Sector leaders hit back at 'dangerous' relaxation of councils' statutory duties

The new rules, which came into force today (24 April), amend 10 regulations regarding children’s social care including care proceedings, foster care and adoption arrangements. 

The rules relax time frames around mandatory visits to looked-after children from their local authority and six-monthly independent reviews of a child’s care.

• Emergency legislation relaxes councils' statutory duties to vulnerable children

• 'Emergency legislation is another attempt to push through exemption clause changes'

Changes have been brought in to speed up the adoption process and emergency foster care placements as well as the removal of care plans for kinship carers and a reduction of the expected standards of care in residential settings including children’s homes.

The amendments were passed just 24 hours after being laid before parliament.

Children’s minister Vicky Ford said the legislation bypassed the 21-day rule because “waiting 21 days will put extraordinary pressure on local authorities, providers and services to try to meet statutory obligations while continuing to provide care for vulnerable children and young people during the outbreak”, however, sector leaders have questioned the necessity of the changes.

Harvey Gallagher, chief executive of the Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers (NAFP), said “none of our members have been clamouring for this. We are asking why [this has happened]?”

He added that removal of fostering panels was “unnecessary” and said “they have always been able to have been carried out online”.

“The removal of any safeguard gives scope for it not to happen and there is no circumstance in which that could be a good thing,” he said.

• Latest Covid-19 news

Katharine Sacks-Jones, chief executive of care leavers charity Become added: “While we understand the pressures local authorities are currently under, the vagueness of these changes risks the safety of those who need protecting the most. 

“We are also astonished that the government believes the impact of its amendments are limited given the greater risks vulnerable children and young people could now face.”

Others said the amendments mirror failed attempts to relax statutory responsibilities to vulnerable children through the so-called exemption clause in 2017 and later as part of a “myth-busting guide” published by the Department for Education in 2018. The guide was eventually withdrawn following a judicial review.

Carolyne Willow, director of children’s rights organisation Article 39, who took part in successful challenges against both the exemption clause and the “myth-busting guide” said: “Much of this disruptor's wish-list has been in the public domain, one way or another, for at least four years. It’s an insult to children to suggest that Covid-19 is the cause of this.

“The whole document is about taking away, diminishing and undermining what has been built up for children over many decades.”

Mark Kerr, chief executive of the Centre for the Outcomes of Care, said: “Experts have already given strong opinions on such changes. They did so through the challenge to clause 15 in the Child and Family Social Work Bill 2017 (the exemption clause). Opinions were virtually unanimous that the proposed changes to legislation were dangerous and would put our most vulnerable children at increased risk. 

“The under-secretary of state is very new in post. She must understand that in children’s social care there is little to no aspect of the work that is ‘low risk’, especially for those looked-after in the care system. The very fact that the children are subject to social care support or intervention means that they are at risk and that we must protect them.”

Concerns have also been raised over whether the changes, due to end on 25 September, could become permanent legislation.

Speaking at an education select committee meeting yesterday, David Simmonds, MP for Ruislip and former chair of the Local Government Association’s Children and Young People Board, asked Ford if the government would be “learning from the suspension of statutory duties [...] with a view to dispensing with those statutory duties”.

The minister told the committee, “that’s exactly the point”, before saying the legislative changes were designed to “free-up” professionals to focus on priority areas.

@N_A_I_R_O @NIROMP2 Looks like the government is planning again to relax statutory review obligations for children in care. Exchange from yesterday's Education Select Committee ⬇️⬇️. Like listening to 2016/17 exemption clauses debates all over again. pic.twitter.com/mxmnhsLiak

— Article 39 (@article_39) April 23, 2020

Willow said the exchange suggests “these ‘freedoms’ will be made permanent once the effect of the suspensions is known”.

Kerr added that the exchange “intimates that the government’s intention is to learn what can be achieved by dispensing of statutory duties”, adding: “Children looked-after are the guinea pigs.

“The minister says decisions should be made by experts on the ground, but only mentioned consulting with directors of children’s services. There are many more experts that should be consulted when considering such far-reaching, historic changes to our child protection laws.”

Layla Moran, Liberal Democrat MP for West Oxford and Abbingdon, said: “Even though they are temporary, the government has the ability to extend them, and the government even seemed to suggest that the removal of these vital safeguards could become permanent.

“This crisis is a time when vulnerable children are in need of our protection more than ever. There is a very real risk of children being put in danger by this move.

“Children’s service providers, councils, parents and, crucially, vulnerable children themselves need to hear from this government what is being actively done to keep them safe in these exceptional circumstances. Instead, these safeguarding measures have been relaxed without a plan for what is done instead. That’s utterly unacceptable.”

Shadow education secretary Tulip Siddiq added: “We must ensure that this significant relaxation of councils’ duties to protect vulnerable children does not increase the risk of harm and is strictly temporary.”