Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for International Development
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley
Main Page: Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness O'Neill of Bexley's debates with the Department for International Development
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Excerpts(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to clarify what support the Secretary of State will require multi-agency partners to offer.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 29, I will speak to Amendments 31, 39 and 40. In my previous contribution, I suggested that there were many parts of this Bill about which there are major concerns, and the multiagency child protection teams for local authority areas is the most concerning. The main concern is that statutorily responsible directors of children’s services should not be mandated in statute to develop this way of working. The preference would be that the local working practice should be at the discretion of local areas in how they arrange child protection services.
The problem this is trying to solve—the sad deaths of Star and Arthur—will not be solved by this proposal. The proposal is set to separate out family help and child protection, but that could mean that workers in family help will believe that they are not responsible for child protection, as it is managed by a team elsewhere.
However, the reality of life is that the family help team need to be able to identify when a child or a family situation has tipped into risk and is unsafe, in order for the MACPT to be alerted to get involved. In Star and Arthur’s case, even if the team had been in place, the children may not have been referred, because the workers involved did not recognise the potential risks to both children.
I know the Minister said the other day that the findings of the pilots would be published in spring 2025, but we are about to go into summer, and they have not been seen yet. That means that the model has not been fully tested and has no research to back its veracity. Surely that has to be done before the Bill comes into effect.
The MACPTs are predicated on staff being supplied from the police and health as a core for the team. We know the financial pressures these services are under, so this is likely to be impossible to achieve at this national scale. There is also the uncertainty around the future of the integrated care boards—ICBs—in the health world, and no certainty that safeguarding budgets will not be reduced. There is no additional funding to achieve this. What happens if health and police cannot provide staff for the MACPTs? Where does the buck stop? Many believe that the requirement for MACPTs should be removed from the legislation or that it should be made that they can decide locally how these services will operate.
Amendment 29 seeks to clarify
“what support the Secretary of State will require multi-agency partners to offer”.
There was a conversation here on Tuesday evening about the role of schools, ably led by my noble friend Lady Spielman. Will the Secretary of State be mandating what the partners are responsible for? We know of the discussions about budgets. Will the Secretary of State be determining that money should be ring-fenced, and who will determine what partners are responsible? Health and police are named, education seems to be in question, but there are others that will potentially have a role as well.
Amendment 31 looks to ensure that there is an effective multi-agency team. We are all aware of the need for consistency of involvement in safeguarding. An effective multi-agency team will need to have consistent involvement. There will need to be ownership of involvement, and attendance or participation will need to be assured.
Amendments 39 and 40 seek to clarify how cases that cross local authority borders will be managed. These amendments are clear. It would be good to understand how issues that straddle local authority borders will be managed and where the responsibility lies, because we all know that our borders are porous. I beg to move.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I am really concerned about these child protection teams. Well-intended as they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has explained, there are some dangers in the arrangements that are being proposed.
The good intention behind this is that it addresses one of the fundamental problems we have had in child protection in the past: many of the authorities that are charged with confronting the child abuser have become frightened of them. Consequently, when someone should have gone into the house and dealt with it, they have walked away. I am afraid it has happened to the police at times, as well. Generally speaking, it is better that, when it is necessary, there is someone there who is prepared to take on that frightening person who has done so much damage to a child or a baby.
My concern is that if the police are to be included in this team, it will lead to a certain amount of confusion about their role. First, why are the police there? Generally, the police are there to enforce the law and to use the skills they have in that respect. They are not there because they are particularly good at child protection. That is why social services and health visitors exist and why schools receive incredible training and are very good at helping children and their development. For police officers, that is generally not their skill set. They are there to investigate crime and to confront the people who are the suspects.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
I thank the Minister for her detailed response and all noble Lords for their contributions. They have shown their passion for keeping young people safe. Nobody wants to get that wrong, which is why everyone is making such passionate contributions. To do so, you really need as much information as possible, and sharing those pilots is pivotal to all of that. I thank everyone for their contributions and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, having listened to the noble Baroness introduce these amendments, I think they are quite interesting. Let us see what the answer is.
The one that really attracts my attention is Amendment 37: how are you going to assess how the teams have worked? The point that the noble Baroness made was reasonable—that you might want different types of implementation teams in different areas—but if you are doing something new, how do you assess where it has or has not been successful? If the Minister could point out where in the Government’s process that is going to happen—if it is—I would be very interested to hear that. If it is convincing, I hope we can put this to bed and move on.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran on Amendment 30, which builds on the previous conversation in seeking to confirm that local authorities can use their discretion in how the multi-agency child protection teams are implemented operationally in their areas.
In addition to the contributions previously made about the pilots and having the information about those pilots, I want to add two very good reasons why it is imperative to ensure that local decision-making will become effective: how there could be confusion over legal accountability, and how the Bill could weaken local authority leadership.
The statutory responsibility for safeguarding will still rest with the local authorities, as has previously been said, not with the partnerships or multi-agency teams. If all functions are located within a multi-agency team, it may become unclear who is ultimately accountable, especially in the case of a serious case review or legal proceedings. As was referred to previously, current DfE guidance, through Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, emphasises that, although functions can be delegated, accountability cannot be transferred.
I have previously referred to the issue of budgets from other partners, especially police and health, and how that might impact their involvement, but we also need to consider the fact that not all agencies are coterminous. In my area, our police, under the leadership of the Mayor of London, are a tri-borough relationship. The NHS is a six-borough relationship. I quite often get notices from the police identifying a child in Lewisham, and I have to ask my team whether there is a connection to Bexley. There is a potential confusion there and, of course, with that confusion comes the ownership. This could create issues in determining not least the ownership but also the cost implications.
The other risk is weakened local authority leadership. Overconsolidation into multi-agency spaces could disempower directors of children services or the lead members, who are the statutory leads for safeguarding. There is a risk of fragmenting the governance. For those reasons it seems sensible to trust the local authority to use its discretion in how the multi-agency child protection teams are implemented locally in their own area. I support my noble friend Lady Barran’s amendment.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, for several reasons I support Amendment 37 from my noble friend Lady Barran. She and others have spoken about the enormous amount of change being imposed on the sector, both to current structures and prospectively with local government reorganisation and with many processes through these reforms.
We have now heard from enough people here and outside to think that there is good reason to be concerned about poor decision-making arising from the blurring of early help, targeted support, work with children in need and child protection. There are potentially parallels with the SEND reforms a few years ago, when a new model was expected to simplify and reduce costs, and reduce numbers in the system, but has, sadly, done the opposite. On the points that have been made about the blurring of accountability, there is again reason to be concerned.
I was part of a national implementation board after the care review and, in that process, I was struck, more than in most government processes I have been involved with, that many people seemed to find it hard to say what they really thought to Ministers. They perhaps pulled punches a little bit. It is incredibly important to make sure that there is a report that all can see and that is really transparent about how these reforms are working in practice.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to leave discretion about the qualifications of those who are part of MACPTs to the relevant agency responsible. It also aims for clarity about where the Secretary of State might lift the requirement for qualifications in this work.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 33 aims to leave discretion about the qualifications of those involved in the multi-agency child protection team to the relevant agency responsible. It also aims for clarity about where the Secretary of State might lift the requirement for qualifications in this work. My previous contributions have sought flexibility for those statutorily responsible for the safety of our young people, and this amendment follows that theme. The Minister, thankfully, gave us some reassurances earlier, and I hope this will continue.
Life changes, and the areas will not all be the same. It will need some local discretion, so one would hope that it would not be too prescriptive. In addition to considering the local needs of those responsible, we need to consider what already exists and, if change needs to happen, from what base will it happen? There needs to be flexibility for those who are part of the processes. It is also possible that this being one size fits all risks undermining local innovation, which we all know is important, as well as stunting workforce development.
Consideration will also need to be given to the relative qualifications of all members of the teams and those in other agencies. If it is to be the responsibility of a local area to arrange its child protection services, it will need to consider who is part of the multi-agency child protection team and their qualifications. I beg to move.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments, particularly the clause stand part notice. I have known the Minister to be a listener and Committee is entirely the time to listen. The noble Baroness mentioned that we need to solve the lack of joint working. I think nobody would disagree, and no one would dare to say that multidisciplinary team working for child protection is not the way to do it. But there are, I believe, genuine concerns about whether the functions outlined in Clause 3 are the way to achieve that.
When I first read the review recommendation and the description of multi-agency child protection teams—I have not yet come up with an acronym that I can pronounce quickly enough—I thought that would be an oversight mechanism akin to the independent chair of child protection cases. But the understanding out there among certain practitioners seems to be that it could be an investigative/operational mechanism. I thought it was a mechanism about oversight where you pull together everybody involved in that particular case, to make sure that everyone in the room knows everything that they need to know and there are no gaps in the information.
However, the understanding that is out there and that has been communicated is that, in fact, what could be happening here is a duplication of the investigative function. With this new system, what is understood out there is that, when a social worker has maybe had a very sensitive disclosure made to them—usually after many months of knowing the child and gaining their confidence—there can be a transfer at that moment to a different social worker to take over the investigative role. Obviously, that would be a duplication of resource and it would potentially sever the relationship that the child has.
Currently, as I understand it, the multidisciplinary team investigation is basically built around a lead expert social worker, who then draws in—at casework level—health, benefits, housing and the police interview. There is oversight of that by the independent chair. Of course, if there is any kind of change of that function, a child who has already disclosed may decide, “No, I can’t disclose to somebody else”. There may be that loss of trust, adding to their trauma. So the arrangements that we put in place in Clause 3—which everyone is intending to aid the joint working of all the different agencies—could inadvertently open up new cracks in the system.
While we have seen and are aware of the tragic failings that have led to the MacAlister review, it is important to remember how foundational the Children Act is—that it has stood the test of time, is understood by practitioners and has been built on, particularly in 2004. Many of our outstanding local authorities are not just chosen to be pathfinder places; they are visited by people from many European countries to see how they have embedded over many decades child protection systems that are—I know we find it hard to believe—the envy of some other countries.
Where is the adequate evidence to support this change? Yes, there was a recommendation in the MacAlister review, but where is the adequate evidence that we have used previously to make changes to our child protection system? I know that the pathfinders will be publishing soon, but are these actually what we would usually understand to be operational pilots? Where is the rigorous academic research that has so often been the evidential basis for previous changes to our child protection system over many decades?
While Clause 3 may seem logical and that in principle it will work, could it actually open up different problems? Will the Minister agree—if she has not already done so, because she said that there is evidence out there to support these changes—to meet the director of children’s services who advised the MacAlister review, Eileen Munro and other concerned academics, and the DCSs from outstanding local authorities who are concerned? Those are the practitioners who will have to implement this. The Minister may need to talk to her colleague in the Department of Health, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, as this was precisely the issue with the Mental Health Bill—whether approved mental professionals were behind that change. Are the directors of children’s services behind this change? Although the honourable Member, Josh MacAlister, whom I have met, is passionate about looked-after children and adoption and fostering, the review was not chaired by somebody who was an expert in deciding child protection cases or operationally dealing with child protection cases. That is why I wish that the Minister could meet that type of expert and reassure your Lordships’ House that these practitioners support this.
Although everyone here intends Clause 3 to help, I have thought, as we are required to do, about what the situation would be if the experts who have concerns—it might not be every single expert—about unintended consequences are proved to be right. If a child discloses sexual harm then loses confidence, with a switch of social worker or the multi-agency team that comes in, and then will not talk, and the mum’s partner, as it often is, senses that something has changed with the child, as disclosure psychologically affects individuals, and that person then harms the child to shut them up, what kind of report will come back from the local authority’s child safeguarding panel to the Department for Education? It will not be the responsibility of the DCS that the systems were not working. If the concerns are valid, the report that comes back could very well be, “We advised you not to make this kind of statutory change and you did, and this is what has happened”. I would not want anybody to be in that situation—that inadvertently, while trying to improve the system, with experts advising that there could be unintended consequences, we do not take time to pause and make sure that this recommendation is supported by adequate evidence before it is implemented.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
I thank the Minister for her responses and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Like many of them, I am an absolute believer in early intervention, although my priority around early intervention is better outcomes. If we can change a pathway or avoid a tragedy, we will all have made a big difference. I hope that is where the intention is. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.