Child protection is still at risk of being privatised. The sector must stop it
|
Version 0 of 1. The proposed marketisation and potential privatisation of children's social services has been difficult to follow. When it emerged that child protection could be opened up to profit-making private companies, the resulting outcry led to an apparent U-turn by the government, with an announcement that only not-for-profit organisations would be able to supply such services. But then a draft regulation was put before parliament, which explicitly stated that profit-making companies will be allowed to provide children's services, including child protection, as long as they set up a non-profit subsidiary. So this is how G4S, Serco, and Virgin Care, each of which has been seeking to expand into children's social services, would make it work for them. By setting up a non-profit subsidiary – possibly renaming it in order to distance it from the parent company – and then having the parent company charge the subsidiary for services provided, profits can be made from contracts for children's social services. Why would any local authority contract out its children's social services? In a time of cuts to funding, councils have to find other ways of meeting their statutory responsibilities. Getting other organisations to bid for contracts for these services, and then going for the cheapest tender, gets the legal responsibility covered at a lower cost. And how are the costs lowered? The successful cheapest bidder downskills its workforce and pays them less. The government explicitly states that "all delegated functions must be discharged by or under the supervision of registered social workers", but it then goes on to state that "it is for local authorities in conjunction with their third party provider to determine how to manage this requirement". If the goal is to cut costs, then a company can use cheaper, inexperienced workers on the frontline, with a qualified social worker back in the office signing off reports. Children's minister Edward Timpson said "claims of mass privatisation are a misrepresentation of the government's ambitions". But once you allow private companies to take a role in children's services, the government loses control over how this develops. Those who work with children, and the general public, are unlikely to be aware that private companies will be allowed to expand within children's services. After the original expression of public concern, the apparent U-turn has calmed fears. But this supposed U-turn is more of a diversion – leading to the same destination of fragmentation and privatisation. The only difference is that private companies now have to travel a more circuitous route in order to profit from contracts for children's services. It is not only the misleading newspaper headlines about this U-turn which are causing confusion. The proposed new regulation is also being presented as focused on innovation and worker control in children's services. Innovation without fragmentation, increasing complexity, and only distant accountability is to be welcomed, as is more of a voice for frontline practitioners and greater space for professional practice. But with reports that funding for children's social services is being cut in real terms by 4% in 2014-15, and with health, schools and probation services being churned up and disrupted, exciting innovation needs to be measured against the benefits of stability, coherence, sensible resourcing, and not losing the lessons from 40 years of child protection improvement. These would all go some way to rebuilding a child protection system which has been brought to the point of crisis in recent years, with poor families being made destitute, help through Sure Start and children's centres being decimated, and the consequent deluge in child protection referrals becoming overwhelming. Reform and more of a voice for frontline practitioners does not require the wholesale marketisation of children's social services. To claim that this is all that is intended through the changes means a regulation has been drafted that goes way beyond what is necessary. If this is so, the draft regulation should be redrawn. And it gets worse. Alongside opening up children's social services to the market place, the government is also removing the requirement that these services be regulated and registered, and inspected and reported on in their own right. All that will happen is that they might be visited by inspectors focused on how local authorities are fulfilling their statutory duties to ensure child protection and other children's social services are provided in their area. Deregulation is very likely to be attractive to the independent providers of children's services, but surely it is not welcomed by local authorities, which will have responsibility and accountability with little power or control over the quality and performance of the services. This is almost a done deal. There is still time for the public, once again, to express their horror that the marketisation and fragmentation of children's social services is a step too far. And there is the opportunity for the College of Social Work, the British Association of Social Workers , the children's commissioner, Children England and others to publicise and challenge again what is being proposed. There is also an urgent need for parliamentary debate and clarification about the government's intentions. To date the Labour opposition frontbench has been invisible. Despite encouragement to do so, the House of Commons education (and children's) select committee has not sought to scrutinise what the government is intending. Surely radically changing arrangements to secure the safety and welfare of children ought not to go ahead under the political radar. Following the recent demotion of education secretary Michael Gove to chief whip, former Conservative children's minister Tim Loughton has been quoted as saying: "The response to the recent proposals on the consultation on contracting out children's services went down very badly. In my view they were borne out of ideology rather than pragmatism and were driven quite a bit by Michael Gove. That one is pretty dead in the water. The plans will lose momentum." With Gove's departure, other ministers have the opportunity to put these unnecessary plans on the back burner. The brakes desperately need to be applied to these plans. But time is running out to convince the government that this proposed privatisation of critical children's services must be at least revised, and hopefully reversed. Ray Jones' book The Story of Baby P: Setting the Record Straight was published on 14 July by Policy Press. Why not join our social care community? Becoming a member of the Guardian Social Care Network means you get sent weekly email updates on policy and best practice in the sector, as well as exclusive offers. Sign up for free. |