|
I write
at the end of the consultation process about contracts, and the end of
three weeks of road shows by the Chief Executive and various members of
her management team. I am sure all are pleased that, like the election, it is now
over.
By the
end of June or early July 2001, offers of contract will be made. There
will be further time to consider them individually, and we shall, as
we have done previously, seek further legal advice. Currently the
advice is that the contracts, the issue of fees aside, are not safe to
sign. Employed guardians are very concerned about the divisive nature
of having such a variety of contracts.
Family court welfare officers who came into CAFCASS with their
conditions of employment protection by TUPE may not risk signing any
new contract that would signal the end of their current protected
status. Thus, it might be
impossible to achieve the full integration and parity that was one of
the original aims of the new service.
The
Chief Executive says that she will look again at the conditions for
employment, which CAFCASS has recently stated is now its preferred
option. We are also now properly advised that CAFCASS must be a
budget-led service. Queries continue to be raised about the allocation
of a £72 million budget and about how much is being diverted from
direct service-delivery to children and families.
In addition, questions are being asked about the statistical
basis for which the current fixed-fee bandings, which have been
largely rejected by guardians around the country.
At the
same time, NAGALRO’s application seeking leave for a Judicial Review
of the decision to remunerate by fixed fees, is lodged with the
Court, and we hope for an early outcome. The application is opposed by
CAFCASS but NAGALRO’s legal advice gives cause for continuing
optimism.
The
Chief Executive has given a creditable performance at the recent
road-shows in showing the gaps that existed in her knowledge, and
which need remedying urgently by reading, and finding out what
Guardians actually do- by spending time with them. To plan for a
service whose functions are unknown to the planners gives little
confidence, but that may be changing. CAFCASS say they have begun to
listen and learn; we need to give them time to think and act
It would be vitally important
not lose all the excellent work done by practitioners on all aspects
of professional practice in the task teams: the understanding of this
work is another
learning exercise crucial to the success of CAFCASS. Guardians are not
impressed by the insistence that Chief Executive does not accept
responsibility for the previous 18 months work of the Project Team and
that she portrays a CAFCASS as a clean
slate at 1 April 2001. She
came into an organisation that had been hard at work since September
1999. To overturn all the promises about flat management
structures, about valuing self employment and crucially about
establishing a genuinely child-focussed
service cannot now be ignored, on the basis of new statistics and an
inherited budget said to be insufficient, cannot be in the long-term
interests of the children and families CAFCASS exists to serve.
The
Chief Executive recently distributed a document answering the most
frequently asked questions and the first was 'Why
can't things remain the same?' That is certainly not a frequently
asked question amongst guardians, many of whom anticipated
opportunities to continue developing and improving professional
services to children and the courts through the establishment of a
unified service. NAGALRO
has consistently maintained the need for change and argued for a
national, hourly rate for the work. Reiterating the reasons why
something needs to change at all wastes the opportunity to discover
how that change can be for the better rather than for the worse.
It appears that the matter of fixed-fees may only be resolved
in the course of Judicial Review proceedings, if leave is obtained, as
we hope it will be.
Many of
our colleagues have already decided not to wait and, around the
country, have sought other more secure and financially rewarding work,
which is understandable. We hope that others will be able to remain to
see this process through before making a final decision.
It is
important for us to remain consistent as a group in this time of
ongoing uncertainty. We need not do anything in haste that might
prejudice either the needs of the children, or, quite properly, our
own interests as individual professionals, with personal financial
commitments. It is important for us all to be measured, to consider
and to reflect, once the contract offers have been made, and we know
the outcome of the judicial review. To do otherwise could have far
more damaging consequences for the quality of the service and,
possibly, for ourselves. We must neither accept nor reject until the
process is complete.
Once
again we applaud all of our colleagues who have written letters of
such reasoned argument to Ms Shepherd.
They have stated again and again why the current proposed
contracts will fail children, and will fail the most experienced
Guardians who cannot and will not work for fees and salaries which, in
some areas represent a lower rate than that for newly qualified social
worker. They will not attract those with more than three years child
protection work in large areas of the country where demand is highest.
NAGALRO
is meeting with some members of the management team on 14 June. We
hope to look again at those elements of professional independence,
a fee which will permit travel consistent with our
duties, and with continuing professional consultation and development,
and a rigorous system of accountability, both by practitioners and
managers, for use of resources to ensure highest quality and best
value for children and CAFCASS practitioners.
We
sincerely hope that the next few months will see the end of some
uncertainties and the reflection of the new listening CAFCASS
management. We hope that
workable long term arrangement for both employed and self employed
Guardians will be the result. CAFCASS needs both groups, who must be
equally valued, if it is going to emerge as a creditable organisation
that can, in fact, deliver a service of quality for the most
vulnerable children in our society. |
