Social care third-party plans must not be rushed
Derren Hayes
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Education Secretary Michael Gove's speech at a recent NSPCC conference could become an epoch-making moment in the history of children's services.
Not only did he critique modern-day social work, typically praising and criticising in equal measure, but in unequivocal terms he set out his vision for where he sees child protection practice and services heading in the future.
It was a call to arms for social work leaders to be more "radical" and "determined" in finding effective solutions to problems in children's social care, not to mention overcoming bureaucracy to deliver "innovation" in practice. Nothing too out of the ordinary there, you may think. But then came the sting in the tail: "Why must all child protection services be delivered in-house?"
Although the Education Secretary didn't say it explicitly, the inference was clear: this will be the start of a concerted effort by the government to increase the role of the independent sector in delivering child protection services.
Gove's speech came hot on the heels of a government amendment to the Children and Families Bill that would give the Education Secretary the power to hand "third parties" the authority to initiate care or adoption proceedings in court.
Few would argue that there is a role for independent providers - whether from the private or voluntary sectors - in delivering children's social care services. The best private companies can, after all, draw on their experience of modern business practice, not to mention resources, to develop more effective ways of organisations working.
It is one thing, though, to work with an independent provider to, for example, streamline referral practices or human resources functions. But it is quite another to hand over responsibility for care proceedings to a private company, as would be permitted if the bill amendment is passed.
Despite ministers' claims this is simply a legislative tweak that would only be used in exceptional circumstances, you can understand children's services leaders likening it to "privatising public law through the back door".
Whatever the motivations of ministers, the simple fact is that this does introduce the likelihood of child protection services working in a fundamentally different way. And it raises many questions that need to be considered: how would transferring statutory responsibilities affect council management functions? Who steps in if a third-party provider goes bust? Could providers issue care proceedings on behalf of a council and place a child in a care home they also run, highlighting a conflict of interest?
Such issues cut to the very heart of the child protection system, and have the potential to impact massively on the lives of vulnerable children and young people. That is why such measures need proper consultation and debate in their own right, and not be a last-minute addition to a bill that is already two-thirds of the way through parliament.
