| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Page 33 of the White Paper Care Matters showcases a very good example of how a family group conference has been used to generate a preventative package to enable a very vulnerable young girl to stay at home. Noble Lords who have experience in this area will be able to supplement that. A family group conference is a complex service to provide and it requires high levels of skill and competence. For that reason, we announced in the Care Matters White Paper that we would fund a programme of regional training events to equip managers and practitioners with the necessary skills
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC276
We have also responded to concerns from stakeholders that there is a lack of skill and knowledge available in the fieldto deliver effective family group conference services. In November 2006, a toolkit funded by my department was published, aimed both at supporting existing family group conference projects to sustain the projects and to assist new agencies to set up a service where none currently exists. In December 2006, we also funded the publication of a family group conferencing reader, containing a wide range of essays on research, policy and practice perspectives. That is available to practitioners in the field.
The potential benefits of family group conferencing are highlighted in Working Together toSafeguard Children, published in 2006, which is the statutory guidance to be followed by all agencies where there are concerns about a child’s safety. The guidance states at paragraph 10.2:
“Family group conferences may be appropriate in a number of contexts where there is a plan or decision to be made ... for example, for children in need, in a range of circumstances where a plan is required for the child’s future welfare”.
We also intend to include a reference to family group conferences in the revised statutory guidance on the Children Act court orders to be published this month. The revised guidance will set out a “gateway approach” to decision-making for children, which ensures that family and friends care is considered at each stage in the process.
On Amendment No. 27 and the remarks made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Meacher, the courts do not have the power that the amendment suggests to order intensive family therapy or the provision of any other specific services. Furthermore, it is not clear whether it is envisaged under the amendment that those services should be provided to children who are looked after to enable a speedy return home, or to children on the edge of care to avoid looked-after status, or both.
However, the Government entirely share the concern expressed by Members of the Committee regarding the provision of services that are culturally sensitive. As part of our implementation of the Care Matters White Paper, we will be encouraging local authorities to analyse and manage their care populations more proactively, which will include an understanding of the racial and cultural profile of children in need in their area, as well as the differing needs of long and short stayers in the care system. That should enable local authorities to take a more sophisticated approach to commissioning services, ensuring a better match between the range of services offered and the cultural profile of the local population.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked whether the outcomes for children placed with family and friends are better than those placed with strangers. I am told that the evidence shows that disruption rates are
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC277
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, asked whether the children “in need” definition in Section 17 of the Children Act was adequate. I will reflect on her points, but we believe that it is adequate. It provides a definition of children in need that makes it clear that local authorities should intervene where necessary if a child is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health and development, or where the child is at risk of suffering a significant impairment without the provision of services.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to funding. I have responsibility only for the situation in England, so I have immediately to hand only the statistics for England. Spending on children’s social care in England has increased from £2.1 billion in 1996 to £5 billion in 2007, which is a real terms increase of 88 per cent in 10 years. There has been a substantial increase in resources available to local authorities. There is always the issue of trade-offs that local authorities must consider, but they are doing so in the context of a significantly enhanced resource. The White Paper Care Matters is being funded in England to the tune of £300 million over a four-year period. I cannot speak for the position either generally in Wales or specifically for Cardiganshire, but the grants made available to Wales as a whole will have increased in line with those for England.
In respect of the Cassel hospital at Ham in Surrey, to which the noble and learned Baroness referred, I am informed that it has seen a significant reduction in referrals to its family unit following the case of RG, which the noble and learned Baroness could probably tell us more about than I can. The funding issues are a matter for the Department of Health, but I will write to Members of the Committee to set out the department’s view. I hope that I have been able to deal with most of the issues raised.
Baroness Meacher: The Minister seemed to indicate earlier that the 1989 Act provides for local authorities to have general duties to care for these families and children, but it sounded very general. Will the Minister consider the proposition in the amendment—not necessarily the exact words—that there should be more definition and clarity about the duties of the authorities to provide early intervention family work to try to avoid children going into care? It seems to me that there is great potential here if one can get the wording right.
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC278
Lord Adonis: I am happy to consider the issue further but the Government’s view is that the provisions in Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 are both strong and fairly specific in terms of the requirements on local authorities. While it is true that Section 17(1) states:
“It shall be the general duty of every local authority ... (a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and (b) so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs”,
“For the purposes of this Part a child shall be taken to be in need if—(a) he is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision for him of services by a local authority ... (b) his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired, or further impaired, without the provision for him of such services; or (c) he is disabled”.
Those are strong duties on local authorities and we would need to be persuaded that the insertion of new duties over and above that was a wise proceeding before we took any step in that direction.
Baroness Butler-Sloss: The reason there are fewer referrals to the Cassel hospital, or, indeed, to any other family therapy that might be needed, is that local authorities are not paying for that, as I am sure the Minister, and certainly his department, will be aware.
Lord Adonis: I will, of course, bear that point in mind. I have just been passed a note that states that there is no suggestion that Cassel hospital is to be closed. I am told that there is work under way to explore whether the closing Henderson hospital can work with Cassel to sustain the expertise of both units more fully in the future, but, as I said to the noble and learned Baroness, I shall write to Members of the Committee setting out the position more fully.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: With the Minister’s indulgence, I return to Section 17 of the Children Act, which I believe is clear. The difficulty is that local authorities across the country define differently the specifics that the Minister read out. Could we look at defining “in need” more clearly to prevent a postcode lottery, because if you travel the country you find that there is a postcode lottery with some local authorities working magnificently and bringing about change in children’s lives and developing preventive services while others still have a crisis with their care services? That might be the way forward as regards some of the issues that have been raised.
Lord Judd: I make a fairly obvious point in urging my noble friend, in considering what has been said to these amendments, to take on board the fact that if everything was adequate in existing legislation, there would not be the concern which has led to these amendments being tabled. The amendments have been tabled because clearly things are not working as they should be in the experience of those on the front
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC279
Lord Elystan-Morgan: May I make a point of crushing simplicity to which I should have referred in the rather rambling remarks that I made earlier? Very often the difficulties arise because social services departments have to work as if they were totally in isolation as compared with other limbs of local government. In other words, had there been a measure of co-operation and understanding between social services, the education authorities, the health authorities and the housing authorities, then, indeed, in many cases the family would not have split up. It is a matter of total simplicity and of total significance. Of course, there will be situations where legislation is necessary but this has nothing to do with legislation at all; it has a lot to do with knocking people’s heads together. Departments that have a brittle relationship with each other sometimes have to be made to co-operate.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I could add the police to that.
4.45 pm
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his thorough explanation and his customary constructive engagement. I thank all noble Lords for what has been an excellent debate at the beginning of our Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is quite right to point out the deficiencies of Amendment No. 1. We tabled this to start a debate on early intervention as it is so important. The Minister is right to say that it talks only about social work practices, but we wanted to talk about the whole aspect of early intervention. I realise that objections could be raised to it lacking specificity, but much of the frustration expressed particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, at Second Reading, was on how one drives forward the laudable aims of the Bill and all the other Bills that have gone before it which have sought to do good work for children in care. How does one encourage that best practice? How do we stop, as Henry Kissinger would say, the urgent from overtaking the important? Social workers have to deal with that all the time.
I was interested to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that family group conferencing before a child is taken into care is a statutory recommendation in New Zealand. As there is such resistance to the use of that mechanism—I take on board everything that has been said about the workforce not being trained properly—and very low take-up of family group conferencing, it simply becomes another postcode lottery which we must avoid at all costs. I take on board the caveats mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, but as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, says, the words “where appropriate” should deal with that. As we have discussed this for a long time, I shall read what the
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC280
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Listowel: I have a very benevolent view of this Bill, although I have two principal complaints. One is that it does not go far enough and the other is the introduction of social work practices and my concern that that should not hinder the much-needed social work reform. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to highlight the urgency and the need for change.
Much great work has been done by the Government since 1997 in improving the outcomes for children in care. Thanks to the Children (Leaving Care) Act, the number of care leavers at the age of 19 who are in employment, education or training, has increased by 8 per cent and there have been many other very welcome innovations, but we started from an extremely low base. My noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton made the point that too many of these children are ending up in custody not just through their own actions, but often because we have failed them. Fairly recently, Members of your Lordships’ House heard of a 23 year-old who spoke of how she began her prison career at the age of 13. She had been in a good children's home placement for 12 months and one day, out of the blue, she was taken out of that placement. She and the staff were not alerted beforehand and she says that her criminal career began at that point because of her resentment. She could have been settled in that comfortable placement with people whom she knew but she was just ripped out of it at the last moment.
Such things continue to happen although the situation has improved somewhat. We urgently need to do much more to improve the lives of such children. We have higher levels of custody for children in this country than our neighbours, and those high levels lead to a high turnover of children—a high level of churn— which leads to poor relationships between prison officers and young people in custody, which leads to excessive use of physical restraint. There is now a call from the Prison Officers’ Association for batons in children’s and young people's settings. We must address these matters with the utmost urgency. I commend the Government for bringing forward this important piece of legislation.
On social work practices, I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues for creating a multidisciplinary team of such eminence to consider how the notion of independent social work practices might be taken forward so that children in care should receive greater continuity of care. Paul Fallon, director of Barnet social services, who is very well respected, was a member of that team and the academic on the team was from the London School of Economics, a world-renowned institution. The report produced by the committee recognised the strong differences of opinions of its members and provided a helpful rationale for the proposed independent practices.
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC281
The Bill proposes pilots. Can these limited pilots, perhaps only two years in length, really provide us with the information we need to understand the impact such practices will have on social services? I think not, and many others share my doubts. On the other hand, the Prime Minister was recently speaking with enthusiasm about extending the market in social care. The political priority being given to this innovation is implied by its taking pride of place in this Bill. Once this juggernaut gets going it may be hard to see how it can be stopped. The production of a shiny new initiative, a fix for social work, is likely to be overwhelmingly seductive to any Administration that holds office when the pilots terminate. The question of whether social work is ripe for such change is likely to take second place to the need for something to be seen to be done. This has been the experience at local authority level for decades as each new broom has introduced its new structures and social workers have torn their hair out seeking to adjust.
I share the view expressed at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Howarth of Breckland, a former director of social services. We need to focus on what is most important. The problem, of raising the status of social work, of improving the retention of social workers, and of ensuring the professional and continuous care of our children, is complex. Its solution hinges on providing the right professional framework for social workers. The Government's White Paper Options for Excellence laid out what that framework should be. While there has been some progress in the 14 months since that White Paper hit our desks, it has been slow. I would appreciate the Minister laying out what steps have been taken in response to that White Paper since it was put forward. I know there were welcome steps: for example, the need for qualified social work practitioners.
There are many obstacles. Children's services have been separated from adult services, splitting responsibility for social workers between two different departments. The fusion of health and social care risks diluting the voice of social work further. There are several regional skills councils—the Children's Workforce Development Council and the Children's Workforce Network—with input into the evolution of social work. Social work falls between more and more stools. The Children's Workforce Development Council is very well respected but has a huge work programme. The new children’s services are led predominantly by educationalists and there is the concern that this new leadership may not have the experience to know what social workers on the front line and children in care or in need may require.
Is it really advisable to introduce another level of complexity with these practices? Can the Minister say what the response of the British Association of Social Workers has been to the proposed practices? Is the Association of Directors of Social Services enthusiastic in its support? How far is the workforce on side? All-important will be the establishment of good contracts between the new providers and local authorities. However, in the past such commissioning has historically been poor. It may lead to a significant increase in the cost of the provision made by the new
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC282
Some local authorities are already making significant improvements in the continuity of care for their children. Barnet has created smaller social work teams and has motivated experienced practitioners to stay at the front line supporting their less experienced colleagues by creative new social work roles, such as senior practitioners. Hackney is developing smaller teams with intense integral therapeutic support. Each team has half-time support from a mental health professional. This is beginning to show fruits in terms of retention.
I continually hear that social work needs to benefit from the same efforts that the noble Lord and his colleagues have put into reforming education. I know that what is proposed is done with the best of intentions and seems likely to benefit the children in the proposed practices. However, I am concerned that this may be at the cost of wider consistent implementation of reforms which will make social work the respected, professional institution that our children’s needs dictate that it must become. I seek the Minister’s reassurance on this matter.
Baroness Walmsley: I have kept my powder dry up to this point, if not my paper handkerchiefs. I enthusiastically welcome this Bill and wish this very large Committee a happy new year. Members of the Committee will have noticed that we on these Benches have tabled quite a large number of amendments, which fall into two groups. Some are probing and others are what I like to think of as Oliver Twist amendments; in other words, “Thank you very much. That’s very nice, but can we please have some more?”.
These are probing amendments to Clause 1 stand part and all the clauses in Part 1. Obviously, without Clause 1 none of the others is any use. We have tabled these amendments, not because we have any problem in principle with this idea, but because we do not believe that the proposed arrangements will necessarily provide a solution to the problems identified with the current arrangements for caring for looked-after children. Neither do we believe that the proposals or the arrangements for the pilots have been thoroughly thought through by the Government. Finally, we have great concerns about the knock-on effects of these proposed arrangements on the existing local authority provision and the workforce. Of course, underpinning all our concerns is our worry about the outcomes and welfare of children in care. That is what matters most. It is really immaterial how their care is provided as long as it is of high quality and gives them the best possible second chance in life—their first chance having gone horribly wrong or they would not be in care in the first place.
It seems to me that the proposals in Part 1 are made in response to three problems: first, the lack of stability and quality of relationships between the
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC283
We now have to ask whether the proposals for private social work practices will solve these problems or whether paying more attention to the existing structures would do it better. To give him his due, Professor Le Grand does not claim that social work practices are the answer to everything. However, his paper and his recommendations raise a number of serious issues.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |