Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Lord Ramsbotham

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 4th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I add a few words to those of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. I particularly thank the Government for the amendments to Clauses 4, 5 and 6, which were in response to a promise made to the noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, and me during the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. They will certainly improve the position of children in this country adopted from abroad, but, as you would expect, the amendments can only bring those children within the scope of the measures in the Bill.

The battle is not over for the parents of those children, because many of them are now coming to the age where they transfer from primary to secondary school and are having difficulty getting into the school which their parents feel is most suitable for their particular needs. Is the Minister aware that some parents and I have spoken to Mr Edward Timpson about the need to extend priority admissions and pupil premium plus to those children? We are waiting to see whether the Government will make those changes. Will the Minister agree to meet me and some of the parents of those children so that he may hear for himself their concerns? Having said that, they asked me to say that they thank the Government and very much welcome the changes that they have made.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Government for how far they have come since we started work on this Bill in this House many months ago. However, I raise one question, which I raised yesterday in the very helpful drop-in session held by the Minister, which refers to government Amendments 9 and 30. Government Amendment 9 allows children from England and Wales to be held in secure accommodation in Scotland. As we know, the circumstances in which a child looked after by a local authority may be deprived of his or her liberty by placement in secure accommodation are listed in Section 25 of the Children Act 1989.

Government Amendment 30 sets out a new schedule. Paragraph 5 of that schedule refers in particular to the Children (Secure Accommodation) Regulations 1991. It states:

“In regulation 1 … ‘This Regulation and Regulations 10 to 13 extend to England and Wales and Scotland’”.


Does that mean that Regulations 2 to 9 and 13 do not apply to children detained in Scotland? That is very important, because those regulations contain the requirement to obtain the child’s and parents’ consent to a move and the right to independent periodic review. If the regulations as set out in the government amendment are to be believed, those rights are removed from children who are transferred to Scotland.

I suspect that this is either an administrative oversight or has been left out not deliberately but because the implications were not wholly appreciated. I should be grateful if the Minister could clear up this question.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Lord Ramsbotham

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because I was moved to do so, particularly by the British Association of Social Workers, which wrote saying that:

“We are not opposed to exploring new social work regulation options. We support steps to improve accountability of social workers, enabling them to show increasing specialism and skill. But we are opposed to these proposals that concentrate government control and that contain no incentive for the profession to lead in setting standards and developing its self-governance”.

In other words, it is not averse to regulation and it is all in favour of maintaining the independence of that regulator and separating him or her from the governance that is proposed in the Bill.

This is the second time in my life that I have supported an initiative in which my noble friend Lord Warner was involved. When I took over as Chief Inspector of Prisons in 1995, the control of young offenders was entirely in the hands of the Home Office, and it was an absolute disaster. They were treated badly, their conditions were appalling and nobody was taking an interest in the conditions and treatment that they received in the various establishments. Then came the Youth Justice Board—proposed and led by my noble friend—and there was immediate transformation. The merit of this amendment is not only that it has come from someone who clearly knows the profession because of his past experience; it also reflects both the practicalities of regulation that is required and has the support of the whole profession, which the Bill clearly does not.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have also added my name to this amendment, and to Amendment 135C in the next group, which we will come to in a moment.

I really think the Government have some questions to answer. Why is this new regulator needed? The Minister might answer by saying that having its own regulator would add to the status of social work. That is a perfectly decent answer, but not one that is totally under the thumb of the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the cost of creating this new regulator would be. The NSPCC is concerned about the danger of it creating a two-tier system of statutory and non-statutory social workers. I wonder if the noble Lord can answer that. What is the justification for putting regulation and improvement together? That question was very ably outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Why does this health and care profession have to be under the skirts of the Secretary of State? While I am about it, which Secretary of State are we talking about? The Bill does not say. Perhaps I should ask which woman it will be.

Many of us feel that if social workers were to become directly regulated by the Government, that would further weaken the trust—which is already fragile—between them and Whitehall. As the BASW said in the briefings we have all received, the Bill does nothing to address some of the real problems that affect social workers.

There is a real issue here because we have a significant shift of significant powers. It is a matter of principle. Why should social workers be the only profession in the health and care sector to be regulated by government? Nursing and medicine are not. They are public service professionals using their professional skills and judgment to make vital decisions about vulnerable members of the public. Bringing regulation under government control risks sending a demoralising set of signals to the sector. Loss of independence is likely to be seen as evidence that social work is really not up to it and needs a very close eye kept on it. That seems odd because it is at odds with what Ministers have been saying recently. They have been saying that social workers have been disempowered by command-and-control-type initiatives from central government and should be trusted to exercise their professional judgment and respected as professionals who undertake very complex work. Hear, hear! I agree with that. Why seek this government stranglehold now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I was attracted to putting my name to Amendments 135B and 135C because of their cleanliness and simplicity, and the fact that they picked up all the points that had been made in the Government’s policy statement, Regulating Social Workers, which was published last month. There was nothing missing. Furthermore, what the amendments proposed was independent and objective, and therefore they were likely to attract the support of the profession.

I could not help reflecting on two things. One was that when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, when I inspected a prison that had an under-18 wing the social services were responsible for under-18s at that time, so I took a social services inspector with me. She said that if it had been a secure children’s home, it would have been closed because of the lack of facilities. Those facilities were then under the direction of the Home Office, which claimed to be responsible for young people in custody. That has always suggested to me that government should not get close to the delivery of these things.

The second thing, which I admit struck me as strange, was on page 19 of the Regulating Social Workers report. One paragraph says:

“Ministers will lead on issues such as setting standards and delivery of responsive improvement programmes to raise the calibre and status of the profession”.

The next paragraph says:

“While Ministers retain ultimate responsibility, decisions will be kept at arm’s length”.

How can you lead at arm’s length? It struck me that there was considerable confusion in all this and that therefore the Government can consider the clarity of Amendments 135B and 135C as helping them to deliver what they want. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, we all want improvement as quickly as possible, and I think that the profession does as well. We appear to be in the mire of confused thinking, which could be avoided by withdrawing from it.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister sees Amendments 135B and 135C as a helpful attempt to get over problems with the way that the Bill is currently worded. There are two clear issues: one is the muddling together of regulation and improvement and the other is independence.

The Minister made a very decent argument for a new regulator focused solely on social work. Many social workers agree with that. Indeed, that is exactly what Amendment 135B would do, but it would not muddle it with improvement and, of course, the regulator would be independent. I was a little confused by some of the things that the Minister said about independence in the debate on the previous group. He talked about moving the whole thing closer to government but he also talked about operational independence. Those sound like two conflicting things to me. Given that the HCPC is both financially and operationally independent, what it is about the way it has operated its independence that make the Government think that the new body should not be independent?

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Lord Ramsbotham

Monday 11th July 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I am aware that my noble friend Lady Meacher and others have indicated their intention to oppose the proposition that Clauses 12 and 13, to which my amendments in this group refer, should stand part of the Bill. In advance of that debate, I will offer a brief explanation of what my amendments are designed to ensure.

Amendments 105 and 107 are linked to Amendment 135, which was tabled on Monday by my noble friend Lady Howarth of Breckland, in that they relate to a specific recommendation in the recent UN Rights of the Child report that the United Kingdom should ensure automatic review of child deaths in institutions. Amendment 105 is a description of what is meant by a place of detention, to which Amendment 107 refers. If my amendments are accepted, Amendment 105 should appear in new Section 16B(9), after Amendment 107, which will appear in new Section 16B(8) —to thoroughly confuse the Committee.

Like my earlier Amendment 92A, Amendment 109 is designed to bring existing statutory guidance into primary legislation. Noble Lords will recall the very disturbing footage of the physical and emotional abuse of children in Medway Secure Training Centre broadcast in a BBC “Panorama” programme in January of this year. The Ministry of Justice’s usual response to such allegations is to convene an in-house National Offender Management Service panel, which is not the same as a national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel.

During my time as Chief Inspector of Prisons, this was exemplified by the refusal of successive Home Secretaries to allow judicial review of the circumstances leading to the murder in Feltham of a young prisoner, Zahid Mubarek, by a known racist psychopath, until ordered to do so by the Law Lords then sitting in this House. This resulted in 78 recommendations for future improvement, plus the naming of 28 individuals who had failed in their duty—serious matters that might otherwise have remained hidden. Both incidents show why it is so important that the new arrangement, and this legislation, should include children in places of detention.

Amendment 109A is designed to ensure that concerned individuals and organisations have a channel through which to share significant information. The amendment allows for boundaries for public notification to be set by statutory guidance in order to protect the national panel from inappropriate referrals.

Finally, Amendment 110 clarifies that a regulated setting, in respect of a local authority’s duty to notify the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel of a child’s death, includes places of detention, as listed in Amendment 105. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 106A is in this group. It was Amendment 108 but for some reason has been retabled. The arrangements for the national review panel appear to omit its opportunity to review cases of serious mistreatment and/or physical injury caused by restraint in youth custody institutions or other kinds of institutions. This amendment makes it clear that these cases should be looked at by the panel because they raise serious issues of national policy and practice. I do not think that it should be restricted to just deaths in custody, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, although I fully support what he said about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to the BBC “Panorama” programme about the Medway Secure Training Centre. Reports obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests reveal that children in custody suffered serious physical injuries following restraint on three separate occasions in 2013-14 and on four separate occasions in 2014-15. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned, Ministers will often refer to the National Offender Management Service. But that is not a safeguarding panel. One of 10 recommendations made by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, following its review of the new system of restraint in child custody, urged more effective independent oversight of restraint by local safeguarding children boards and local authorities.

The Government have tabled an amendment to abolish LSCBs, which makes it even more important that this new arrangement of a national panel includes harms to children in custody and other institutions, not just deaths. This matter is of a very serious nature and is not really suitable for review at local level. The children in these institutions are often not located in their home authority, so it is essential that the new national panel looks at these cases—unless, of course, these clauses do not eventually stand part of the Bill, which will be debated later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley]

For the sake of an accurate record, may I point out that Amendment 108, referred to by the Minister, was retabled as Amendment 106A?

The noble Lord suggested that the national panel would have the discretion to choose whether to investigate situations such as those described in my amendment involving,

“harm caused by unlawful or abusive restraint in any institutional setting”.

If we eventually have a national panel, this is exactly the sort of situation they should look into, because it is a matter of national policy and because children in such institutions come from a range of different local authorities. Despite the guidance, very often they are not located in their home authority. My point is that these cases should be investigated by the national panel on all occasions; it should not just be left to its discretion.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I am grateful to the Minister for his carefully considered response. I just hope that between now and the next time we meet, there will not be a fourth huge volume of government policy for us to consider during the passage of the Bill. I am sure it is very reassuring to think that the Department for Education is producing all this stuff, but I must say that it would have been helpful to have had it before we began our deliberations, rather than having it fed in during Committee.

When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was speaking, I could not help but reflect on my hopes when we introduced the corporate manslaughter legislation. I hoped that it would provide the stick to make certain that the outcomes of such investigations were taken seriously. But nothing has yet happened to bring corporate manslaughter charges against the managers under whom these unnatural deaths have taken place. It is something that is worth considering.

I was going to comment on my noble and learned friend Lord Judge’s remarks in the discussion on Clause 15. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned his comments on the regulation, I will repeat what I said at Second Reading. I quoted the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, who, during the debate on the balance of power between the Government and Parliament, said of this Bill that there were,

“more provisions for the Secretary of State to use regulations than there are clauses in the Bill, including on issues that should be considered matters of significant policy”.—[Official Report, 9/6/16; col. 860.]

I also quoted my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, who, in addition to making some devastating comments about the increasing number of Henry VIII clauses in current legislation, highlighted the number of them in this Bill and asked,

“when are we going to actually achieve something before our ... arrangements disappear into some vague unknown future?—[Official Report, 9/6/16; col. 875.]

I must admit that I am extremely alarmed at the number of them in the Bill, not least because the impact assessment on the Bill states:

“The Bill’s contents have been reviewed and ruled out of scope for the regulatory impact assessment exercise”.

To my mind, nothing could be more inappropriate because the regulatory impact assessment really needs to be carried out in spades on this Bill, as many noble Lords have said.

I am grateful to the Minister for offering his meeting on the national safeguarding panel, to which I look forward. In the meantime, and until Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Walmsley and Lord Ramsbotham

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, first, let me correct an omission from my contribution at Second Reading—namely, that I did not publicly thank Thomas Brown for his typically helpful Library note, from which I quoted Dr Ruth Allen, chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, who said that government reforms,

“need to be driven by social worker knowledge and skills”.

Noble Lords may question the words “be driven” and prefer something like “take account of”, but the sentiment is the same. Partnerships imply co-operation, and co-operation includes consultation.

I acknowledge that an amendment that seeks to give extra force to an existing ban on profit-making in children’s services by regulation by enshrining it in primary legislation does not sit easily in the group of clauses headed, “Care and adoption proceedings in England and Wales”, but neither does any fear that the Government might use Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 in this regard, which enables the social care functions of a local authority to be discharged by a body corporate. That would not sit easily with partners such as the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and many other organisations, which rejected any profit motive in the provision of children’s services in the consultation that the Government held in 2014 on draft regulations concerning a significant extension to the children’s service functions that could be outsourced. In its response, the association said:

“Decisions taken about a child’s life should only ever be based on what is in the best interests of the child as assessed by skilled and qualified social workers and the courts system. These decisions cannot, and must not, be subordinate to the pursuit of financial profit”.

In their response, the Government said:

“The proposals were concerned with improving the quality of children’s services rather than savings, ‘privatisation’ or profit-making”.

They inserted a prohibition on profit-making into the final regulations, which extended the children’s services functions that could be outsourced.

Local authorities are living in hard financial times that are likely to get harder rather than easier, as many noble Lords have pointed out. I do not believe that a single penny of what is allocated to protecting children and young people and keeping them safe should be diverted from that purpose. In ideal circumstances, of course, such services should be funded adequately to ensure that they are effective and timely, but what is absolutely clear is that no one should profit out of that allocation other than children.

The Minister said at Second Reading that the Government had no intention of removing the ban on profit in child protection. However, the 2014 regulations and Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 allow the outsourcing of many other children’s services functions. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified exactly what the Government’s position is regarding a profit ban on children’s services. Regulations are easier to circumvent than primary legislation, which is where I believe any ban should be. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, children’s social care services are some of the most important functions of local authorities and, of course, councils should be able to work with local partners to secure some elements of children’s well-being while retaining overall leadership and accountability for commissioning and delivery. But because of the mandatory duties, the majority of the experience and expertise in undertaking safeguarding work remains with councils. The complex and difficult tasks in child protection do not readily attract commercial or not-for-profit providers, and it is crucial that we do not create a situation where the easy or profitable aspects of children’s services are cherry-picked, leaving councils with an unmanageable portfolio of the really difficult services.

We had a briefing from the LGA, which believes that the introduction of a perceived profit motive into decisions about our most vulnerable children and young people risks undermining public confidence in this hugely challenging work. I agree with the association. It is significant that it has briefed us, because this work is difficult and costly, so it would have been easy for the LGA to leave things as they are and not encourage us to support an amendment that seeks to put this in the Bill. It is an indication of how seriously the LGA is taking this matter.

As we have heard, in 2014 the Government consulted on draft regulations which significantly extended the children’s services functions that could be outsourced. The responses at the time overwhelmingly disagreed with the regulations. The Association of Directors of Children’s Services pointed out that a local authority’s duty of care is not delegable, although of course its functions are. It felt that services designed to keep children safe should not be predicated on a profit motive. There is far too much temptation to cut corners where there is a profit motive, especially when budgets are tight and the funding of the contract is very challenging, which often happens. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has just said, such decisions should only ever be based on the best interests of the child.

The Minister told us in the meeting we had before the Committee began that the Government are not minded to remove the current ban on for-profit organisations but, unfortunately, that ban is only in regulations, which we all know are not difficult to remove by negative resolution. That is why I support this amendment to put the matter into primary legislation, because it is far too important to put it at risk.