Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in his letter to colleagues the Minister, Edward Timpson, stated that the Bill,

“demonstrates our commitment to making sure that every child, regardless of background, has the opportunity to fulfil their potential”.

That is a laudable commitment and, to the extent that the Bill demonstrates it, I welcome it, especially in so far as it will promote the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers—although not, I regret, those asylum-seeking care leavers excluded by the Immigration Act 2016. But the closer I look at the Bill and the briefings received, for which I am grateful, the harder I find it to welcome it wholeheartedly.

This is partly because for all the Government’s talk of improving life chances and an all-out assault on poverty, the Bill does not take sufficient account of two key contextual factors with huge implications for the life chances of the less advantaged: cuts to local authority funding, especially in deprived areas, and the impact of poverty and socioeconomic inequality. I shall return to these issues in a moment. First, I shall touch briefly on some specific worries that inevitably echo, but I hope also reinforce, some of the concerns already raised. Moreover, these worries are heightened by the overreliance yet again on secondary legislation for essential details, a point which has already been mentioned.

Although I have never been a social worker, for six years I headed a university department that educated social workers. Colleagues from that time have expressed profound worries about the threat to the independence of the social work profession contained in Part 2. Is any other profession subject to direct government regulation in this way? In what circumstances is it expected that the Secretary of State themselves would act as the regulator rather than appoint someone else? Further, which Secretary of State would it be? The Bill is far too vague and is drafted as if adult social work simply does not exist.

A number of organisations, notably Article 39 and the British Association of Social Workers, have voiced fears about the threat to children’s social care rights and entitlements in Clauses 15 to 19. As the National Children’s Bureau puts it,

“the case is still to be made”.

While there is widespread acceptance of the case for innovation, these bodies and other children’s charities pose some pertinent questions. As other noble Lords have asked, why is such a broad power necessary to enable innovation, not least given that some local authorities have shown that it is possible to innovate within the current law? Can the Minister give an example of where exemption would be needed to improve outcomes for children, and can he advise me, if necessary in writing, on which local authorities have sought such an exemption and from which duties?

I turn now to adoption. What the Bill says is not in itself exceptional, although I did wonder why the extension of the definition of relatives to include prospective adopters does not also explicitly include existing legal relatives such as grandparents. As Article 39 points out, they could find that insulting and upsetting. Article 39 also laments the lack of any provision for due consideration to be given to the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings, and the same applies to the information required in permanence plans, an issue raised more generally by the recent UN Committee on the Rights of the Child observations on the UK, mentioned in another context by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

My general concern arises more from the way in which the issue has been spun. In his recent Sunday Times article, the Prime Minister declared himself,

“unashamedly pro-adoption because I believe all children need a loving, permanent and stable home”.

Of course we all believe that, but it does not follow that adoption is the only or always the most appropriate means of providing such a home, as the president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, among many others as well as colleagues in this House, has warned. Valuable as adoption may be, a presumption that it is always best risks marginalising other forms of care with implications for their resourcing at a time of funding cuts, disadvantaging children in care for whom it is not an option, as the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation warned back in 2013, and alienating parents fearful that contact with children’s services is likely to mean the permanent removal of their child.

Many parents who are fearful of losing their children will be living in poverty. In considering where the balance should lie on adoption, we need to take what Mr Cameron called in his life chances speech “a more social approach”. This requires us to take account of poverty and socioeconomic inequality. A recent evidence review for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found a “strong association” forming a clear gradient between families’ socioeconomic circumstances and child abuse and neglect. While the authors are confident of this broad conclusion, they also underline the inadequacies of the evidence base in this country. Given that area-based analysis, smaller-scale studies and professional experience as well as cross-national data all point to the overwhelming impact that deprivation can have on parents’ ability to care for their children, it seems extraordinary that official statistics on looked-after children tell us nothing about their parents’ socioeconomic circumstances. Will the Minister please undertake to look into this omission?

It is important to stress that, in drawing attention to the link between poverty and abuse and neglect, the issue should be framed as one of public policy and inequality rather than of individual blame that further shames parents, for whom research shows that disrespectful treatment and feeling judged already contribute to the pressures they face. Overwhelmingly, the research shows that it is the stress associated with poverty that can undermine parental capacity, so that the very survival strategies that parents, especially mothers, adopt to get by can leave insufficient mental and physical resources for them to be the parents they want to be.

Yet, in the words of the JRF review,

“poverty often slides out of focus in policy and practice”.

The result can be that policy and practice are geared more towards the downstream investigation of abuse than upstream preventive work to support hard-pressed families, as recently called for again by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and, three years ago, by the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation. A recent article in the British Journal of Social Work shows how this has been increasingly the case, leading to,

“concerns about the way in which poor communities are subject to statutory surveillance and control, and about the stigmatisation of families who may not be abusing their children but are nonetheless drawn into the child protection process”.

This is all the more worrying in the context of cuts in spending on what has been called the “ecosystem” of family support, the additional funding for the troubled families programme notwithstanding. The fear is that the ecosystem could be shredded still further as a disproportionate share of funds is directed towards adoption services.

Cuts in local authority budgets also raise the question as to how effective in practice will be the welcome duty to consult on and publish a “local offer”—call me old-fashioned, but I wince at the use of this ugly market language in our legislation. As many organisations point out, the offer can be only as good as the services available. How will it of itself address gaps in service provision? Without a needs analysis, how will it do any more than provide information on the existing services, regardless of whether they are adequate to meet care leavers’ needs? Moreover, as the Children’s Society points out, all too often care leavers face poverty and debt, in part as a result of central government’s social security policies, as raised by other noble Lords.

Once again, as we scrutinise the Bill more closely, we need to bear in mind its social context, otherwise even its positive elements could simply hold out false hope to looked-after children and care leavers. That would be unforgiveable.