Baroness Barran (Con)

My Lords, Amendment 6 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, who through no fault of her own is unable to be with us this afternoon, would require sign-off from the director of children’s services or head of social work practice when a child under five and previously on a child protection plan becomes subject to Section 31 care proceedings. Last year there were about 18,600 children involved in care proceedings and about 16% of children in care are under five. Yet children in this age group are disproportionately represented in the most serious cases. Children under the age of one accounted for about 30% of serious incident notifications last year, and earlier triennial reviews found that about 65% of cases involved children under the age of five. If we pause to think about that, this age group appears roughly four times as often in serious incidents in which a child is killed or seriously harmed as it does in the care population. In this context, the amendment is a really modest and practical safeguard that could help prevent avoidable abuse and tragedy, and save very young lives. I very much hope the Minister will consider her position. My back of the envelope estimate is that a director of children’s services would, on average, have to look at 20 of these cases annually and, given the length of time of care proceedings, it is the least we should expect them to do. On the wider group of amendments, on 17 December the Minister for Children and Families wrote to Peers following two very helpful round tables about Part 1 of the Bill. In that letter, he rightly emphasised “the importance of local authorities operating within the right framework” so that “families receive intensive well evidenced help early, that children are protected through more expert and decisive multi-agency child protection and that children … leaving care benefit from enduring relationships that the care system has facilitated”. He warned against overreliance on legislation, regulations and guidance, arguing that an “ever growing stack of rules” has, in the past, “failed to improve practice” and undermined professional judgment and accountability. That analysis is compelling, but unfortunately Clause 3 takes us in the opposite direction from the approach he advocates, and that is why the amendments in this group are needed. There is, as yet, no robust evidence for the Government’s chosen model. I thank the department for the email it sent me yesterday, setting out in a bit more detail some of the evidence from the pathfinders, but they remain at a very early stage. The evaluation concentrates, as it says itself, on process and implementation rather than outcomes, and there were only 10 families interviewed for the evaluation, some of whom were unaware that they were part of these pathfinder sites. There is no counterfactual, no control group and no convincing data yet that shows better decision-making or earlier intervention. Moreover, at a recent Ofsted inspection one of the pilot sites recently moved from “good” to “requires improvement”, which underlines that this is not a magic wand. Wanting a model to succeed is not the same as demonstrating that it does, and Amendment 17 would therefore delay implementation of this clause until a proper evidence base is available, which is entirely consistent with the Minister’s own stated aims. The list of those expressing concerns about these reforms is growing. In Committee, reference was made to the public concerns of Professor Eileen Munro, who is possibly the closest thing to a household name in social work in this country. Similar concerns have been raised by Professors June Thoburn and Ray Jones. A Community Care poll of social workers found that 78% of respondents agreed with research warning that combining the investigative and chairing role of lead social workers would undermine impartiality. The Children’s Minister argues for avoiding prescription, yet the Bill allows the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulation “support of any kind” to be delivered by the multi-agency child protection teams. If we all try to imagine a future Government whom each of us would least like to see in charge, it is not difficult to see how such a broad power could be misused, so Amendment 11 would remove it. Despite the Minister’s concerns about overprescription, the pathfinders themselves have been heavily prescribed. Some of the evaluation documentation only underlines how little is known about the real-world impact of this approach. For example, appendix 4 asks evaluators to “identify what impact a greater role for education has on services and what costs are associated with strengthening the role of education”. This signals that the implications for a key partner are still unclear. Indeed, funding issues were brought up in the email which the department kindly sent me, where it pointed out that the dedicated health roles in most areas within the multi-agency child protection team are funded by the local authority, as are a number of education roles. Police, on the other hand, have funded their posts, but this links to government Amendments 12 and 14, which, if I have understood them correctly, would allow special constables—unpaid volunteers—to act as the police representative at the multi-agency child protection team meetings. The Minister is shaking her head, so, if I have misunderstood, I look forward to being corrected, but I thought that was what her letter to your Lordships said. It is critical that we do not have a dilution of skills, which leads me on to another point from the evaluation, which highlights a lack of confidence among so-called “alternatively qualified practitioners”, non-social workers who will now be working in early help and child-in-need teams in relation to risk assessment, and real concerns that they do not have the same expertise, both in risk assessment but also, crucially, in the identification of harm as qualified social workers. Turning to Amendment 13, for which I am grateful to Professor Peter Green, co-chair of the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, and Dr Vanessa Impey, this would stipulate minimum qualification levels for staff, including health professionals, aligned with the intercollegiate document and Working Together. Safeguarding leads in health are deeply concerned about the Government’s decision to effectively halve the capacity of designated doctors and nurses whose specialist expertise underpins safe multi-agency practice. Working Together defines designated professionals as “dedicated clinicians whose roles centre on providing clinical expertise and strategic advice to the system”. To quote Professor Green, “halving, or worse, this workforce is the same as halving the number of children’s heart surgeons in the NHS, and that is a loss that would be unimaginable in any other area of child health”. So I hope that, when she comes to reply, the Minister will agree that the multi-agency child protection teams cannot function effectively if overall safeguarding standards fall because senior, highly experienced safeguarding professionals are lost from health services. When she comes to respond, can she set out clearly how, in the face of cuts of 50% or more to statutory safeguarding posts, there will not be a deterioration in safeguarding standards within health, and in multi-agency working? If the Government are willing to protect these posts, there will be no reason to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 13. There is agreement with the Government’s underlying aims in Clause 3, but deep concern about the speed of implementation, the weakness of the evidence base, the dilution of expertise and the scale of concurrent change, especially for local authorities and integrated care boards. These amendments offer a measured way to secure the benefits of reform, while avoiding serious and avoidable risks to very vulnerable children. I hope the Government will pause and treat them with the seriousness they deserve. I beg to move.