---

Children: Laming Report

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on his report and I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I welcome the fact that the Government accept all of the noble Lord’s recommendations but what matters most is that they also will the means as well as the ends. Does the Minister know what full implementation will cost and whether the Government are committed to finding the money. Turning to the detail, I welcome the establishment of a National Safeguarding Delivery Unit but it must not be only another layer of bureaucracy; it must have teeth and an adequate budget. It must also have as one of its founding principles that it listens to children and responds to what they want and need. I welcome the fact that it will report regularly to Parliament but warn that I will not only challenge it on what it has done but on what has not happened each year. The Government promise updated statutory guidance so that every practitioner knows what to do. But it is not for Whitehall to do this in detail; it is for the Government to give the professionals the tools they need in the way of training, resources and a sensible workload so that they can spend sufficient time with clients and sufficient time to reflect on and discuss their practice and their decisions with other experienced professionals. Then they will be able to make the right decisions themselves. I welcome moves to strengthen the independence and quality of serious case reviews, but I agree that it is vital that we learn the lessons from them by having them published, anonymised where appropriate. Local safeguarding children boards are a vital element in protecting children and I welcome the fact that the chairs will be independent. We have been calling for that. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has balanced opinions on both sides of the argument about this by saying that the director of children’s services and the lead member should be on the board and on the children’s trust. Although this may cause some difficulty as the one is accountable to the other, it will bring the necessary co-ordination and political accountability as well as the expertise the board needs. The idea that two members of the public should be on the board is interesting, but how will they be chosen, how will they be vetted and how will confidentiality issues be dealt with? Or will these decisions be made locally? The state of the social work workforce has been a cause for concern for years and I and many noble Lords have often called attention to it, to be given a load of platitudes by a succession of Ministers. Can the Minister assure the House now that the Government will really grasp this nettle? We understand that there are many difficulties. For example, if newly-qualified social workers are to receive a year of intensive induction training, they must be given less than a full case load or they will not have the time to do it. In addition, where are the Government going to find the experienced people to do the monitoring and supervision? I heard recently that in some areas—I think it is London—75 per cent of social workers are in their first year of practice. The Government must succeed in their efforts to attract experienced people back into the profession. Many useful parallels can be drawn from the teaching profession. The advanced social work professional status, like the advanced skills teacher, should keep highly-skilled people on the front line doing the job rather than their finding that promotion into management is the only way to make progress in their career. However, they will want proper remuneration for this and I do not blame them. Such initiatives have helped to recruit and retain good people in the teaching profession and I see no reason why it should not work for social workers as long as it is properly resourced. In another parallel, the master’s qualification expectation is welcome, but it should always be remembered that experience counts most in social work. The announcement about the new leadership role for the NCSL was made a few weeks ago. I welcomed it then but I am concerned about today’s announcement about an accelerated programme into leadership because it is experience that helps to produce good judgment and it takes time to develop that. Finally, I welcome the statements about a greater role for other services, especially the health and police services. These have always been the weak link in multi-agency working. Does, ""additional support and development for health visitors"" mean more health visitors? Does it mean that more families will be entitled to their help for longer periods of time? If so, I welcome that. I have always said that it should go back to being a universal service without a stigma and thereby be absolutely invaluable in identifying problems early and ensuring appropriate intervention. As I have often raised the issue of court fees, I welcome the announcement about the review of them and I suspect that the evidence will be found. I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about the CAF and wonder whether that will be reviewed. I am pleased that the spotlight is to be turned on Ofsted. The NSPCC claims that Ofsted has been asking the wrong questions of the wrong people at the wrong times. It is important that the quality of children’s services should no longer be covered up by councils that have a good score in everything else. In future, if they fail their children, they should be considered to have failed all of us.