HC Deb 27 March 1968 vol 761 cc1683-92

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

10.31 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill)

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the problems of the recruitment and training of children's officers, particularly in Scotland. It is exactly 20 years since the then Labour Government, following the Clyde Report on Homeless Children, found time in 1948, in a busy legislative session, programme, to introduce one of their best Measures, the Children Act, which required local authorities to appoint a committee from their membership and also a chief officer.

The responsibilities of those committees and their officers are extremely compre hensive. Among them are the duties to organise and manage the children's department itself, to investigate every application for any child to be received into the care of the local authority, particularly deprived children or those in need of care, to maintain each child until he is 18, to provide a substitute home, whether foster or otherwise, and to inspect those homes from time to time. They have also the duty to provide, maintain and administer residential establishments to suit the various needs and ages of the children, and to restore such children to their parents when the local authority and the parents themselves agree that this should be done.

Recognising the need for an adequate number of skilled staff to discharge this wide variety of duties, I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on 6th December last year what proposals he had for the recruiting and training of child care offiecrs. He said that recruitment was a matter for the local authorities primarily and that there were six courses at universities providing training for residential care and tive courses for training child care officers in the field.

It is in the latter category of officers that I am more interested. The answer suggested that the existing situation was reasonably satisfactory, but, expressed as it was, that information was not factually correct, and created a very different impresison from the actual situation, as I have since discovered.

My conclusion is that over all the years since 1950 until comparatively recently child care in Scotland has been generally under developed in staffing, in training, in case work and in the provision of accommodation for children. That is not to say that the kind of accommodation in which the children are at present housed is inadequate, or of a slum character or that they are not well looked after by local authorities. It casts no slur upon them, but it is not in accordance with the ideals pinpointed and set out in the 1948 Act. For example, it is quite common for an officer to have a case load of over 100 children in contrast with the case load of 50 recommended by the Morrison Committee. In such circumstances it is often a difficult choice for a children's officer to make whether to give the necessary time to a child with critical personal problems or to carry out the normal statutory visits to children with few or no immediate difficulties.

Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland confirm that from all five courses for children's officers in the field the total output in 1967 was only 23, of whom 14 took up posts in Scottish local authority departments and voluntary organisations and the remaining nine left Scotland? It would be wrong to assume that the relatively few Scottish students from these courses constituted the total number. I understand that Edinburgh and Dundee accept a large proportion of English students. None of us would be critical of that, but I ask my hon. Friend how many English students have been at those universities at any convenient date. Is it the case that all five students produced in Edinburgh left Scotland for work elsewhere? I hope my hon. Friend will agree that that is not satisfactory. Is he considering proposals to attract and keep such students in Scotland?

Not until 1960 or 1961 was the first course of this kind set up at a Scottish university. How many students have taken the general course at Aberdeen with child care as one of the options? The Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care Officers did not appoint its training committee until November, 1965, 15 years after the passing of the Act. If ever there were a justifiable case for using the phrase "Thirteen wasted years" under a certain Administration, it is this. There has been great neglect in this matter in a very important field which will become more important in future with the introduction of impending legislation. This will set a special example of progressive thinking for Great Britain and many countries in Europe. The universities and Moray House and Jordanhill Colleges lead to the award of the "Letter of Recognition of Central Council for Child Care", but it is surprising that that award comes from the Home Office in England. With the progressive outlook in Scotland, why cannot this or a similar award be made in Scotland?

Apparently the authority which permits the establishment of this course leading to the Letter of Recognition is the Training Committee of the Central Advisory Council in Child Care, which is in London. Is there any Scottish representation on this body? If not, it means that the standards of qualification are left to be decided by a completely English body. Apart from urging the Minister to consider this matter, in view of the impending legislation, he may consider it valuable to have the Training Committee of the Scottish Advisory Council in Child Care to award its own qualifications.

I am informed that the University of Strathclyde has met with some difficulty in starting a course, although no fewer than 10 graduate students had indicated their intention to take it. That number would have been more than that achieved by all the other training agencies in 1967. Without going into this matter in detail—if my hon. Friend does not have the information perhaps he will inquire into the matter and let me know—I trust that this complaint will be investigated.

I regret that the tutor of the Jordon-hill Training College died last year. This created a problem at the college and the date of restarting the course was uncertain. The Scottish Education Department has not helped matters by being unclear in what has been said. Eventually a date towards the end of January was indicated for the restarting of the course. What is the latest position? The students were not advised of the position; nor have mature students at the college been advised whether they have passed their examinations. This must mean a lack of liaison between the local authorities and university tutors of schools of social studies, and no central planning for the division and management of the scarce practical work placements.

Can more use be made of central institutions, as well as the universities and colleges? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the universities are showing the necessary sense of urgency and have the spare capacity to train the necessary numbers? Or is it his view that there are too few students for the number of courses available? What establishment has the Department in mind for each category, for child officers in the field and for homes? Is it 60, as I have been informed, remembering that this figure must be set against a net increase of 14 trained last year? We should be told what the appropriate annual demand for field officers is likely to be.

Recruitment is of great importance. What steps are being taken to advertise centrally? My hon. Friend will recognise that unless an adequate supply of able recruits is obtained, the new Bill on social work which is about to be considered in the House will be an impotent testimonial to our lack of preparation. Indeed, it will be a nonsense.

It is more difficult to recruit qualified officers in Scotland because of the better salaries, lower case loads and better conditions—such as the provision of transport facilities—in England. This is partly the reason for the difference between the weekly administrative costs per child in Scotland and in England. For example, the figures are 15s. 4d. per child in Scotland and 35s. ld. in England, an extraordinary difference of 20s.

The ratio of child care officers to children in care in England is more than twice that applying in Scotland. In Glasgow in particular and in Scotland in general—although experience varies from one local authority to another—the case load is 100 and more. Comparable figures are: in Birmingham, 25 to 30; Liverpool, 40 to 45; and Manchester, 30 to 45.

Because of the lack of staff, many children must have remained in homes because of lack of effort or opportunity to find foster parents and they have been denied the right to close family life, sharing joys, sorrows, love and affection. The duty to return some of these children under the 1948 Act to their parents when opportunity presents itself may have passed them by. It is too often the case that far from planned placements taking place, with the needs of the individual child considered, the officer is only too glad to find a home at all with a bed.

The salaries paid by local authorities in Scotland to these officers have never been such as to attract staff of the right quality. I understand that 12 local authorities employ part time or one single children's officer. I sometimes feel that a new definition of "neglect" or even of "deprivation" is needed. Formerly, this meant failure to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter. But children can be deprived of love, companionship, interest and the feeling of being wanted. I have no doubt that there are many potential delinquents and problem parents among these children. Many of them are illegitimate or from broken homes. To neglect or fail to do what we can to meet their emotional needs at this stage, or even to intensify them, will be gross folly, and society will continue to pay a heavy price in vagrancy, delinquency, vandalism and a continuing deterioration in the quality of life.

10.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important subject. In view of his eloquence at the close of his speech, it is not necessary for me to emphasise the great importance of the work children's officers and their staffs do in this very difficult and also potentially very rewarding field.

I am conscious of the fact that local authorities in Scotland have considerable difficulties in recruiting adequate numbers of professionally trained staff for their children's departments. My hon. Friend has raised a large number of questions and I shall do my best to answer them. Perhaps I can begin by giving him some figures for the present establishment of child care field officers, which is the kind of staff which interests him most, as compared with the number in post.

The establishment is 276 full-time child care workers and the number in post is 250. There are thus 26 full-time vacancies. But we know that establishments do not necessarily represent the real need. So long as there is shortage of staff available, there is a tendency for the local authorities, which know the difficulties of recruiting additional staff, not to bring their establishments up to what one would consider to be a desirable and realistic level. Therefore, these figures disguise an even more acute shortage of child care staff employed by local authorities. We have a considerable problem here.

It is in that context that one must put the present arrangements for the training of these officers, the developments of the last few years and developments envisaged for the future. The first course for these officers in Scotland was established in 1960 and since then four more have been established. It so happens that, because of the death of one of the teachers at Jordanhill, which my hon. Friend mentioned, there has been a temporary suspension of the course there, but I am glad to be able to tell him that the college hopes to restart the course in the autumn of this year.

Up to the present, the output from these courses has been very disappointing in terms of total numbers. However, I am glad to say that there now seems to be a real indication that the numbers are growing. The output in 1966 was only nine, but in 1967 it rose to 23. Once all the existing courses are fully in operation, which may take until about 1970, the annual output from them should increase to about 50. In addition, plans are well advanced for three additional courses, which should take in their first students at the beginning of the 1968–69 session, that is, a course at Glasgow University, a course at Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology in Aberdeen, and a course at the Moray House College of Education.

Once these courses are fully operative, it is estimated that total output of students should rise by a further 25 to about 75 by 1971, which would be a considerable improvement on the present position.

Achievement of that figure of 75 will call for a considerable effort, and we need to have a number something like that to provide an adequate supply to make up for present deficiencies and to give us the expanded service which we all want. One of the limiting factors is a shortage of placements in local authority children's departments and elsewhere for students undergoing practical training. This is where we need the good will and cooperation of the employers of child care staff. They must accept that, where they are fortunate enough to have trained and experienced staff who are suitable to act as supervisors of students, they should see that their staffing arrangements allow these staff time to do that work, notwithstanding the immediate needs of the service. Another important factor is that local authorities must be willing to second suitable staff for the training courses which are at present available and to appoint their own training officers to deal with in-service training and staff development.

My hon. Friend mentioned one unfortunate feature of Scottish training arrangements, flat a number of the students are not themselves Scots. This is not in itself at all unfortunate, but the fact is that a number of Scottish students have taken up posts elsewhere than in Scotland. There is a two-way traffic here, and one must not underestimate the contribution, and particularly the potential contribution, which can be made by people coming from south of the Border to take up posts in Scotland. I hope that this movement will receive a considerable stimulus when the Social Work (Scotland) Bill now before the other place becomes law.

Nevertheless, it has been true, unfortunately, that many students we have turned out in the past have taken up posts elsewhere. Of the 23 I mentioned as the output in 1967, 13 took up employment in Scotland and the other ten went elsewhere. Obviously, we are very anxious to improve upon this situation, but it can only be done, when the total supply is a good deal higher than it is at present, and when the children's departments themselves, then being more adequately staffed, are able to provide additional career opportunities which will make employment in Scotland more attractive than it is today.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said that the ratio was one officer to 100 in Scotland, one officer to 25 in Birmingham and one to 35 in Manchester. If Scotland brings itself up to full establishment, will the proportion be pro rata to the English, or will there still be a discrepancy?

Mr. Millan

It is difficult to make precise comparisons about case loads. It is generally recognised that case loads in Scotland taken as a whole are too high at present. But it is misleading to look at the average Scottish or English figure. One has to compare one local authority with another. I would rest on saying that it is true that in many parts of Scotland case loads are too high. My hon. Friend who, like me, represents a constituency in Glasgow, will know that the Glasgow position is particularly difficult. This is another illustration of the need for a considerable increase in the numbers and output of trained students, providing better placements for them and generally building up children's officers' departments in Scottish local authorities, which is what we are trying to do. There must be many parts of England where case loads are too high, and we want a general raising of the standards.

My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that it is the Central Training Council, which is basically an English organisation, which provides the letter of recognition for students. Without going into detail, I ought just to say that the reason for this is largely historical, but I appreciate that as courses develop and we begin to increase the output of child care officers in Scotland, the present position will become increasingly anomalous. We are having discussions with the Home Office about the current arrangements. In dealing with this we must remember that the Social Work (Scotland) Bill by itself will make considerable changes in the background against which we must consider the training arrangements not only for child care officers, but for those in social work generally. Therefore, it would be unwise to make too hasty changes until we are a good deal clearer about the training position generally.

That is even more true when one considers that there will almost certainly be changes south of the Border as well, particularly if any Government legislation follows the recommendations of the Report of the Seebohm Committee, which, I understand, although it is an English and not a Scottish matter, may be received some time this year. The whole subject of training will have to be considered again.

One advantage of the present situation is that one has a qualification which is equally recognised in England and Scotland, and, whatever we may do in future, we shall want to see that there is reciprocal recognition, because to have demarcation lines on qualifications between one part of the United Kingdom and another would be a very unfortunate development.

The important question is whether the present system is in any way frustrating the development of courses in Scotland, and I am able to say, despite what my hon. Friend said about the courses at Strathclyde University, that that is not my understanding and appreciation of the position. It has not done anything which has prevented the development of courses in Scotland, as the figures which I have quoted demonstrate. Our own relationships with the Central Training Council have been very happy.

My hon. Friend also briefly mentioned courses for residential staff. I promise that I shall answer in detail any points which I have not yet had the chance of taking up with my hon. Friend, but I should like to say in conclusion that similarly there is a need not for just increasing the number of residential staff—because one hopes that the eventual development will be that residential accommodation will be less needed—but also to increase the numbers who are professionally trained. Courses for residential staff are being developed in Scotland and there are a number of new courses which we hope to start very soon.

All in all, therefore, we recognise the extreme importance of the work. We recognise that it depends essentially on having adequate numbers of well-trained staff. There have been and still are deficiencies in Scotland, but the position has improved over the past few years, and the developments which we see at present should lead to a further improvement. We have a long way to go, but we have now made a sufficient improvement to give us a good starting point for the further improvements which we shall need over the next few years.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.