ABSTRACT
The epigraph quotation from Michael Gove may seem like a startling admission, but of course any message that the state is ‘failing’ depends on the vested interests of those providing and receiving the message! The key question is why might a Secretary of State make such an admission? The answer, in part, is that it is true to a particular political ideology, and of course previous Secretaries of State have been mired in child death tragedies as they are ultimately responsible for legislation, policy and guidance for safeguarding and child protection. This quotation underlines the fact that denitions and understanding of safeguarding and child protection are based on social constructions – that is, they are not xed but change and develop over time; they are uid. The child-rearing and working practices of the Victorian era are not acceptable today. In the contemporary context, our understanding of the dangers of information and communication technologies and child exploitation is continuing to develop; and there are cultural and societal inuences, including the media and a political desire not to be associated with negative headlines. Beliefs and practices about children, women and families differ around the world; there are patriarchal societies and societies based on community. Some countries treat children as adults when it comes to crime or immigration, and in many places corporal punishment is acceptable. Nor is it necessary to look around the world for variations in law, policy and understanding, since there are important differences between the devolved states of the United Kingdom. In Scotland, for example, physical chastisement of a child is not permitted, whereas in England, section 58 of the Children Act 2004 permits ‘reasonable punishment’ (which may include smacking). Even the terms ‘safeguarding’ and ‘child protection’ have been used differently over time. The statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children: A Guide to Inter-agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children (DH et al. 1999) alongside the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families (DH et al. 2000b) reinforced the then government’s view that children in need of protection from harm represented only one of a range of needs. Indeed, a child’s need to be safe was one of ve outcomes enshrined in the 2003 Green Paper Every Child Matters (DfES 2003a). While not always
using the lexicon of the previous administration, Michael Gove (current Secretary of State for Education) and the Coalition government that came to power in the United Kingdom in 2010 continue to emphasise the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children. However, ‘child protection’ has again gained prominence as a specic professional activity undertaken with children who are suffering or likely to suffer signicant harm. That is, all childcare professionals continue to have responsibilities and duties to safeguard children but it is social workers in particular whose duties extend to child protection. The Department for Education denes the difference between safeguarding and child protection like this:
Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is dened as:
N protecting children from maltreatment N preventing impairment of children’s health or development N ensuring children are growing up in circumstances consistent with the
provision of safe and effective care.
