---

Almost all the points raised in the debate are addressed in the 75-page Consistent Care Matters report by the committee chaired by Professor Le Grand. His response to them is precisely to bottom out the effects of many of the elements which might be involved in social work practices, and that the sensible way to proceed is to introduce a pilot and evaluate that pilot. Then, of course, it would be for local authorities to decide whether, on the basis of that evaluation and advice which the Government may give at that stage, it would be sensible to take the idea further. If it were to be taken further, local authorities would commission and pay for social work practices—not us. Local authorities would proceed after the pilot only if they were persuaded that it was an advantageous course to follow to provide for some part of their social work obligations. I stress all of that because, on that basis, the onus is

8 Jan 2008 : Column GC291

on those who are against even looking at what could be a promising idea to allow pilots to proceed. The judgment of the Government is that it would not be sensible to stifle even the possibility of these arrangements being piloted when they could have beneficial effects.

5.30 pm

Baroness Meacher: I have the feeling that I am speaking for others, too, but I am not against the idea of pilots. I am very concerned about whether those pilots will be on a level playing field and whether the pump-priming moneys, and so on, may lead to a false outcome that could lead to the wrong kind of development of services.

Lord Adonis: I am reassured by the noble Baroness's remark that she is not opposed to the pilot schemes. I took that to be the tenor of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I thought that we were in danger of getting into a debate where there was an acceptance that pilots might be a good idea, but that, after all, we do not think that it is a good idea even to pilot because of the concerns being raised.

Baroness Walmsley: I have just checked my notes, and I referred at the beginning, the end and several times in the middle to the power to set up pilots. Much of the thrust of my speech was about the arrangements for the evaluation of the pilots and concern that they should be evaluated independently and on a level playing field and that any good that came out of that should be referred back to local authority social services departments.

Lord Adonis: The noble Baroness made several references; one of them was to the proposal for social work practices and I accept that others were to arrangements for piloting them. To take legislative powers to pilot anything is of course a big step for a Government to take. Why have we taken that step? Precisely because of the definition of the problem set out on page 5 of the report of the group chaired by Professor Le Grand, which sets out in stark terms the nature of the challenge that we face—I know that this has been strongly supported by Members of the Committee. It states:

“A key problem for looked after children is the lack of continuity in their relationship with the local authority social worker. Whilst some children have a strong relationship the majority have little or none. They have had too many social workers and have seen too little of those they have had”.

That is within the existing local authority system, a system that is funded by the Government to the tune of £5 billion a year, so the resources are there for local authorities that want to pilot new arrangements. There is very little that the Government are doing to stop local authorities taking forward innovative approaches if they want to do so. The question on social work practices is whether we give them powers to take still more innovative pilots forward.

8 Jan 2008 : Column GC292

I think that Members of the Committee accept the definition of the challenge facing us. I accept in turn that the overwhelmingly important response that we should make is within the existing local authority system, because we are talking about six to nine pilots. That will be a very small part of overall provision. That is the whole emphasis of the Care Matters paper, in which we set out our priorities for the social care workforce, addressing many of the concerns that the noble Earl raised in his remarks on Second Reading. In the Children's Plan, we set out specific proposals for piloting a newly qualified social work status, developing a professional framework for social workers, including a much stronger professional development provision, a wider ranging recruitment campaign and a fast-track programme to attract mature graduates into social work.

I will certainly seriously consider the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in respect of the bureaucratic burdens on local authorities. I will study her remarks carefully to see whether we should make some response to the concerns that she raised. Shortly in the New Year, we will be publishing our workforce action plan, which will say more about our proposals for improving training and accelerating the pace of remodelling. So we will have a great deal more to say and are taking forward reforms that meet the issues at large. I direct the Committee to the question of whether, on the basis of the work that has been done by Professor Le Grand and his group, it is a sensible course to pilot social work practices. Our judgment is that it is, for the reasons set out.

I should stress that Professor Le Grand’s group includes many eminent leaders within the social work profession. It included Lynne Berry, the former chief executive of the General Social Care Council, Paul Fallon, the former head of children's services and the director of social services in Barnet, Moira Gibb, the chief executive of Camden Council, and Alistair Pettigrew, the director of children’s services in Lewisham. Alistair Pettigrew is also part of the Social Work Practices Expert Group, which is taking forward the work on the design of the pilots, which also includes Jane Haywood of the Local Government Association and Alan Wood, the director of children's services in the London Borough of Hackney, who is on the group as a representative of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services.

So these are not ideas that are being foisted from outside on the profession and on local government, they are being developed in very close collaboration with the leaders of local authorities and the directors of children’s services and rely on advice given by eminent figures in both the local authority and the social work world.

Baroness Walmsley: Perhaps I can make one more point before the noble Lord continues. Clause 4 ends the piloting period and therefore makes the social work practices introduced by Clause 1 permanent. In fact, it pre-empts the outcome of the pilots by providing for powers to institute regulation and registration of providers. It would ensure that, if the pilots were rolled out across the country, regulations would be in place for them. In a way, Clause 4

8 Jan 2008 : Column GC293

pre-empts the result of the pilots, which is why we have given notice of our intention to oppose not just Clause 1 stand part but every clause in Part 1.

Lord Adonis: I stress that we would proceed further only after an independent evaluation—

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for that reassurance.

Lord Adonis: And on the basis that local authorities would themselves have to undertake the commissioning. So this would not be a step imposed on local authorities by the Government; it would be in response to local authorities being persuaded that it was a sensible course.

The potential gains from social work practices—I stress potential gains, because the whole purpose of piloting is to see whether those gains can be realised—are set out at length in Chapter 5 of Consistent Care Matters. They are gains which, if they could be secured, would be valuable in the support offered to looked-after children. The potential gains relate to enhancement of continuity, of professionalisation and of relationships between children. They have been recognised by a number of experts as gains which, if they could indeed be secured by social work practices, would be valuable, which is why the Children’s Commissioner, Professor Al Aynsley-Green, has said that he supports careful piloting and evaluation of a social care practice model, and why other organisations, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, have also welcomed our approach to piloting of social work practices.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: Clearly, there has been a lot of concern in this area, but I have not seen—perhaps others may not—Julian Le Grand’s report. If it is in the Printed Paper Office, that is wonderful, because we can get hold of it, but I have not seen it.

Lord Adonis: I am sure that it is in the Printed Paper Office, but because I am always anxious to provide the maximum possible support to Members of the Committee, I have a box of copies of the report with me. I thought that Members of the Committee might find it useful to read the whole report for themselves and, on the basis of what is said in the report, to consider carefully the arguments made. As I said, the argument is made for potential gains addressing a real and fundamental problem that we face in providing properly for children in care. The question that we then face is: on the basis of that report on those potential gains, which are suggested by an eminent group including directors of social services and other experts, is it sensible for Parliament to enable the policy to be piloted? On the basis of the report, we believe that it is.

Many of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, are addressed in that report, but I shall deal with one or two of the specific points that were raised. As regards how an inspection would be

8 Jan 2008 : Column GC294

carried forward under the pilots, I can tell the noble Baroness that social work practices will be within the scope of annual assessment by inspectorates, including the chief inspector, from 2009 through the new comprehensive area assessments and through programmed inspections of services for looked-after children.

I did not fully follow the noble Baroness’s remarks about pump-primed funding and whether this would create a playing field that was not level. That point was raised also by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. The reason I do not follow it is that the scale of the support provided in terms of activities is so vastly different in the two cases. We are talking about funding for social work pilots over the spending review period 2008-11 at an average of £2 million per annum, some of which will be used to enable local authorities themselves to meet the costs of commissioning and managing contracts. So we are talking about very small levels of central support which are being provided to enable these pilots to happen. As I say, this stands against the £5 billion provided to local authorities in respect of children’s social care, so we do not believe that there is an issue of a playing field that is not level. A local authority that wished to use its resources to provide similar support to that provided in social work practices for its own social workers in the way that it recruits them, manages or trains them, would be entirely at liberty to do so. Local authorities have very large budgets with which to do that.

Baroness Walmsley: Will the amount of financial support per child looked after be comparable?

Lord Adonis: Because that support varies between authorities depending on how much they choose to spend on it, I cannot give the noble Baroness the answer that she seeks. The issue is whether it is sensible for us to provide this very small sum, in comparative terms, to enable these pilots to take place. I contrast the minnow of social work practices with the whale of the social work supported by local authorities and suggest that there is no unlevel playing field in respect of social work practices.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: The thing that continues to concern me, and perhaps some of my colleagues, is exactly how much of the money allocated by central government to local authorities is in fact spent on this area of work. The Minister gave the relevant figure. As a former director of social services, I know that local authorities get their allocation but the money is not necessarily spent on the service that central government wish because the latter is not in favour of ring fencing but of local authorities establishing their own definitions. That is where the contrast and comparisons might arise.

Perhaps I sound as if I am against pilots but I am not. I am against some of the issues not being clarified in relation to the level playing field of funding—the question I have just asked illustrates that—and the way in which local authorities will set contracts. We know from present practice that there

8 Jan 2008 : Column GC295

are serious issues both in the private and voluntary sectors about the setting of contracts, poor contracting practice and the central understanding about there being a uniformity across the pilots. That is what gives rise to much of the concern. Although we hear what the Minister says and have huge trust in him, and value the reassurance that he has given, he may not be in office tomorrow, and in three years’ time there may be a different view unless some of these things are clarified in discussion and later in guidance. Those are some of the issues that are causing us concern rather than our being totally resistant to pilots.

5.45 pm

Lord Adonis: I entirely accept the noble Baroness’s point—not about my not being a Minister tomorrow; it is only six and a quarter hours away and I fully intend to last that long at any rate—about the fact that so much local authority action depends on the decisions taken by those authorities. That is the nature of local democracy. These decisions should be taken at local level. I meet this debate all the time in schools. If part of the justification for having local authorities is to enhance local decision-making and the capacity of localities to do things differently if they wish, it is very difficult for a Minister to say that we think that there is only one way to do things and to seek to determine precisely how much money should be spent on it. There are two sides to this. I accept that local authorities are free to spend some of these resources in different ways, but that is in the nature of local democracy, which we hope will have other beneficial effects, including a greater emphasis than we would otherwise have on local experimentation and innovation to address the sort of issues that the Committee is grappling with this afternoon.

Not only is the funding that we are talking about a very small part of the overall funding given to local authorities for children’s social care, but it is also a very small part of the £300 million that I mentioned earlier, announced with the White Paper for the implementation of its proposals in the Comprehensive Spending Review period. Only a very small fraction of that £300 million will go on social work practices. The great majority will support the other measures set out in the White Paper.

Baroness Meacher: I want to raise a point of clarification. The Minister said that the money is a very small amount in relation to total budgets for children. Is he talking about £2 million for each social work practice pilot of six to 10 social workers? If so, that is quite a lot of money. My trust has had pilots on something else and we had £1.5 million from the Government. That was big money in terms of what we were trying to do, but rather similar. It is important to understand what this £2 million is. Secondly, if £2 million for a social work practice is the idea, will the local authority have the freedom to devote that money to another kind of pilot within their own area to develop administrative changes as I was suggesting earlier?

8 Jan 2008 : Column GC296

Lord Adonis: To clarify the first point, it is £2 million for all the pilots each year. We are talking about £6 million for the whole piloting exercise in respect of social work practices over the three years. To put those figures in perspective, that is £6 million out of the £300 million that is being allocated to implement the White Paper and it is £6 million compared with the £5 billion that I was talking about, which is the sum available to local authorities in respect of children’s social care at large.

If a local authority wishes to pilot other approaches, within the law, to developing social work and recruiting social workers, it is entirely at liberty to do so. Nothing that my department or the Government are doing, within the law, will prevent it being able to do so. It is entirely at the discretion of the local authority whether it chooses to engage in such pilots. It is therefore reasonable that the funding specifically intended for social work pilots should be spent on social work pilots.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I beg the Minister’s pardon for intervening at this point, but I should like further clarification. The concept of pilots is mentioned only once in the White Paper—a minor reference in chapter 7 proposing that perhaps there might be legislation to establish a variety of two-year pilots. It is slightly surprising that these pilots come up in Clauses 1 to 6 and are given Part 1 of the Bill. The most important part of a Bill is usually bang at the front. If the money involved is only £6 million, as the Minister rightly says, of the £300 million that is being spent, one wonders why it is given such prominence in the Bill.

Lord Adonis: It happens to be the opening clauses. Perhaps I should apologise to the Committee for the fact that we did not put it at the back. If we had put it in the last six clauses rather than the first six, perhaps it would attract the level of attention that it deserves. This is important, because Parliament is giving new powers in respect of social work practices, but I stress again, coming back to the point made by the noble Earl, that in respect of the vast majority of children in care and those approaching the care system, it is the work of local authorities apart from the pilots that is going to matter. It will be the enhanced status of the social work profession that will matter. All those other measures set out in the Care Matters White Paper will apply.

However, the Committee needs to be reassured that we are not asking Parliament to take powers in respect even of pilots where we do not believe that there is a proper case for piloting. As I have said, the 75-page report by the committee chaired by Professor Le Grand, which includes eminent leaders of local authorities and of the social work profession, more than meets the threshold to persuade us that this is a correct course to undertake on piloting.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: I should like to make a narrow but significant point. I was very much taken aback when the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned that the coming into force of Clause 4

8 Jan 2008 : Column GC297

would automatically foreclose the piloting system. That is true in one sense and not true in another. Clause 6 says:

“The piloting period—

(a) begins on the day on which section 1(1) comes into force; and(b) ends on the earlier of—(i) the day on which section 4 comes into force; or(ii) the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.

There are two limbs to it.

Lord Adonis: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks, but before I conclude I should like to deal with two other questions raised by the noble Baroness. First, she asked whether functions currently carried out by social workers in local authorities would still be carried out by social workers in social work practices. That would be the case. We intend the situation to be broadly comparable. Local authorities’ social work functions can be carried out at the moment by or under the supervision of registered social workers. The same regime will apply in respect of social work practices.

The noble Baroness also asked a specific question about social work practices providing an out-of-hours service for children in care. There is no question of children supported by social work practices not having access to out-of-hours support, whether from the social work practice or from the local authority. However, we see no reason why social work practices would not devise creative ways of providing out-of hours services to the children they support in a way that delivers consistency and stability. For example, social work practices could arrange for their social workers to take turns to be on call or pay their staff a premium for working out of hours.

On that basis I hope that the Committee will think it sensible to allow the pilots to proceed. As I have said, I will make available copies of the report of Professor Le Grand’s committee, which addresses many of the specific points that were raised in the debate.

The Earl of Listowel: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that detailed response to these concerns raised by me and other Members of the Committee. I am particularly reassured by his point that it will be the local authorities that decide whether to extend the pilots.

It seems to me that the Government have underestimated the effort required to improve outcomes for looked-after children. From 1997 they were determined to improve the lives of these children. They recognise that they have been poorly treated by society, but the inputs that they have made have not given the outputs that they wanted. The previous Prime Minister recognised that we have not done enough for these children. We as a society have underestimated the job that social workers have taken on. We have underestimated the demands of doing this job. I remember what Paul Fallon, a member of the eminent group that Professor Le Grand pulled together, said about his success in reducing the vacancy rate for social workers in Barnet from 30 per cent to 3 per cent in three years. Every day,

8 Jan 2008 : Column GC298

the first thing he thought about was, “What am I doing for my social workers? What am I doing today to make the lives of my social workers better?”. I spoke to the publisher of Compass magazine, a recruitment magazine for social workers. He commented on Paul Fallon’s approach to recruiting new social workers. He said, “This man is quite amazing. He will find new recruits and say, ‘Come around, let me give you dinner and I’ll talk to you about social work’”. As soon as anybody expresses an interest in social work, he is there to encourage and incentivise that interest. It requires such dedication and commitment to make these things happen.

I recognise that there was a very eminent group working on this, and I welcome that. My concern is that the political impetus to making these pilots happen will be great. This project of extending the diverse market to all areas of public services has been very much at the heart of the Labour Government over the past 10 years. My concern is that this minnow will turn into a very large fish, and it will be difficult to stop that motion forward because of the political investment in it and because it fits so well with the Government’s philosophy.

---