Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

I shall address my remarks to Amendments 191 and 193, which we raised in Committee. They are designed, once again, to raise our concerns regarding the imposition on the autonomy and independence of academy schools. We have raised this issue again because the response from the Minister in our last discussion was rather unsatisfactory. We have argued that we wish to reinforce the independence of academies by not demanding that they have a duty to be considered a relevant partner in the new children’s trusts and safeguarding boards. We are fully in agreement with the Minister that academies will, in all likelihood, want to be on these boards. Academies are often located in areas with some of the most vulnerable and troubled children in the country, and therefore will most probably want to be included. Amendment 192 would increase the bodies that should be relevant partners and so will be represented on the statutory children’s trust board. This membership would include short-stay schools in the area of the authority, a Sure Start children’s centre in the area of the authority, a representative of extended school providers in the area of the authority and general medical practitioners in the area of the authority. We have tabled this amendment to raise concerns that simply making children’s trust boards statutory will not in itself address any problems. We must also ensure that the membership of the board is expanded to include the most helpful and most relevant. I am fully aware that the Minister will say that it is very difficult to represent, for example, general medical practitioners in this way. I acknowledge that the drafting may need some attention for this reason. Nevertheless, surely, noble Lords would agree that it is important instead to find a way to make this possible, rather than just citing that it may be complex. I cannot believe that it is impossible. The Government’s own paper, Every Child Matters: Change for Children, states, through consultation, that they have discovered that better outcomes will be secured by services working together more effectively on the front line to meet the needs of children, young people and their families. Paragraph 3.2 states: ""Co-operative arrangements need to involve among others, schools, GPs, culture, sports and play organisations and the voluntary and community sector"." Yet the partners in the Bill do not include all these agencies. To create an integrated and fully functional board, we think it important to include all these bodies. We welcome the new statutory arrangements, but to create a really effective and operational children’s trust board, we must address the issue of membership. The often-quoted report by the Audit Commission in 2008, entitled, Are We There Yet?, demonstrated that, in terms of children’s trust boards, we markedly are not. It said that there was, ""little evidence that children’s trusts, as required by the government, have improved outcomes for children and young people or delivered better value for money, over and above locally agreed cooperation"." To change this we must not just make boards statutory; we must ensure that they have the right members to provide a force that will truly get us there. Amendment 194, suggested by Diabetes UK, is intended to address those problems. Diabetes UK is concerned by the lack of involvement from the private and voluntary sectors. We, too, are concerned by this; we desire an integrated approach, and it seems nonsensical that the private and voluntary sectors, despite their large contribution to children’s services, are not involved. Does the Minister accept the need for bringing in these vital bodies? Diabetes UK raised the concern that it receives approximately 100 complaints a month from families who have children with diabetes, who are then excluded from school activities, made to eat alone or have to have their parents come into school every day to administer their insulin injections. It fears that if the voluntary sector does not have sufficient input into the work of children’s trusts, they will not be fully addressed. Children’s trust boards will also be charged with drawing up the children and young people’s plan. We believe it is important that the views of the voluntary sector are taken into account here. Diabetes UK has raised this issue because vulnerable groups of children, such as those with diabetes, may not automatically be included as there is no designated list of who must be consulted in its preparation. Can the Minister confirm which bodies will be consulted, or how that will be decided? Amendment 195 raises a concern expressed by the National Association of Head Teachers. Subsection (5) of the proposed new Clause 12A states that there is no need for a children’s trust board to have "a separate representative" from each body. This highlights a problem which schools and other organisations may have; the NAHT states that it would be difficult for a separate representative of each school to attend meetings of the children’s trust board. That may result in a system whereby the schools that are able to attend every meeting will have a disproportionate impact on that board. The alternative is that a system of representation might be established among schools. The association worries that the second option will be favoured, bringing in another layer of bureaucracy as schools have to meet outside the children’s trust board meetings to discuss representations, positions and responses. Can the Minister offer any reassurances there? Amendments 196 and 198 draw attention to monitoring the operation of children’s trust boards. The report by the Audit Commission lists a number of bodies who currently monitor children’s trusts. Further, it argues that there should be a mechanism in order to monitor performance if standards are not being met, so can the Minister confirm that this will be put into place, and can she give us more detail on how that will operate? Noble Lords will be pleased to note that Amendment 197 is the final one which we address in this group. It introduces a power for the Secretary of State to bring in regulations which would allow, ""monitoring the implementation of the children and young people’s plan"." We have drawn specific attention to this because Diabetes UK is concerned that we are seeing a real conflict of interest here that could affect accountability. After all, partners implementing the children and young people’s plan are appointed by the children’s trust boards, which are then responsible for monitoring the implementation of those plans. Is the Minister concerned that this risks making those boards effectively self-appointing, and then self-regulating? I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.