Government defeated as Lords strike out children’s services proposal

The Government has been defeated in the Lords over plans to boost innovation in the provision of services to protect vulnerable children, which critics fear could lead to privatisation.

Peers voted by 245 to 213, a majority of 32, to strike powers to test “different ways of working” for English councils from the Children and Social Work Bill.

The defeat, in report stage debate on the legislation, came despite concessions from the Government, which offered a series of safeguards.

Education minister Lord Nash denied there was any “dark agenda” and insisted: “This is all about improving care for children.”

But Labour’s spokesman, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, said the Government’s “ultimate intention” was to “open up the field of social work services completely either to the private sector or the third sector, with local authorities having their role reduced to a bare minimum”.

Lord Watson said no convincing case had been made by ministers for why councils should be exempted from statutory children’s social care duties to test new ways of working.

Innovation was to be welcomed but the “nature of services should be as near as possible, uniform across the country”.

He said it was about defending children’s social care rights. A new power to test different ways of working was unnecessary as there was no evidence of councils finding their “hands tied” by existing rules.

Lord Nash said the aim was to put “those on the front line in the driving seat and empowering them to find better ways of working to protect the children in their care”.

He denied it was about allowing local authorities to opt out of their legal duties to children by giving them the right to try something different.

The minister said there would be consultation, advice from an expert panel and parliamentary scrutiny for every application to test different working methods.

But independent crossbencher Lord Ramsbotham, introducing the successful amendment, warned the new power was “nothing less than the subversion of parliament’s constitutional position”.

It was “not only wrong but totally unnecessary” in view of existing arrangements to deal with innovation.

Lord Ramsbotham said it was a “bad idea dreamt up by Whitehall,” which had faced widespread opposition from children’s charities and social work professionals.

Former Labour health minister Lord Warner warned that “draconian powers” were being sought by ministers, who were using an “extremely large sledgehammer to crack quite small nuts”.

Independent crossbencher Lord Low of Dalston piled on the criticism, accusing ministers of “privatisation or dismantling of the state”.

He told peers: “In the last six years the Government has substantially emasculated local authorities … so they are increasingly able to do little more than what they are statutorily obliged to do.

“Now it is proposed to complete the process by getting rid of the statutory obligations themselves. I don’t think we should go any further down this road.”

But Tory Baroness Eaton defended the plans, saying the freedom to test new ways of working was “desperately needed”.

Another Tory, Lord True, warned against “over-rigidity and stifling the good” under current rules.

He said it was “nonsense” and “reckless” to talk about privatisation when the Government had tabled amendments to rule out profit-making on services.

The Government will have to decide whether or not to overturn the defeat when the Bill goes to the Commons.

After the vote, Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, welcomed the result.

Outside the chamber, she said: “Our child protection laws are the result of a century of learning, public debate and parliamentary scrutiny – but, with no research or proper consultation, this Government has decided they are dispensable.

“Well done to the Lords for doing the Government’s job, listening to the concerns of social workers and campaigners, and standing up for children’s rights.

“If the Prime Minister really wants a country that works for everyone, she must now prove it by scrapping this dangerous and undemocratic plan once and for all.”
Page 3: 19:46

Later, the Liberal Democrats forced a vote to require the Government to publish a strategy for the safeguarding of unaccompanied refugee children living in the UK.

The amendment had been proposed by Labour peer Lord Dubs, but the opposition changed its stance following the ministerial announcement of a review into the treatment of unaccompanied and refugee children arriving in the UK.

Labour said the concessions made by the Government, following widespread criticism of its handling of the Calais crisis, went further than the amendment.

In a recent written statement, Education Minister Edward Timpson said the Government would look at speeding up the process in which refugee children with a legal right to live in Britain were identified and relocated.

Funding given to local authorities to support and care for refugee children would be regularly reviewed, while ministers would consult on what more they could do to prevent these vulnerable children from going missing.

The number of foster carers and supported lodgings where refugee children can be homed would also be increased.

However, the Liberal Democrats argued the Government had not gone far enough and pushed the amendment to a vote, which was easily defeated by 203 votes to 68, majority 135.

Opposition spokesman Lord Watson of Invergowrie welcomed the Government commitment to publish a strategy next May, which would detail how the vulnerable refugee children would be protected.

The Labour peer said in many ways the statement met the proposals set out in the amendment.

“In others it exceeded those proposals,” he added.

But Liberal Democrat Baroness Sheehan argued the Government plans did not go far enough and were “quite an unsatisfactory state of affairs”.

But Home Office minister Baroness Williams of Trafford disagreed and said they went further than the amendment.

She added: “The Government is determined to do everything it can to protect these unaccompanied children.

“Their welfare in the UK is our first priority and that is why the comprehensive strategy we have committed to publish, will build on the actions that we have already taken and go actually further to ensure that these children are and remain safeguarded.”

Responding to a separate amendment to the Bill, education minister Lord Nash committed to bring forward plans that would see a formal independent review carried out of the new social work regulator, five years after its creation, to ensure it is “fit for purpose and carrying out its functions effectively”.

_{Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2016, All Rights Reserved. Picture (c) PA Wire.}