| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The amendment is intended to ensure that the new providers abide by the provisions under Section 10 of the Children Act 2004, which sets out the statutory framework for local co-operation between local authorities, key partner agencies and other relevant bodies, including the voluntary and community sector, to improve the well-being of children in the area. We see this as an essential element of any future structures that incorporate social work practices. They will have to conform to the partnership model that is all too slowly beginning to develop on children’s services.
At a later stage—although we have already touched on this—we shall look at the provision of mental health services to young people and consider how difficult it has been to achieve the full integration of the PCTs and the children and adolescent mental health services into the Every Child Matters agenda. It will be vital to ensure that any development, such as social work practices, which effectively fragments the system is kept within the integrated framework. I beg to move.
Lord Judd: I warmly support the amendment and I again hope that my noble friend will be able to take its spirit very seriously. I imagine that he may argue very plausibly that it is an important sentiment that should be there in all that is being undertaken, but it is not really appropriate to have it in the Bill, because it can be covered in guidance. I understand that argument, which is not to be dismissed. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, agrees that we would have that reasonable approach ourselves.
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC306
Having said that, I should like to put a nuance on what the noble Baroness has said from the Opposition Benches. I am speaking as a supporter of the Government. I am very positively disposed towards the Bill; I just want to take every opportunity to strengthen it.
This is an ideal opportunity to give substance to the spirit of the recently published national Children’s Plan. I do not want to carp about whether we should be going through with the Bill. The amendment is important not simply for the work and the people covered by this Bill. It also brings home that others have responsibility for children. Success in all that we are seeking to do for children cannot be achieved simply by social workers. They can be effective only if other people recognise that co-operation is a two-way business. Therefore, if we have this provision in the Bill, even in the crude conversations that sometimes take place in the course of front-line work, it is possible for social workers to say, “Look, we are expected to co-operate with you, now you must co-operate with us”. That would be a very important weapon to have to hand. I hope that my noble friend will be willing to consider the spirit of what is being said.
Lord Ramsbotham: I, too, support the amendment. I am one of the people who was unable to attend Second Reading, and I was enormously grateful to the Minister for his letter of 3 December, which he copied to me, in which he commented on various things that were said. However, I was interested to note, on reading the Second Reading debate—he will not be surprised that I am interested in the children who end up in custody—that 10 of the 16 speakers mentioned the problem of children in custody, but, unfortunately, the Minister did not. It was not mentioned in the opening or the winding-up speech.
I was therefore, frankly, disturbed by the second paragraph of his letter of 3 December, which states:
“However, we believe that children should only be brought into care where it is necessary to protect them from harm. It is important to ensure that young people in custody are safeguarded and protected from harm, but we do not accept that this requires them to be looked after and the state to assume a formal parenting role for them”.
I wonder whether, on reflection, the Minister believes that that is actually the Government’s position. I hope that it is not, because if ever there was a group of people who need to be looked after and to have formal parenting roles assumed for them by the state, it is those in care who go into custody who, without that provision, will have none of it. I was therefore extremely concerned.
This debate is not the time or place to cover the issues of custody, which we will come to in later amendments that I have tabled, but I cannot help being concerned that here, at an early stage, we are talking about co-operation and insisting that it must be there, because only if there is that co-operation will those wretched people in custody receive the care that the state must give them.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: Although I agree absolutely with my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, that was not the point that I was going to make at this
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC307
I should like to ask the Minister a question that arose about TUPE, although I did not think that I was going to speak about it because I did not think that I had anything to say. The Minister’s answer caused me some concern, which relates to Working Together. In his reply, he mentioned that groups of social workers might well be transferred to private practices, or the new pilots. I had never conceptualised it like that; perhaps I need to read the document again. I had assumed that private or voluntary organisations would set up those practices and that people would apply for posts in them, so that their conditions of service would be set by whichever organisation. TUPE would not necessarily occur unless they were seconded from the local authority, which is not beyond the bounds of innovation and has happened in other voluntary and private organisations. I am sorry to go back to that, but it caused me some concern, because it has implications for how the whole programme works.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: There is much merit in the idea that social work services co-operate with other agencies where it is beneficial to the provision of their services and the promotion of the well-being and the health of the child. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 places the duty on agencies to make arrangements merely to promote co-operation between them. If this amendment is in keeping with the idea that co-operation between agencies and bodies involved in the promotion of child welfare can produce better results, we would certainly support the amendment. However, the wording seems too prescriptive and to go beyond the idea of making arrangements to promote co-operation and enshrine in law an obligation, although I may just be misinterpreting it. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, could clarify that.
6.30 pm
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I agree that, as the wording stands, it shall be a duty. We have some sympathy with what the noble Baroness says. The words “to promote” might cover the ground. On the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, of course, not just one agency is involved in Section 10, as she knows perfectly well. A whole group is involved, so it is not a case of just picking out co-operation with one particular group. As the noble Baroness knows, it has been a long process of trying to mould co-operation and gain co-operation from all these agencies. It would be very sad to see this thrown away.
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC308
Lord Adonis: If the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will forgive me, I shall deal with the custody issues when we come to the relevant amendments. I am sorry that I was not able to deal with those points at Second Reading. It was simply because I was trying to keep my winding-up remarks within half an hour. I shall deal with those issues fully at the appropriate stage in Committee. In respect of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, on TUPE, whether or not social workers with existing contracts transfer will depend entirely on decisions by the local authority. They may transfer if that is a decision that a local authority takes, but a local authority could wish to see a social work practice be developed without staff transferring. But where staff do transfer, TUPE will apply. The noble Baroness’s suggestion in respect of the Working Together guidance is good. We will look at that further and I will respond before Report on whether we should make changes in the spirit that she suggested.
We entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that social work practices must build close and effective relationships with other services. The noble Baroness said that the intended effect of her amendment is to require providers of social work services to participate in children’s trust arrangements made under Section 10 of the Children Act 2004. We agreed that providers of social work services will need to be part of a multi-agency framework, but we do not believe that it is appropriate to elevate the provider to the status of a relevant partner for the purposes of Section10 of the Children Act 2004. The involvement of providers of social work services in multi-agency working can be provided for in other ways.
On this occasion, as in so many others, my noble friend Lord Judd has entirely anticipated my response. We believe that the entirely laudable objectives can be secured without further provisions in legislation. But I shall give him the response that I always give: I shall study his remarks to see whether there are further changes that we should consider.
The duty of Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 to co-operate with children’s trust-style arrangements is intended to operate at a strategic level. This means that the duty applies to strategic-level bodies, such as the police, health, YOTs, and the Learning and Skills Council, which are involved in assessing need, developing overarching plans and commissioning services.
Social work practices will be delivery-focused bodies, whose work will need to be informed by priorities set by the children’s trust arrangements. They will also need to report into children’s trust arrangements in relation to delivery and on specific policy issues. Section 10(1)(c) of the Children Act 2004 already allows local authorities to include,
in children’s trust arrangements. In some areas, a representative of the social work practice may be asked to attend key partnership meetings for this purpose, while in others, they may be represented by the local authority.
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC309
Social work practices will need good working relationships with other agencies at individual child level. They will need to build a rapport with teachers, health professionals and others involved in the lives of the children they support which is consistent with their role of lead professional. Working closely with other agencies is not the only way that social work practices can ensure that the whole range of children’s needs are being met. Social work practices may offer most benefit through engaging multidisciplinary teams to support children, including therapists and learning mentors alongside social workers and social work assistants.
The task is to promote relationships that reinforce the development of strong multidisciplinary relationships. As, over the next six months, we develop a model contract for local authorities to use when contracting with social work practices, we will include provisions to require effective multi-agency working. We will make it clear in statutory guidance to local authorities, issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 on the making of arrangements under Part 1 of this Bill, that they should use the contract to ensure that social work practices work within a multi-agency, multidisciplinary framework. I hope, on that basis, that the noble Baroness will be reassured.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for the clarity of his reply. I accept that it is perhaps not appropriate that this appears directly in the Bill. On the other hand, if that is so, it would be appropriate that it appears in guidance of one sort or another. Effectively, in so far as you are laying down contract conditions, this perhaps becomes guidance.
Often, these contract conditions are held as “commercial in confidence”. One sees it with the academies, for example, where contracts with them effectively form the conditions under which they may operate, but are sometimes held back and not available to the public. It is important, in so far as it is explicit—the Minister has made it fairly explicit just now—that it should be open and in the public domain. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 6:
(1) This section applies to a provider of social work services in relation to the exercise of a function which is the subject of arrangements under section 1.
(2) The provider must specify in any job description or employment contract relating to a social worker which it employs or proposes to employ—
(3) The provider must specify in any job description or employment contract relating to a newly qualified social worker which it employs or proposes to employ—
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC310
The noble Earl said: The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the professional framework within which social workers operate. By doing so, I hope that it will improve continuity in the care of children. I shall deal first with qualified social workers, and then with the newly qualified social workers.
Historically, as we have heard, the media has always leapt on the faults of social workers, and failed generally to note their successes. However, too often, social workers have been ill equipped and ill supported to meet their responsibilities. One should never forget the lack of supervision and unrealistic caseloads that my noble friend Lord Laming highlighted in the tragic death of Victoria Climbié. Failure to ensure manageable caseloads and adequate supervision continues to make child deaths of this kind only too likely. When such deaths occur, they are also public relations disasters for social work. I ask the Minister what steps the General Social Care Council takes to ensure that employers know their duties to their employees; perhaps he could write to me on that.
The Government’s social care White Paper, Options for Excellence, and the Scottish Executive’s 21st century review of social work highlighted the need for social workers to work through the relationships they build with their clients if they are to be the key to successful social work. Fundamental to making and keeping those relationships with such troubled and troubling clients is a capacity on the social worker’s part for reflection. There is nothing more important to good-quality social work than the good supervision that ensures social workers keep to task and have space to reflect on what they are doing. Nothing is more important, perhaps, except having the manageable caseloads that permit time for reflection.
I refer to discussion groups in my amendment. The habit of reflection has seeped from much social supervision over the years, and social work has declined to some extent. Self-work discussion groups are sometimes used in children’s homes, schools and nurseries. A staff member presents a particular client, and his peers and the supervisor can help him reflect on his practice. Perhaps a nursery might have one evening a month with a two-hour late stay, and the key worker of a particular child can say, “Bob has had certain difficulties recently. This is what I have been trying to improve the matter”. Then he can have the input from his peers and they can say, “Well this seems like a good idea”. If one is doing the right thing, one often needs to be told that to do it with confidence. That is an example.
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC311
I recently spoke to a legal professional, both of whose parents are social workers; her mother worked in child protection. I asked her if she had ever considered being a social worker. She replied that she had never dreamed of it; she was too mindful of the immense stress her mother was exposed to. If the Minister wishes to continue to encourage more applicants of the highest calibre into social work, and for them to stay there, then I hope that he will give a sympathetic response to the amendment. After all, this would simply be a duty on local authorities to be as transparent as possible to prospective social workers about how much support they will receive.
Briefly, on the newly qualified social workers, the Government are already successfully recruiting more new social workers and we must ensure that their practice is safe. The Government have increased the standard qualification for social work from a two-year diploma to a three-year degree. They have registered social work, thus raising its status as a profession. As I say, numbers are rising. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what the latest figures for applicant numbers are; perhaps he could write to me on that.
Options for Excellence recommended the creation of a newly qualified social work status, and we have already heard from the Minister that the White Paper Care Matters: Time for Change made application of that to child and family social workers. That entails reduced caseloads and increased supervision in the first year of practice. Money has been announced for this in the Comprehensive Spending Review; that is welcome news.
Can the Minister remind me of the timing of the implementation of these pilots? How soon can we realistically expect this to be applied, first, to child and family social workers across the board, and then to all social workers? It is important that this support for newly qualified social workers is put in place.
The amendment is simply intended to encourage local authorities to bring forward such protections for newly qualified social workers, as some already do, as soon as possible. Not so long ago, I heard an 18 year-old care leaver speak. Many young people from care want to go into either social work or youth work. I think they probably want to improve the lives of others because of their own experiences; of course, this is a field that they know from personal experience. We must ensure that all local authorities give such new social workers appropriate support as a matter of urgency. This is necessary if we are to retain them and their practice is to be safe for children.
I hope that the Minister can give the proposal some sort of sympathetic response. I apologise for tabling the amendment rather late. I think that the new year break gives time for reflection, so I understand that the Minister may prefer to write to me on much of this, rather than responding now.
Lord Williamson of Horton: In the spirit of solidarity which, as we know, reigns among the independent Cross-Bench Peers in the House of Lords, the points raised in the amendment are
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC312
6.45 pm
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: First, I acknowledge the work of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in pressing the cause of social workers. As a social worker, I could not have done it better myself. We owe him a great deal. I would be the first to acknowledge the important intent behind the amendment. Again, however, as I said at Second Reading, good practice does not depend on legislation but on implementation. Indeed, to put this into legislation or contracts would be detrimental to change and the ability to move forward. I say this from my recent experience in trying to unpick similar contractual arrangements in another organisation. It is obviously the job of unions to ensure that contractual arrangements are adhered to, which can lead to inflexibility and lack of change—real difficulties can ensue.
That does not mean that there cannot be other ways to drive this forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said earlier, my great wish is to find drivers to ensure that these things happen. Legislation would not make this happen, but would make it more difficult. I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of how the workforce planning and some of the guidance might help local authorities to move some of these issues forward.
While I am speaking I make one other point, about bureaucracy, which has been raised on a number of occasions. The Climbié inquiry made it clear, because it made an analysis of some of the bureaucracy, that it can be cut significantly. However, there is a difference between bureaucracy and good management, and we should be careful not to confuse the two. Young social workers on the job need help, management and supervision. That is what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, points out in the amendment. We must not say that they need that and then say that it is bureaucracy. We must be clear about what we are moving forward on.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |