|
Margaret Hodge: I am pleased that this probing amendment has been tabled, because the matter is of growing concern. Technology is moving faster than probably any of us here can keep up with and children are certainly better at it than we are. It offers them enormous opportunities—we should not diminish those—but there are also threats to their safety which we must take seriously. I work extremely closely with my colleagues in the Home Office, who lead on the matter, to ensure that, collectively throughout the Government, we take every possible step to try to tackle each risk as it arises.
As the technology changes, we must constantly rethink our policies. It is a responsibility for Government, the industry and parents. That is the triangle of interest and I am delighted that the hon. Lady is a member of the working party, which is doing a good and important job.
However, do we need the amendment? The existing objectives for local safeguarding children boards are wide enough to enable them to focus on improving internet safety, if they decide that that is a local priority. If we were to accept the amendment, we would be requiring boards to give it higher priority than other issues that might be of greater importance locally. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that if the boards are to work effectively it is crucial for them to be able to respond to local circumstances and local priorities, and that we should not try to micro-manage them, either from Whitehall or from Parliament. While I acknowledge the importance of the issue and accept the intent of the amendment, I ask her to withdraw it. It is not properly placed and might distort priorities in some areas.
Mrs. Brooke: I am not at all unhappy about withdrawing the amendment, as I am sure that the Minister has gathered. My main purpose was to have the matter discussed and to receive reassurance that it will be picked up in guidance. Perhaps, between now and Report, the taskforce will make further
Column Number: 213
recommendations that are pertinent to the local safeguarding boards. We should consider measures that can be implemented both nationally and locally.
I take on board the Minister's comment about opportunity. I have been asked many times whether I think the internet is a bad thing. I would never say that. However, we have to be wary of dangers that cannot even be envisaged now, because the internet is changing so rapidly. I thank the Minister for her comments and I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Director of children's services
Mrs. Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in
clause 14, page 11, line 21, leave out 'an' and insert 'a senior'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 228, in
No. 67, in
clause 14, page 12, line 11, leave out subsection (5).
No. 68, in
clause 14, page 12, line 15, leave out subsection (6).
No. 229, in
Mrs. Laing: We rehearsed the arguments only a few moments ago, under clause 10, regarding the concern that my colleagues and I have that there should be an adequate structure to support the intention that the buck stops here. Any person who is given the heavy responsibility that we are placing on a person in this context should be a senior officer. Under the amendment, a children's services authority in England
''may, and with effect from the appointed day must, appoint a senior officer''
for the after-mentioned purposes. Having rehearsed the argument under clause 10, I will not take up the Committee's time by repeating it.
Mr. Dawson: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 67 and 68. We are embarking on a process of massive cultural change. We are looking to local authorities to transform children's lives by centring their services on children's needs; listening to children effectively; building their services around children and families; breaking down the barriers between organisations, institutions and professions; and developing a common core of practice with children. I simply do not believe that someone who takes on the responsibilities of a director of children's services can be expected to
Column Number: 214
have any other role. I would distrust the motives of some colleagues in local government who would want to urge that on my right hon. Friend.
I have great respect for local authorities—I worked for one for 15 years and was a councillor in another for 10—but they can be part of the problem, and part of the past from which we want to move; they can be one of the major institutions that we want to change. I do not see how they can expect someone who has other responsibilities to do the job properly. I would prefer local authorities that sought to appoint a director of children's services to take on other aspects of the work, and would question both the seriousness with which they approach the task and the degree to which they actually want to change.
I was with colleagues one night last week when we met representatives of primary care trusts, which we would all acknowledge as key players. We talked to chief executives and chairs of primary care trusts, some of whom had been involved in the children's trust pilot. I ended up defending local education authorities, which was quite an unusual position for me. The distrust and scepticism, nay cynicism, around the table that those key partners—experienced, professional people who want to do an excellent job for children—had about the role and culture of local education authorities was evident. Their suspicions about the possibility, nay probability, of children's services directors coming directly from local education authorities and bringing that cultural background into a service that needs to build participation and integration, centre it on children and families and perhaps move a long way from the goals and responsibilities that the typical LEA has had, was instructive.
I see no reason for subsections (5) and (6) and hope that they can be deleted.
Mr. Turner: I agree with the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman: we are talking about a massive cultural change. I endorse his view that a director of education is not necessarily the appropriate person to take on the responsibilities in question. I am sorry that that the social work profession appears to be so suspicious of the education establishment. I share that suspicion, but if the hon. Gentleman's remarks may be taken as evidence, it appears that those concerned especially lack confidence.
Mr. Dawson: Just to clarify, the people concerned were health professionals.
4.15 pm
Mr. Turner: Thank you.
In the interests of not having a clause stand part debate, perhaps I may go slightly outside the amendment. I am concerned that the children's social services role, as an advocate for children, may be diminished by being subsumed into the children's services role, which is dominated by education. An example is children with special educational needs. The education service may be constrained by budgets and concerned to devolve as much as it can to schools, whereas a social worker may recognise that the
Column Number: 215
individual needs of such a child are not being met, and may in the past have been an advocate for them, right up to the level of director of social services against director of education. I fear that we might lose that type of service as a result of creating unified departments. It would of course be nice if everyone had regard to the needs of each child, but there are, as the Minister knows, considerable competing demands on local education authorities, for example to devolve money to schools.
That said, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view that allowing LEAs to appoint a director of children's services who has other responsibilities would be dangerous. After all, there are some very small LEAs; mine is small and there are many smaller. I suspect that it would be unreasonable to expect the City of London corporation or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, for example, to appoint a head of children's services who has no other responsibilities. Indeed, it may be appropriate in certain circumstances for a chief executive also to be appointed the director of children's services, so although the hon. Gentleman has developed an interesting aspect of the debate, I am not willing to support his amendments.
Instead, I draw the Minister's attention to amendments Nos. 228 and 229, which would require the director of children's services to be appointed by a process of ''open competition'' and not merely slipped into the post because that was the most convenient thing to do with a director that the local authority already had. Again, I know it is dangerous to be anecdotal and even more dangerous to legislate according to what happens in one or two London boroughs, and I am sure the Minister does not want to legislate as a result of what happens on the Isle of Wight, but I just want to tell her how my local director of children's services was appointed. He was appointed without public advertisement and without competition from among the four existing directors. He was the director of education. How did he get that job? He was appointed without public advertisement and without open competition from among people within the authority who chose to apply for that job, having been at the time the deputy director of education. Before I say how he got that job, let me explain that I was told by the leader of the council that it was her intention when she appointed him deputy director of education that he should become director of education. How did he get the job of deputy director? He was appointed without open advertisement and without open competition from I know not where; I know that he was a head teacher in my constituency.
That is not an appropriate way to appoint to any of those jobs and certainly not to a job of the importance and magnitude that we are discussing. It may be felt that I am making a political point against the Liberal Democrats who lead my local authority. I am not alone in doing that: the chairman of the early years and child care development partnership resigned because she felt that the massive cultural change that was necessary to implement the Bill could not be achieved
Column Number: 216
when someone who happened to be available in another job was simply slipped in. This is nothing personal against the officer, although it is certainly a criticism of the local authority. Will the Minister insist that officers of this importance be appointed through a proper and open process that gets the best man for the job?
|
