| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
To support and promote good relationships between universities and employers, as well as in relation to continuing professional development, the Government have funded learning resource networks in partnership with the Local Government Association and Department of Health. There are nine such networks, which were launched in 2003, and the work of the networks is divided into regional consortiums. They work on three main areas: building and supporting sustainable partnerships between universities and employers; increasing the supply and quality of practice placements; and on the collation of data on practice placements. The scope of the work that these networks do is currently under review. The CWDC and Skills for Care are preparing for both departments to review this work. However, the core of the work, to support practice placements and relationships between universities and local authorities, will continue to be central to the work. I will of course ensure that those undertaking the review are made aware of the remarks that have been made in this extremely useful short debate.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for his helpful response. I am sure that we all look forward to receiving that information. I thank all those who have spoken in this debate. My father always used to say that what he enjoyed about the House of Lords was that every day was an education. I look forward to reading Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Functions under this Part to be social services functions]:
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 8:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Piloting and expiry of arrangements under this Part]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 9:
The noble Baroness said: I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12. The Bill enables,
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC321
Importantly, the option of social work practices is not the only way to ensure that the Government’s aims are met. Other pilots to address some of those aims are under way. For example, the Children’s Workforce Development Council is currently seeking bids to trial new arrangements for social workers in 18 local authorities. The new trials are intended to remodel social work teams to improve the recruitment and retention of social workers and other social care staff, to involve more early intervention work and to tackle bureaucracy. It is also worth bearing in mind that the trials are going on alongside other developments in the education and care sectors that are seeking, through counsellors and mentors, to provide children with longer-term, stable support and help from adults outside the home. It may be that these experiments also prove to be an alternative to the social work practice model. The amendments proposed for this part of the Bill aim to ensure that the move from piloting to social work practices and making the model permanent is not seen as the necessary outcome.
We propose two mechanisms through this group of amendments. First, Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 would shorten the length of time in which local authorities are given the opportunity to pilot the social work practices. This is aimed at ensuring that it is not seen as the only model of delivery for the provision of care for looked-after children and that other potential models are also given adequate opportunity to be trialled by local authorities. It is intended as a probing amendment to gain further understanding of the extent to which the Government are committed to the pilots and whether they are genuine pilots or whether the Government are open to running other schemes simultaneously.
Amendment No. 12 is more substantive. The aim is to ensure that a rigorous evaluation of the pilots of social work practices takes place before the model becomes permanent. The assurance given on Second Reading that the results of the pilots would be published and that by implication they would be given no further rollout until after publication and consideration of the results is reassuring. The Minister a short while back again reassured us that the pilots would not be rolled out until the evaluation was complete.
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC322
That does not detract from the fact that the criteria for judging the success or otherwise of the pilots must be rigorous. They will need to be judged in terms of the required improvements in services offered to children in care, their broader impact on the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of children’s social services and the general delivery of personal social services. That is why in proposed new subsection (8) we are asking that they be judged against the delivery of the Every Child Matters agenda, the local authority’s responsibilities as a corporate parent, the impact on local authority resources and the general stability of the care system, as well as the specific impacts on the children in care services and the recruitment and retention of social workers.
Finally, proposed new subsection (7) puts in the Bill the Minister’s pledge that the social work practice pilots would not be rolled out more generally until the evaluations have been completed and considered by Parliament. I find myself really rather unclear on what triggers Clause 4. As we discussed earlier, Clause 4 effectively ends the period of piloting and introduces social work practices, as suggested in Clause 1(1). Looking at Clause 6, the piloting period begins on the date when Clause 1(1) comes into force and ends on the earlier of the two: the date when Clause 4 comes into force or the end of the period of five years, beginning with the date on which the Act is passed. I read that to say that, unless Clause 4 is brought into force, there is a five-year pilot and after five years the whole thing falls.
I am not clear on Clause 6(2):
“An order bringing section 1 into force may do so by reference to particular local authorities or local authorities of a particular description”.
I take it that that means you could roll out the pilots more generally in either a particular local authority or a group of local authorities. Someone has to declare the day on which Clause 4 comes into force. I am not clear from the Bill what triggers that. Can the Minister clarify that? The aim of Amendment No. 7 would be that an order from the Secretary of State bringing Clause 4 into force would not be made until an evaluation of the pilots had been completed. We are clear in our minds that this is what we would like, but I am not clear what would trigger Clause 4. I beg to move.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I found this clause rather incomprehensible, so I am reassured that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, with her sharpness, also finds it difficult. My problem was that I could not understand whether this was to do with the technical start and end of the process or the length of time for which this might happen; the five years.
If that is so in operational terms, the anxiety that I have at that point is that a contract—I disagree with the noble Baroness on this—of less than five years to set up these practices would cause considerable difficulties. Anyone who sets up operational services on the ground knows that it is six months from the start date of the contract before you are really going, it is a year before you can begin to really assess how you are doing, and
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC323
Lord Elystan-Morgan: It may not be necessary for me to intervene here but it seems to me that there is a simple answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Clause 39(1) relates to Wales, and subsection (2) states:
“Otherwise the provisions of Parts 1 to 4, section 37 and the Schedule come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint”.
So what triggers the operation of the clause is the Order in Council.
The Earl of Listowel: Before the Minister replies, I will give him a little more breathing space. I have one question. Realistically, how long does he expect the pilots to run for in practice?
Lord Adonis: I hope that I can provide crystal clear illumination on the question of dates. Clause 6(2) allows for Clause 1 to be brought into force by reference to a particular local authority or local authorities. This will enable the selection of local authorities to pilot the social work practice model. However, unless Clause 4 is brought into force within five years of Royal Assent—the five years begin with Royal Assent—Clauses 1 to 5 will cease to have effect. That means that we must establish the pilots, allow them to run and evaluate them in time to decide before the end of that five-year period whether to roll out the power to make arrangements under Clause 1 more widely. I hope that clarifies the position about the five years.
Why have we gone for five years? For exactly the reason that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, set out. We believe that it is an appropriate period when you take into account all the preparatory and evaluation stages that will need to be gone through. It may help the Committee if I set out the rough timetable for activity that we foresee. Subject to the successful passage of the Bill, we will run a competition for local authorities to take part in the pilots, with a view to identifying three to six successful candidates in autumn this year. At the same time, we will also be putting the finishing touches to the model contract and funding systems to support effective operation of the pilots.
Pilot local authorities would then begin commissioning social work practices in autumn this year. Leaving time for a full and proper commissioning process, we anticipate that the successful social work practices should have been chosen by early 2009. In the first quarter of 2009, detailed contract negotiations will need to take place, social work practices will need to get themselves set up in offices, and practical arrangements for transferring cases will need to be put in place.
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC324
The aim is to have social work practices up and running, with full caseloads, at Easter 2009, roughly a year after Royal Assent. The intention is that they should then run until Easter 2011. During that two-year period, evaluation evidence will be gathered. In the fourth year, from Easter 2011 to Easter 2012, the evaluation of the pilots will take place. The evaluation will be independent, and we will ensure that the evaluation report is made public and that there is full and proper consultation before the model is made available to all local authorities, if this is indeed a desired option.
Year 5 would then be a period of transition. If a decision is taken to make the social work practice model available more widely, we will need to take time to get the regulation regime right. We will want to design and consult on national minimum standards for social work practices and give the chief inspector time to prepare inspection arrangements. Those local authorities which had operated the pilots would also need to commission social work practices for the post-pilot period, and they will need time to do that.
Taking account of the timetable that I have set out, I hope that the Committee will consider that a five-year period is reasonable and that the date of commencement arrangements is now clear.
7.30 pm
Baroness Butler-Sloss: I got completely confused—I hope that I am the only person who did. What will happen to the pilot local authorities after the second year? If in years 2 and 3, they are operating, will they continue in years 4 and 5, or will years 4 and 5 be a period of limbo, after which, in year 6, if it is a good idea, they will start again? If I may say so, that was not at all clear from what was otherwise an excellent review by the Minister.
Lord Adonis: Yes, they will continue in that period through to subsequent years.
Baroness Meacher: On a point of information, we managed in the previous debate to reach an understanding that the total cost of the powers would be £6 million. When we talk about the powers being ongoing for five years, does the Minister agree that it would be very helpful to allocate a similar, small amount of money, £6 million, to generate control groups, control pilots in other local authorities where we would do exactly the same thing in terms of administrative change but within the local authority? We got halfway through that discussion, but it might be helpful if we could clarify it further in this context.
Lord Adonis: My point is the same as the one that I made in response to the noble Baroness earlier: there is nothing stopping local authorities themselves from setting up any control that they want tomorrow. It does not require the Government to provide funding for local authorities to establish a control against which, if they so wish, they can test the effectiveness of the social work practice pilots.
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC325
Baroness Meacher: There is just the small matter of money. Although the Minister said that local authorities have huge budgets, my understanding is that local authorities are unbelievably pressed and have huge demands on them and never enough money to meet them. If the Government want to have proper controlled studies, proper pilots where we are comparing like with like, I have a feeling that the only way to achieve that is if the Government generate what the Minister rightly said is an extremely small amount of money—£6 million in government terms is absolutely nothing—to ensure that there is proper evaluation of a control study.
Lord Adonis: I fear that we are going slightly round in circles. Because it is an extremely small sum, as the noble Baroness said, we do not believe that local authorities would have any difficulty finding it if they want to conduct control programmes with which to compare the success or otherwise of the social work practice pilots.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The noble Baroness raises precisely the point that I was going to raise with the Minister. I raised three issues. The first was that of timing. I must say that I very much agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the Minister that we need a longer period for a pilot. We tabled the amendments, which came from UNISON, because we generally agreed with them but, on thinking about it, I know all too well how long it takes to set up a proper pilot, so I agree that the five-year period is required if we are going to include the evaluation in it.
What the Minister did not answer but has now begun to is the point that I made about the need to have control experiments—that there are other ways to do these things. The difficulty faced by local authorities is that it takes time to set up a trial or a pilot. That is recognised, because the Government are putting aside £6 million—a very small sum, but nevertheless enough to help the pilots forward. The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was making is that if there are to be other pilots, there needs to be a little bit of money in the system to help them forward. It might be appropriate that other experiments should be carried forward to see what might be best practice.
My second point was on the whole process of the evaluation. Amendment No. 12 was the substantive amendment, rather than Amendments Nos. 9, 10 or 11, and it concerns two matters. First, the evaluation should be reported back before an order is made by the Secretary of State putting Clause 4 into effect. The evaluation should be considered by Parliament rather than just as an order. Secondly, the evaluation should look at a number of specific issues. The Minister did not reply to that point.
Lord Adonis: Perhaps I should say a little more about evaluation and controls. On pages 48 and 49 of Consistent Care Matters, the report by the group chaired by Professor Le Grand, evaluation is
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC326
“The group considers that a thorough and robust evaluation of the pilots is essential and that this should involve a comparison of the pilots’ performance with those of selected local authorities acting as ‘controls’.”
That is not the Government funding them to be controls, but simply looking at their performance. The report’s recommendation is that the performance of social work practices should be compared against the performance of three controls: first, the pilot authority; secondly, the performance of a best practice local authority; and, thirdly, the performance of an average local authority, to provide a fair assessment of its impact.
Baroness Meacher: That is precisely one of my concerns. The plan is to compare these pilots, with the injection of pump-priming funding, with other local authority practices where there is no such funding. That is exactly the point that we have raised.
Lord Adonis: I entirely disagree with that point. There is nothing to stop one of the more successful local authorities, or a local authority running a social work practice pilot, providing funding to ensure comparable levels of recruitment, incentive or whatever is the particular area of reform that it wishes to compare between traditional local authority managed services and the social work practice pilots. Pages 48 and 49 of the report set out the basis on which a comparison would be made. The Government believe that that is an entirely fair basis.
The Earl of Listowel: Perhaps I may press the Minister further. It is not the local authorities that seek to pilot this programme to examine the effectiveness of the new social work practices in improving continuity for children in care. It is the Government who are doing so. I cannot see why local authorities would wish to spend extra money just to prove whether the Government’s initiative works or does not work. Surely the onus should be on the Government, if they want to be scrupulous in terms of testing this approach, to inject a similar amount of money into the control local authorities to test whether the approach is making as much difference as the Government hope—and, indeed, we all hope.
Lord Adonis: With great respect to the noble Earl, we will be running a competition for engagement in the pilots, so we are dealing only with willing local authorities. This is not the Government piloting a course of action which local authorities do not want pursued. On the contrary, we will be dealing with local authorities that want to engage in the pilot because they believe that it could be a beneficial way to improve social work provision in their area. If they see social work pilots as one way to improve it, they may see other measures with which they wish to compare it as a good way of proceeding. The Government are not obliging local authorities to engage in the pilots. They will be willing partners who have chosen to engage. If they wish to engage in other
8 Jan 2008 : Column GC327
Baroness Walmsley: There is going to be a competition. How are the Government going to ensure that the range of local authorities represented within the pilots covers all the bases—all kinds, sizes and natures of local authorities? What if some kinds of local authorities do not apply? What will happen then?
Lord Adonis: I am afraid that we are dependent on those who apply. We are talking about a small number of pilots, so I certainly cannot say that they will be representative of the whole generality of local authorities in every respect. But the whole purpose of pilots is that you must make allowance for the conditions within which you are working, and your evaluation must take account of them.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In view of the time, we have probably been around this one for long enough. But, actually, the Minister is not quite right. If any local authority is open to set up a pilot in anything and does not need any extra funding for it, it does not need any funding to set up pilots in social work practices. If they want to have, or try out, social work practices, they could have a pilot. There is no need for extra money to encourage them to undertake one. There should be, as we were suggesting earlier, a level playing field on this issue.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |