Calls grow for changes to Social Work Bill as Munro attacks 'innovation' clauses
Pressure is growing on the Government to amend the Children and Social Work Bill after an influential academic, Professor Eileen Munro, withdrew support for its ‘innovation’ clauses.
The Bill is entering the final stage of its parliamentary passage, having been through eight sittings in both houses and now awaiting a date for the House of Commons report stage.
Government ministers have often cited the support of the London School of Economics academic as a way of assuaging the concern of critics. Prof Munro was the author of a 2011 Government-commissioned report, the ‘Munro review of child protection: final report - a child-centred system’.
Last June she backed the proposals as “a controlled way” of freeing councils from some social care duties in order to try out new ways of working. But, having followed the progress of the Bill and met with concerned parties, she is now warning of a “serious danger” if the proposed legislation goes ahead in its current form.
Prof Munro now says that the giving of such broad exemptions from existing legal duties creates “more dangers than the benefits it might produce”.
Critics believe that the freedom to innovate could see local authorities forcing unwelcome innovation on children and families rather than introducing benign, mutually-accepted solutions.
The House of Lords had removed the ‘innovation’ clauses from the Bill but they were restored in the House of Commons.
In a letter to MPs, Prof Munro wrote: “I have been reading the debates in Hansard and the submissions about the Social Work and Children Bill. I’ve also been meeting with some of those who oppose the Bill and I have reached the conclusion that the power to have exemption from primary and secondary legislation creates more dangers than the benefits it might produce.”
Explaining her previous stance, she said: “I saw the exemption as allowing the opportunity to test new means of achieving the will of Parliament as expressed in the Children Act and related legislation. The projects would be in the spirit of the legislation and would not override the will of parliament.”
She went on: “While I understand and respect the motivation of the current government, there is a serious danger in having such wide-reaching powers in statute. Some future Secretary of State might use them in ways that are completely contrary to the current intentions and consequently subvert the will of Parliament.”
Prof Munro called for a “less ambitious but still useful reform” to substitute the current one by dropping the controversial clauses and introducing, in their place, “specific laws or regulations” which would block any areas now seen as hampering innovation.
