become regulated under the Care Standards Act to
ensure high standards of practice from providers of social work
services in the long term, in the same way as any other establishment
or agency is regulated under that
Act.
Mr.
Turner: How will providers be released from the pilot?
Will they be obliged to work together, or will some be released and
others
not?
Kevin
Brennan: If the independent evaluation finds that the
model as a whole has something to offer more broadly, the Government
can switch on the ability of any local authority to decide to contract
out to a social work practice. The local authority will make that
decision—there will be no centrally determined or directed,
top-down Government directive ordering local authorities to use this
model. The provision will be available beyond the pilot areas to any
local authority that feels that it is an appropriate model for them.
The evaluation will consider, therefore, not whether an individual
social work practice has been successful, but whether the model itself
has something to offer to the
system. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
4 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
5Functions
under this Part to be social services
functions Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Kevin
Brennan: Very briefly, clause 5 provides that the local
authority power to contract with providers of social work services,
under clause 1, is a social services function for the purposes of the
Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. That means that the Secretary
of State can issue guidance and directions to the local authority about
the use of the power. That is important, because the social work
practice model is as yet untested, and we will need to put in place
mechanisms to ensure effective operation. For example, we are likely to
issue
guidance on what must be done prior to a contract to verify the quality
of the provider, what the contract must include and which children will
benefit most from the social work practice
approach. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
5 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
6Piloting
and expiry of arrangements under this
Part
Tim
Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in
clause 6, page 5, line 17, leave
out ‘five’ and insert
‘three’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 2, in
clause 6, page 5, line 18, leave
out ‘passed’ and insert ‘comes into
force’.
Tim
Loughton: Now we have some real amendments—well,
they are probing amendments, rather than real ones, so I shall not
detain the Committee too long. We have had a good debate on the concept
of social work practice already, but I am concerned about getting on
with it. Amendment No. 1 would reduce, therefore, the duration of the
pilots from five to three years, and amendment No. 2 deals with a
technicality that the Minister will probably say is not required. In
the working party report, which Professor Le Grand chaired, the time
recommended for pilots was at least two years. The recommendation
stated: “The
Group’s view is that pilots would need to run for at least two
years, if not longer, to provide a sufficiently robust assessment.
Also, the Group proposes that there should be nine pilots to provide a
robust assessment”.
I am concerned that it
will take too long. Why should it take at least five years to assess
whether the pilots have worked? Would it not be possible to speed
things up by having an assessment after three years? Those three years
may turn out not to be long enough—all sorts of reasons for
extending the period might be raised during the development of the
schemes—in which case there is nothing to stop the Government
asking for more time. It could probably be done by regulation. However,
I to do not want to see the pilots eventually being set up and running
for at least five years, with a further period of assessment being
required, further queries bring thrown up and further legislation being
required in order to give force to the status of these social worker
practices.
On the basis
that we could find out whether or not the schemes will be a success,
the amendment would reduce the time specified from five years to three.
It is a probing amendment, and if the Minister can give us good reasons
for why five years has to be the absolute minimum, I shall be happy to
take it as read. The purpose of the amendment is to put the Minister on
the spot, to challenge the time scale and not the
principle.
| 
