Suffer Little Children?

On the 7^th March the Coalition published a consultation paper ‘reviewing the statutory duties placed on Local Authorities' as part of Eric Pickles MP 'war on bureaucracy'. Contained within the consultation are a number of duties that anyone working with children, young people and families and parents/carers must be aware of.  Many of us are aware of the Governments intention to reduce the number of Criminal Records Bureau checks for people working directly with children and young people; the consultation paper points in a direction even more challenging than this.

The consultation (open to all, closing date 25/04/11, see below) contains a number of elements of the Children Act 1989; most alarmingly sections 17 and 47.  These two elements form the legislative spine for local authorities to provide preventative and protective services for children.

Under s.17.1(a) - local authorities have a duty to ‘safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need’. Local authorities can provide a range of services for children who are ‘in need’.  Such services are intended to provide support and help to families, including families of children with disabilities and other special needs.

Under s.47 - local authorities have a duty to make enquiries as they consider necessary to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare if they have reasonable cause to suspect a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer significant harm (referred to as a Child Protection enquiry).

HullRePublic are struggling to make the link between a financial and economic crisis and the potential removal of legislation that intends to protect children from abuse and neglect.  If one were to view this cynically one could argue that the depth of the current cuts will make it impossible for local authorities to fulfill their statutory duty to protect children, the logical next step, therefore, is to remove the statutory duty.  This would, undoubtedly, save billions of pounds every year and no local authority would ever be held accountable for failing to protect a child as they would not be duty bound to respond to their needs.  Accountability would rest solely with the family within which the abuse occurred.

Efficiency savings are one thing, not responding to the needs of the most vulnerable children in society is quite another.  HullRePublic's concern is that if these changes are implemented children will be left at risk; with current staffing levels and robust legislation, services do not always get things right.  The nonsequitur that we ‘can do more with less’ will be of little comfort if you are one of the children left behind.  The notion that we will be able to effectively protect children with many fewer staff, significantly reduced services and no legislative imperative is, frankly, laughable.

          Thanks for reading.

HullRePublic Team

For more information go to:

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/03/10/116434/Government-could-abolish-all-council-social-care-duties.htm

http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/decentralisation/tacklingburdens/reviewstatutoryduties/

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/xls/1853923.xls