The government is jeopardising progress on child sexual exploitation | Richard Scorer

“A bad idea drawn up by Whitehall that has not been properly evaluated or impact-assessed.” This was Lord Ramsbotham’s scathing verdict on clause 29 of the children and social work bill, the controversial provision allowing local authorities to opt out of legal obligations to vulnerable children.

Quite rightly, the government has abandoned that clause after a concerted campaign by children’s charities. But in the furore over clause 29, other equally misguided parts of the bill have escaped proper scrutiny.

Over the past five years, I have provided legal representation to girls and young women caught up in the child sexual exploitation scandals in Rochdale and elsewhere. In bringing legal cases, we are shining a light on the failings of agencies that were supposed to protect these young people. Some of these failings were attitudinal: the credibility of victims was too often assessed with reference to ill-informed stereotypes, such as the myth that sexually exploited children were making “lifestyle choices”. But a central problem was the failure of different agencies to work together: social workers did not listen to sexual health workers, and schools did not recognise the warning signs.

Given those past failings, it is heartening to see the progress now being made in many parts of the country towards more effective multi-agency responses to child sexual exploitation. But I am very concerned that one proposal in the children and social work bill – to dispense with local safeguarding children’s boards (LSCBs) – puts this progress in jeopardy.

The abolition of LSCBs is proposed in clauses 16 to 23 of the bill, after a review of their role was undertaken for the government by Alan Wood in May 2016. The suggestion is to replace the existing LSCB structure with new local safeguarding arrangements, the key feature of which is that there would be only three mandatory local safeguarding partners: the local authority, the local NHS clinical commissioning group and the local police force. These agencies could choose to involve others – but there would be no statutory obligation to do so.

Let’s recall what LSCBs are for: to coordinate local attempts to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and to monitor and ensure the effectiveness of what its member organisations do, both individually and collectively. They scrutinise local organisations to ensure they are fulfilling their statutory obligations and, where mistakes are made, that lessons are learned.

Importantly, LSCBs are independent of the agencies they coordinate. Even more importantly, LSCBs have drawn in partner organisations not previously involved in local safeguarding arrangements: sexual health services, youth offending teams, probation services, the voluntary sector and schools. This has been crucial; it is only recently, for example, that schools have started to become fully involved in tackling child sexual exploitation. Under the regime proposed in the new bill, I fear there may be no involvement of schools outside the local authority orbit – such as academies and free schools – and no effective monitoring of their safeguarding work where they do participate.

The bill is now more than half way through the parliamentary process, with royal assent likely in autumn 2017 – subject to any change to the timetable caused by the general election. Looking at Wood’s report, which among other things highlighted the cost of LSCBs, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that their abolition is austerity driven.

That is not to dismiss the potential value of structural reform, but as a cross-party inquiry into social work reform suggested last year [pdf], improvements are more likely to come from concentrating on the basics, such as reducing caseloads. Where structural reforms are proposed, they need proper analysis first. It would be far better to let the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse examine this issue properly than rush into yet another legislative change that has not been properly evaluated or impact-assessed.

LSCBs are not perfect. They could – and should – have done more to challenge some of the agencies involved in recent child sexual exploitation scandals. But where multi-agency coordination has been inadequate the answer is to strengthen it, not reduce it. Strong, effective safeguarding arrangements do not simply happen; they demand commitment and collaboration. With the abolition of LSCBs, we may be about to lose that. The real losers will be our most vulnerable children.

Richard Scorer is head of abuse law at Slater & Gordon Lawyers

Join the Social Care Network to read more pieces like this. Follow us on Twitter (@GdnSocialCare) and like us on Facebook to keep up with the latest social care news and views.