In all the controversy over Jimmy Savile and Newsnight the media have ignored proposals from the Coalition that, as part of their anti-red tape anti-health and safety agenda and privatisation agenda, could increase risks to children.
In a piece of research for the trade union Prospect LINK Dr Liz Davies, reader in Child Protection at London Metropolitan University and Roger Kline, Social Care spokesman for the Aspect group of Prospect. claim that the Working Together revision documents are 'not fit for purpose'. These documents have been the backbone for child protection work for many years.
In the light of recent revelations and in the current economic climate where there are increased pressures on adults through benefit cuts, low wages and unemployment, children are likely to become more susceptible to abuse and neglect.
Summarising their concerns, Davies, Kline and their co-authors argue:
In a piece of research for the trade union Prospect LINK Dr Liz Davies, reader in Child Protection at London Metropolitan University and Roger Kline, Social Care spokesman for the Aspect group of Prospect. claim that the Working Together revision documents are 'not fit for purpose'. These documents have been the backbone for child protection work for many years.
In the light of recent revelations and in the current economic climate where there are increased pressures on adults through benefit cuts, low wages and unemployment, children are likely to become more susceptible to abuse and neglect.
Summarising their concerns, Davies, Kline and their co-authors argue:
1. The current proposals to revise Working Together are seriously flawed and dangerous. There are significant, and fundamental misunderstandings of what is required to protect children from harm. We are convinced the proposals will undermine multi-agency and multidisciplinary working. The failure to be sufficiently prescriptive and mandate certain measures will lead not only to confusion and mistakes but will undermine the ability of staff within each agency to prioritise and access resources to support the work of child protection.2. The proposals appear to be driven by a desire to, ‘cut red tape’ but are undoubtedly part of the Government’s localism agenda. Through deregulation and the privatisation of services the proposals are just one aspect of the rolling back of the Welfare State. No evidence has been provided that such fundamental changes will improve child protection or responses to children in need, or that even the status quo will be maintained. We believe that, in fact, the proposed changes constitute a serious risk to vulnerable children. We strongly recommend that this revision be withdrawn so that a more considered, evidence based discussion can take place about what changes might be needed to Working Together in order to support good practice by the national provision of proportionate and relevant statutory guidance that is fit for purpose.3. The objectives of the Revision include, ‘to provide the essentials that will enable and encourage good cross-agency working – so that all organisations understand what they should do to provide a coordinated approach to safeguarding’ (DfE 2012). In this submission we argue that, should it be approved as guidance, it will achieve the exact opposite. It is a non-evidence based attempt to drastically reduce the statutory guidance and we believe it will certainly leave the most vulnerable children at risk of harm unprotected as well as risk a reduction in services for those assessed as children in need.4. The Revision promotes a form of professional dangerousness where children are placed at risk by the actions and omissions of policy makers. For reasons, presumably, of expediency, the guidance appears to have been cut merely to reduce page length and the impact assessments (2012 a&b) are clear that the changes would lead to cost cutting. The Revision sits well with government agendas of privatisation, deregulation and cuts. As the campaign Every Child in Need cites, ‘basic minimum national standards and requirements are essential. A hands-off approach, allowing local authorities to do what they want, when they want, is dangerous. Even the Government’s own impact assessment recognises this – it accepts that, “there is a risk of negative impact on children if central government is less prescriptive (DfE 2012b) That is not a risk we should be taking’ (Every Child in Need Campaign 2012).5.. These changes come at a time when there is evidence of unprecedented increase in serious crime against children. Child abuse occurs within families and this context provided the focus of the Laming and Munro reviews (2009 and 2011). However, there is a vast international child abuse industry that exploits children and includes trafficking for commercial, domestic and sexual exploitation, online abuse, the illegal adoption trade, the illegal organ trade, forced marriage and the trade in abusive images. These are not marginal issues but are addressed by child protection professionals on a regular basis and yet the Laming and Munro reviews (2009 and 2011) were narrow in focus relating only to abuse within the family. Therefore the Revision, which is based on models of practice recommended in these recent reviews, omits examination of complex joint investigative work required to identify and target perpetrators and protect numbers of children in the context of organised crime. Ironically, the government only recently published an action plan with regard to child sexual exploitation (DfE 2011a) and yet comprehensive, existing Working Together guidance is being discarded (DfES 2009).
With the history of serious child abuse cases in Brent, and indeed deaths of children such children, it is imperative that Brent Council takes on these concerns and ensure that their procedures are effective and go beyond the Coalition's suggestions and urge the London Safeguarding Board to do the same.
Department for Education
(DfE)(2011a) Tackling child sexual exploitation. Action Plan. London.
DfE . Available from: http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/safeguardingchildren/a00200288/tackling-child-sexual-exploitation
Department for Education
(2011b) Tim Loughton M.P. response to parliamentary question by Andrea
Leadsom M.P. 13th December 086572. Available from; http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/423978/Munro_report_progress_15kb.pdf
Department for Education
(DfE) (2012a) Impact assessment. Revision of Working Together to
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/i/impact%20assessment%20managing%20individual%20cases%20%20%20framework%20for%20assessment.pdf
Department for Education
(DfE) (2012b) Impact assessment. Managing individual cases.Framework of
Assessment. Available from: http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/i/impact%20assessment%20%20%20working%20together%20to%20safeguard%20children.pdf
Department of Children,
Schools and Families (DCSF) (2009) Safeguarding children and
young people from sexual
exploitation. London. The Stationery Office
