Who is responsible?

The Supreme Court has ruled that councils have a duty of care that is “non-delegable”. And lawyers are saying that this moves the goal posts for councils, leaving them open to, for example, negligence claims relating to foster care.

I'm not a lawyer and won't comment on the legal issues – but as an ex-director of children's services and strong supporter of the 2004 Children Act, the professional – I might even say moral – position is clear. The whole point of the introduction of the director of children's services role was to make sure that one professional was ultimately responsible for outcomes for children.

And the supporting architecture laid duties on other agencies including schools to co-operate. At the same time, the director had political oversight through the lead member and professional oversight through the chief executive.

Now, all of this has operated in different ways and in different places, and in some cases better than others. And it has led to the (in my view excessive) demands on directors when something goes wrong, and, indirectly, to the huge (and certainly excessive) rate of turnover.

But the principle that the council is responsible, and can't delegate that responsibility, seems to me absolutely sound and likely to focus minds. Of course, it will be much better for councils to make sure that every agency and institution does in fact work to ensure that every child is safe (and achieves high educational standards, is prepared for work, is healthy and so on – remember ECM?) than it would be if councils simply insured themselves against the risk.

John Freeman CBE is a former director of children's services and is now a freelance consultant