Often i wonder why the parents of children removed or looking to be removed are not offered greater financial support to allow them to grow as parents/individuals, access support, reduce financial stress and strengthen their independence which would give them a greater chance of having their children returned to their care.

so where are the missing data sets, including s174-s177 Company’s Act 2006 requirements ? blaming the private sector is too vague a response ~ the co-option of out-going public sector services managers, usually as part of a severance deal including public sector wage and pension protection, has meant entire budgets have been taken ‘off book’ to demonstrate efficiency gains. cherry picking is the norm and right across all service areas, but especially within children’s services ~ insider knowhow of price/risk escalation sewn-in? the mess makes Eron look like a walk in the park but maybe the data sets are missing for a reason, no?

Out of interest, and following the coverage of David Howe and Attachment Theory, one way to consider the impact of policy is through Zizek’s Parallax Gap ~ the speed with which spend decisions are made and the requirements for ‘heads on beds’ profit/loss accounting and totally at odds with the black-bag life many children who are simply swept along. And, for the handling of an evaluation methodology suited to understanding the nature of voids see Bojan Radej ~ the University of Ljubljana School of Social Work recently hosted a conference (September 2023) on such, with UK evaluation researchers participation.

The ‘third party’ delegations of ‘the duty of care’ most include tighter responsibility and requirements for information management and retention; Council’s have a 100 year rule but as contracting authorities (and their providers) limit these obligations to the life span of a contract with, and at best a 10yr max expectation. And, the ICO position, as laid out by the current case law definition of ‘to hold’ directly interferes with previously guaranteed rights owed by the State to Children.

The primacy of the child’s Care Plan (which is a binding contract) must be placed on the face of the incoming Act, as a bear minimum.

The relationship between Ofsted and IRO’s clearly spelt out with the a statutory mechanism of action in light of dissatisfaction. For example, the LAC903 returns don’t require the recording and monitoring of ‘disruption meetings’ ~ which tend tobe avoided by the (mis)use of the statutory reviewing system. Similarly, and especially with secure reviewing and OAP reviews, risk escalation canbe and is used to ratchet up costs and places competing providers, and the Children’s advocate knowingly or not, in a ‘hidden bidding’ scenario where the wishes and feelings of, and especially a detained, child at the whim of competitive rivalry.

The systemic perpetuation of previous or antecedent financial and/or sexual exploitation must not be ignored ~ it happens where statutory decision-making is totally skewed by commercial gaming. It isn’t a new phenomena.

And, in respect of profiteering will the face of Bill include on the requirements for the suspension of ‘State Aid’ rules? A legacy of the EU it’s a requirement for all competition dependant in whole or part on State Aid to tendered at the lowest cost to the tax payer. Will the Bill specify how the requirements for the satisfaction of MEAT during the procure procedure will be made ~ the derogation to the Public Procurement Act 2023 may seem OK, but really? The available procure procedures, despite the increased flexibility of the 2023 Act, aren’t and have never been suitable for Children’s Services. They are predicated on the assumption that they are used solely for highly prescriptive, standardised and routine services. And, that the idea that such services, for children in this instance, can be advertised on the basis of selling ‘lots’! I know, right?

RCC’s aren’t a bad idea. The implementation is though very different and the devil is very much in the detail.

If Government is seeking a regional platform for Children’s Care then where’s the announcement for Children’s Trusts ~ the iterations have been coming for an age and using Teckal Exemptions already proven; where’s the joined up thinking and what are the s75 NHS Agreements going to look like?

At best the development of a vacancies data base will be achieved; the ownership of the information gathered, it’s status and standing ie the indivisible requirements a whole new story ~ the biases are towards, what?

This isn’t about rubbishing RCC’s is about seeing the multifaceted nature of the voids, not by pitching voids against voids but rather noticing what’s missing ~ the primacy of the child!