Councils freed from social care obligations 'left children at risk'
Neil Puffett
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Two local authorities where children's services are currently rated "inadequate" for leaving children at risk, were previously granted exemptions from statutory guidance on children's social care, it has emerged.
Information provided by children's minister Edward Timpson in response to a parliamentary question posed by Labour MP Emma Lewell-Buck reveals that a total of 12 councils were given permission to be exempted from certain statutory guidance requirements in recent years.
The temporary suspensions from statutory Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance were granted to selected councils by then Education Secretary Michael Gove following recommendations in Eileen Munro's review of the child protection system, which concluded that bureaucracy was preventing social workers from doing their jobs.
The government is currently pushing for councils to be allowed to apply for exemptions from children's social care legislation. Critics of the plans say the revelations highlight the risks of allowing councils to opt out of their obligations.
Timpson's response reveals that Knowsley Council was granted dispensation from adhering to the statutory 45 working day time limit for assessments and a 15 working day time limit between a strategy discussion taking place and the initial child protection conference being conducted.
An inspection of Knowsley Council's children's services, conducted in April 2014, rated provision as "inadequate", finding that too many children and young people who need help and support faced "drift and delay", while some were "left for too long in situations where they have suffered harm". The council's children's services had previously been rated "good" following an inspection in March 2010.
Meanwhile, Wandsworth Council was granted dispensation from adhering to the 45 working day time limit for assessments taking place and, if a child is subject of a child protection plan, the 10 working day time limit between the initial child protection conference and the core group discussion.
An Ofsted inspection of the council's children's services department in November 2015 blamed a lack of effective scrutiny by senior leaders, elected members and managers for "serious deficits concerning unsafe practice for too many vulnerable children". Wandsworth's children's services had also previously been rated as "good" following an inspection in May 2012.
"Poor-quality assessments are characterised by delays, insufficient account being taken of the child's history, failure to identify and accurately assess risk factors in the child's situation and insufficient engagement with the child and their family," the most recent inspection report from 2015 states.
"Some children have been left for too long in situations where they are neglected."
Wandsworth was first given permission to trial more flexible assessment processes in September 2011, with the scope of the flexibilities being extended in January 2012 by then children's minister Tim Loughton.
The council was later told by Edward Timpson, in a letter dated April 2013, that the trial period would be extended for a further 12 months. They remained in place until January 2015.
In Knowsley the exemption was first granted in March 2011, was extended by Edward Timpson in April 2013, and remained in place until 2014.
The other 10 local authorities that have been granted freedom from statutory guidance in recent years are: Brent; Hackney; Hammersmith & Fulham; Hartlepool; Kensington & Chelsea; Leeds; Suffolk; Westminster; West Sussex; and Wokingham.
Out of these, three were subsequently rated as "requires improvement" by Ofsted, five as "good", and two - Kensington & Chelsea, and Westminster - were rated as "outstanding".
The government is currently trying to push through controversial plans to allow councils to be exempted from children's social care legislation. The so-called "exemption clause" was previously removed from the Children and Social Work Bill in November following a defeat for the government in the House of Lords.
But members of a committee scrutinising the bill effectively overturned that decision last month by voting through amended proposals.
The government has said the amendments introduce a range of safeguards to the legislation to ensure that any exemptions do not lead to an erosion of vulnerable children's rights.
Carolyne Willow, director of children's rights charity Article 39, a member of the Together for Children coalition of organisations opposing the proposals, said: "Allowing local authorities to opt-out of duties laid down in Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation fundamentally threatens children's rights and the rule of law.
"Not a shred of evidence has been offered to show that legal duties get in the way of effective children's services.
"The notion that children and young people adversely affected by legal opt-outs will find their way to Whitehall, whereupon ministers will instantly revoke orders, is a quaint perspective that has no basis in reality.
"Last month's vote to return the exemption clauses was made against the substantial evidence before the committee. This included numerous case studies of real children whose safety, stability and happiness had been secured by direct recourse to legal duties. Those children should have been uppermost in the minds of MPs."
A Department for Education spokeswoman said: "We have always been clear that these trials needed to deliver improved outcomes for young people, and carefully monitored them.
"We took quick action where we no longer felt the local authority was able to deliver this effectively. Inspection outcomes in Knowsley and Wandsworth were due to wider issues, not the trials."