While the Children Bill – heralded as the biggest reform of children’s services for three decades – has been broadly welcomed across the social care sector, the government has failed to tackle a number of key concerns in its proposed legislation, writes Clare Jerrom.
The Association of London Government was not reassured by children’s minister Margaret Hodge’s announcement that the plans for children’s services directors had been watered down with more than expected flexibility around the role.
Councillor Stephen Burke, chairperson of the ALG’s health and social care panel said the Association was disappointed that ministers “considered it necessary to prescribe the role of children’s director and lead member”, rather than leaving it to authorities to decide the best response locally. He added he would be seeking to meet Hodge to discuss this further.
Andrew Cozens, president of the Association of Social Services added: “It is vitally important that local councils are given the flexibility to achieve the goals set by the bill by working out for themselves the most appropriate way forward.”
But Cozens believed that the decision to relax the timetable on
children's trusts so that they do not have to be introduced until
2008, was "a big concession."
"The original deadline of 2006 was a very tight timescale and we do
feel we have been listened to on this," he said, but warned there
were still concerns over the issue of funding the new
proposals.
"We are just not convinced by the notion put forward by government
that the required changes can be achieved within existing
resources," he added.
Children’s charity NSPCC argued that the bill gave local authorities too much flexibility in deciding how they will safeguard children.
It urged the government to set minimum expectations of how directors of children’s services should operate and deliver results, and if the government failed to do so, the charity warned it would “create a system of inconsistency and confusion”.
Safe transition period
The NSPCC raised fears that the reforms to children’s services were not being driven through quickly enough, as it could be years before some local authorities reform their child protection procedures. “Action needs to be taken now. Any delay would allow more child abuse tragedies to happen,” said Mary Marsh, NSPCC’s chief executive.
However, Cozens said it was vital that there was “a safe and secure transition period” between current arrangements for children and the new proposals in the Children Bill. He warned that there was growing evidence of “considerable turmoil” within local government as senior officers contemplated the changes that the legislation would bring about.
“It is extremely important that the performance of social care does not slip during this vital, transitional phase,” said Cozens.
“Wasted opportunity”
Children’s charity NCH broadly welcomed the bill, but Caroline Abrahams, director of policy warned that while the charity supported the idea of Local Children’s Safeguarding Boards, there was not enough in the bill to guarantee that these bodies will be more effective than the existing Area Child Protection Committees.
The charity believed the government had wasted a “great opportunity” to repeal the defence of reasonable chastisement which parents can use to justify smacking their children, and was also concerned that the voluntary sector was not named explicitly in the bill.
Education, education, education
NCH also expressed disappointment that the responsibility to boost the educational achievement of children in care remained with local authorities and would like to have seen the onus shared with schools.
But David Behan, chief inspector of the new Commission for Social Care Inspection raised concerns about schools being the driving force in developing an integrated approach to children’s services.
Many looked-after children felt alienated from the school environment and the CSCI’s concern was that there was a danger that this proposal “could lead to further social exclusion”, he warned.
Sharing information
Alison King, chairperson of the Local Government Association's
social affairs and health executive, said the Association had
concerns surrounding the sharing of information.
"A key worry is the issue of cross border communication,” she
said. “Without adequate access across agencies to vital
information held on databases it will be difficult to deliver the
required changes".
But plans to share information on databases were slammed by Action on Rights for Children as “profoundly dangerous and anti-children”.
The network of parents and young people committed to upholding the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child called on the government to provide a “cast-iron guarantee” that paedophiles would not be able to exploit the sensitive personal information to be held on databases.
Equal powers?
Across the sector there were widespread fears that the powers for a children’s commissioner in England were less far-reaching than in Wales and Northern Ireland.
But Welsh commissioner Peter Clarke warned that the role of the English commissioner could undermine his role. As some areas that affect children’s lives in Wales were non-devolved, Clarke warned that he would be unable to act as an advocate for Welsh children over certain key issues.
Children’s charity Barnardo’s highlighted the fact that the commissioner was the only person in the bill tasked with talking to children, which was “not good enough”.
“Replacing one bureaucratic system with another, without attention to high quality contact with children, will not protect them any better, and is no substitute for good professional practice and training and supervision of front line workers,” concluded Chris Hanvey, director of childcare operation.
