The old adage “when you’re in a hole stop digging” has never been more apt than in the train crash which is the government’s use of statutory instrument 445 to exempt local authorities from some children’s social care statutory duties. There is widespread outrage, with 17,000 people signing a petition to reverse the move and the use of arcane “annulment” procedures to force debate in parliament. The vote to overturn the measures may have been lost, but the issues have not gone away, and now permission for a judicial review has been granted.
Context is everything. Many people saw the move to reduce regulatory requirements designed to protect children as an attempt to re-introduce similar “flexibilities” proposed in 2017. These were strenuously opposed to the point where they were retracted and were followed soon after by the withdrawal of the clumsy Mythbuster document. So, it should not have been a surprise to anyone in government that the new proposals would throw petrol on the fire of old mistrust.
In the absence of meaningful engagement, it is seen by some as a conspiracy to first deregulate and then privatise services.
Many remain mystified as to why these changes were needed in the first place. Undoubtedly the anticipated pressure on councils was real, considering the backdrop of many years of underfunding and cuts to preventive services, so some short-term flexibility was probably called for. But in a world where local authorities, Ofsted and other key players were able to be less defensive about where blame may land if mistakes are made, ordinary day-to-day flexibility would be applied.
Formalising the easing of some requirements could have been done on a common-sense basis. It’s not difficult to see why there is a genuine fear of departing from the letter of the legislation, but what sensible Ofsted inspector would come down like a ton of bricks on a council where face-to-face visits to a children’s home were not strictly up to date in the face of staff shortages and appropriate caution being applied to restricting the number of outsiders visiting such a home in unprecedented times?
This episode reveals that we have lost our way in terms of meaningful collaboration across the system. Decades of political defensiveness in which blame is apportioned to everyone other than legislators and central government has created a hypervigilant profession, distrustful rights and advocacy organisations, and an institutional reluctance to ask and listen as part of the responsible governance of a complex and delicate system.
It’s essential that dialogue and trust is built, not only to heal the wounds of this painful encounter, but more importantly to lay the foundations for the future and the promised care review. The Department for Education must establish a positive start to the Care Review despite the distractions of Covid-19, but this will take courage and leadership – and above all, it must demonstrate that they care.
