Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

I have a very benevolent view of this Bill, although I have two principal complaints. One is that it does not go far enough and the other is the introduction of social work practices and my concern that that should not hinder the much-needed social work reform. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to highlight the urgency and the need for change. Much great work has been done by the Government since 1997 in improving the outcomes for children in care. Thanks to the Children (Leaving Care) Act, the number of care leavers at the age of 19 who are in employment, education or training, has increased by 8 per cent and there have been many other very welcome innovations, but we started from an extremely very low base. My noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton made the point that too many of these children are ending up in custody not just through their own actions, but often because we have failed them. Fairly recently, Members of your Lordships’ House heard of a 23 year-old who spoke of how she began her prison career at the age of 13. She had been in a good children's home placement for 12 months and one day, out of the blue, she was taken out of that placement. She and the staff were not alerted beforehand and she says that her criminal career began at that point because of her resentment. She could have been settled in that comfortable placement with people whom she knew but she was just ripped out of it at the last moment. Such things continue to happen although the situation has improved somewhat. We urgently need to do much more to improve the lives of such children. We have higher levels of custody for children in this country than our neighbours, and those high levels lead to a high turnover of children—a high level of churn— which leads to poor relationships between prison officers and young people in custody, which leads to excessive use of physical restraint. There is now a call from the Prison Officers’ Association for batons in children’s and young people's settings. We must address these matters with the utmost urgency. I commend the Government for bringing forward this important piece of legislation. On social work practices, I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues for creating a multidisciplinary team of such eminence to consider how the notion of independent social work practices might be taken forward so that children in care should receive greater continuity of care. Paul Fallon, director of Barnet social services, who is very well respected, was a member of that team and the academic on the team was from the London School of Economics, a world-renowned institution. The report produced by the committee recognised the strong differences of opinions of its members and provided a helpful rationale for the proposed independent practices. The Bill proposes pilots. Can these limited pilots, perhaps only two years in length, really provide us with the information we need to understand the impact such practices will have on social services? I think not, and many others share my doubts. On the other hand, the Prime Minister was recently speaking with enthusiasm about extending the market in social care. The political priority being given to this innovation is implied by its taking pride of place in this Bill. Once this juggernaut gets going it may be hard to see how it can be stopped. The production of a shiny new initiative, a fix for social work, is likely to be overwhelmingly seductive to any Administration that holds office when the pilots terminate. The question of whether social work is ripe for such change is likely to take second place to the need for something to be seen to be done. This has been the experience at local authority level for decades as each new broom has introduced its new structures and social workers have torn their hair out seeking to adjust. I share the view expressed at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Howarth of Breckland, a former director of social services. We need to focus on what is most important. The problem, of raising the status of social work, of improving the retention of social workers, and of ensuring the professional and continuous care of our children is complex. Its solution hinges on providing the right professional framework for social workers. The Government's White Paper Options for Excellence laid out what that framework should be. While there has been some progress in the 14 months since that White Paper hit our desks, it has been slow. I would appreciate the Minister laying out what steps have been taken in response to that White Paper since it was put forward. I know there were welcome steps: for example, the need for qualified social work practitioners. There are many obstacles. Children's services have been separated from adult services, splitting responsibility for social workers between two different departments. The fusion of health and social care risks diluting the voice of social work further. There are several regional skills councils—the Children's Workforce Development Council and the Children's Workforce Network—with input into the evolution of social work. Social work falls between more and more stools. The Children's Workforce Development Council is very well respected but has a huge work programme. The new children’s services are led predominantly by educationalists and there is the concern that this new leadership may not have the experience to know what social workers on the front line and children in care or in need may require. Is it really advisable to introduce another level of complexity with these practices? Can the Minister say what the response of the British Association of Social Workers has been to the proposed practices? Is the Association of Directors of Social Services enthusiastic in its support? How far is the workforce on side? All-important will be the establishment of good contracts between the new providers and local authorities. However, in the past such commissioning has historically been poor. It may lead to a significant increase in the cost of the provision made by the new independent practices. The practices may cherry pick their clients leaving a Cinderella service outside the practices to deal with those they exclude. I fear we risk creating a fragmented service which will benefit some children at the cost of others. There is a danger that social service departments may become even more incoherent then they often already are. Some local authorities are already making significant improvements in the continuity of care for their children. Barnet has created smaller social work teams and has motivated experienced practitioners to stay at the front line supporting their less experienced colleagues by creative new social work roles, such as senior practitioners. Hackney is developing smaller teams with intense integral therapeutic support. Each team has half-time support from a mental health professional. This is beginning to show fruits in terms of retention. I continually hear that social work needs to benefit from the same efforts that the noble Lord and his colleagues have put into reforming education. I know that what is proposed is done with the best of intentions and seems likely to benefit the children in the proposed practices. However, I am concerned that this may be at the cost of wider consistent implementation of reforms which will make social work the respected, professional institution that our children’s needs dictate that it must become. I seek the Minister’s reassurance on this matter.