Government attacked over ‘completely unacceptable’ Bill to improve children’s social care

By The Press Association14th June 2016News EnglandChildren and Social Work Bill, Childrens Services, Government / Politics, News England, Social Care, Social Work

The Government has been accused of treating Parliament with contempt over the lack of detail in proposals aimed at improving children’s social care services across England.

Labour said a large chunk of the Children And Social Work Bill, unveiled in last month’s Queen’s Speech, “disappears off into the mist”, and so prevented proper scrutiny.

There was also criticism from the Liberal Democrats over the “significant deficiencies” in the proposed legislation.

It comes amid continuing concern over the Government’s use of so-called “skeleton Bills”, with powers delegated to ministers.

Under the Children And Social Work Bill, guidelines would be altered in favour of permanent adoptions, while children who had been looked after would be given a new “covenant” setting out local authorities’ duties to help them with housing, jobs and healthcare after they leave care.

For social workers, “more demanding” professional standards would be introduced while a specialist regulator would also be established for the profession.

It was on this latter area that Labour raised concern about the lack of detail and took the unusual step of tabling a motion at Second Reading of the Bill.

Opposition spokesman Lord Watson of Invergowrie told peers the second part of the Bill, which covered social work including regulation, “disappears off into the mist”.

He said: “From that point it’s a skeleton Bill.

“This is no way to legislate.

“Were this a one-off occurrence we would not make too much of it.”

But he added: “It’s become an all too familiar pattern not just with this Bill but other Bills over the last year.

“We believe that’s a development that’s completely unacceptable.

“And that’s why we have submitted the amendment to draw attention to the fact that the Government is treating Parliament with contempt.”

He added: “We cannot scrutinise that which we cannot see.”

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Pinnock said: “There’s much to be supported in the Bill. However, it is much to be regretted that its content is so ill-defined.

“Those more experienced than I in these matters claim that the Bill is so lacking in detail that work of this house in scrutinising and challenging is well nigh impossible.”

She said she backed Labour’s amendment which “draws attention to these significant deficiencies”.

Opening the debate, education minister Lord Nash called for the focus to be on the content of the Bill and the important role it would play in the lives of children and those that support them.

He said he was sure it was not the opposition’s intention to “shift focus away from such a laudable aim” and also claimed the Labour amendment was “factually incorrect”.

The minister also argued that delegated powers allowed for flexibility within the system.

Lord Nash said: “The Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to making sure not child is left behind.

“I am confident we all share the same desire to improve the life chances of the most vulnerable children.

“This Bill represents an opportunity to dramatically improve the way this support is offered after years of these children being often left behind.”

Labour former minister Baroness Hughes of Stretford said it was time to “stop tinkering with the system with small measures added in here and there”.

She called instead for a “relentless focus on education for these children with proposals that go much further in spanning the educational needs of looked after children and care leavers”.

Former chief inspector of prisons and independent crossbencher Lord Ramsbotham welcomed the overall aim of the Bill.

But he said the children’s social care system would be more effective if a “whole system approach was taken to safeguarding and promoting the wellbeing of children”.

Lord Ramsbotham said: “Further jaw-jaw about the promotion of children’s wellbeing is all very well but when are we going to have war-war on the problems?”

Independent crossbencher Baroness Meacher, a former social worker, said she was “deeply worried” over the proposal for the most serious cases of child abuse to be referred to a national review panel.

Warning against its involvement in the consideration of an individual social worker’s competence, she said: “If we fail to do that I cannot imagine anyone taking on the job of family social worker.”

Lady Meacher also argued the Government also appeared to be “turning its back on prevention” with the closure of hundreds of children’s centres.

“The Bill does nothing to reverse this very dangerous trend,” she said.

Labour peer Lord Wills was critical of the Bill’s reliance on delegated or secondary legislation, which allows the Government to make changes to a law without the need for a completely new Act of Parliament.

He said: “It denies Parliament the opportunity for proper scrutiny and improvement of legislation.”

The Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Paul Butler, said with 75% of looked after children being in foster care, it was “regrettable” the Bill did not address this area.

The Bishop warned: “To subject care leavers to benefit sanctions on the present scale is often counter productive, as is the challenge of having to pay council tax during the early years of adjustment to independent adult living.”

He said positive strategies of personal support and financial education were more likely to be effective than the “heavy handed use of sanctions” and called for care leavers to be exempted from council tax until the age of 25.

Non-affiliated peer Lord Warner, a former director of social services in Kent who served as a health minister in the last Labour government, was highly critical of the “ragtag Bill”.

A major area of concern to him was the planned overhaul of social worker regulation, which he argued was an “ill-thought through change”.

Lord Warner added: “It beggars belief that DfE (Department for Education) ministers now want to take wide powers to throw all of the social work regulatory cards up in the air again.”

As things stood the peer said he would “want a lot of convincing” this part of the Bill should stay.

Independent crossbencher Lord Bichard, a former head of the Benefits Agency and top civil servant, said he had “considerable sympathy” with the points made by Lord Warner.

He argued the responsibility should be on councils to offer care leavers access to a personal adviser rather than leaving it for the individual to request support.

“Let’s place the onus on the authority, not the care leaver,” he said.

Lord Bichard, who headed the inquiry into the Soham murders, also pointed out there had been hundreds of serious case reviews, the majority of which had reached similar conclusions.

“We have not been short of reviews wherever they have been undertaken. We have not been short of lessons.

“The problem has been the failure to translate the lessons into action, into change.”

There was “absolutely nothing” in the Bill that that gave him any more confidence that action was more likely, he said.

Lord Bichard warned without ensuring action was taken following serious case reviews by the national panel, proposed in the Bill, it would be “bureaucracy without a purpose”.

Former children’s presenter and Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Benjamin said there was “a moral duty to support, protect and nurture children in care”.

Urging increased support for care leavers, she pointed out the outcomes for this group were still much worse than for other young people.

Responding to the debate, Lord Nash defended the use of delegated powers in the Bill.

He also sought to reassure peers concerned about the measure enabling local authorities to test different ways of working.

The minister explained any resulting exemptions from children’s social care legislation would be limited in scope.

Lord Nash also agreed to reflect on calls to make access to personal advisers the responsibility of the local authority rather than the care leaver.

In response to concerns, he insisted the national review panel would not focus on individual blame and added the Government was determined “to make the lives of social workers less difficult”.

Defending the creation of a new regulator, he argued social work needed a “different model” from the one currently in place.