Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the curate’s egg before us. Amendments 191 and 193 would prevent academies from becoming new children’s trust relevant partners, as the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, described them, and would instead give them a right to representation on the board. I am going to rehearse what we said in Committee: these clauses do not diminish academies’ independence but empower them to go further in their work. It is unimaginable that the schools with some of England’s most vulnerable children should not be fully engaged in the most important partnerships in children’s services. It is vital that academies are able to influence local strategic decision-making. That means having automatic, rather than voluntary, representation on the children’s trust board. Amendment 192 was discussed in another place. All those listed could and should be involved in the work of the children’s trusts. Short-stay schools will be made statutory relevant partners through a different route. I know that that is slightly confusing. It will be done through the regulations under the Education Act 1996. Regulations will require children’s trust boards to consult children’s centre advisory boards when preparing their children and young people’s plan. Through statutory guidance we will expect children’s trust partners to consider the provision of services through children’s centres as they develop and implement the plan. There should be a children’s centre representative on every children’s trust board. The extended school provider landscape is, of course, complex and varies locally. It includes existing relevant partners who are already represented on the board, as well as third sector providers. We recognise the vital role that the third sector plays here. We must therefore allow flexibility to ensure that the local delivery infrastructure is properly reflected in the composition of the board. That is why new Section 12A(3) will allow third sector providers to join the children’s trust board by local agreement. I hope that that will give the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, the reassurance that she is looking for. GPs have an important role to play, as Diabetes UK has no doubt stressed to the Members opposite. It is interesting to hear about these inspired amendments. It is sometimes helpful if organisations also let the Government know what they want, because they might then find that they get more recognition in our speaking notes at the Dispatch Box. Placing a statutory duty on GPs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out, would not be an effective means of securing their engagement. Statutory guidance will clearly set out that the director of children’s services should consult the PCT to ensure that there is a lead GP on the children’s trust board to provide their professional expertise and offer advice on how to involve the wider GP community, which is obviously quite diverse. On Amendment 194, we agree that the involvement of parents and carers in the voluntary sector in the work of children’s trust boards is essential. That is absolutely without question. I am happy to reassure the House that the children and young people’s plan regulations will require the board to consult both groups on the plan. Moreover, statutory guidance—and this is strong—will require that both groups be included on the board, with a clear expectation that the voluntary sector is always represented. It is not acceptable for a situation to arise where the voluntary sector is not represented. That would include organisations that support children and young people, such as Diabetes UK and other organisations that support children with special needs, learning difficulties and other concerns. Amendment 195 would require the local authority and its relevant partners to have a separate representative each on the children’s trust board. Representation is a key issue, but we must retain the flexibility of subsection (5) to prevent children’s trust boards from becoming unwieldy and therefore less effective. We recognise the importance of all partners having a voice and will use statutory guidance to set out how joint representation can happen, because we do not want that to be unclear. On Amendment 197, we agree that the function of children’s trust boards to monitor implementation is of great importance. I note the concern around the House about that. I am happy to reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Walmsley, that this is already specified in new Section 17A(3) and will be further amplified in statutory guidance. Amendment 196 would require inspectors to inspect the children’s trust board and to be consulted in its establishment. I understand the drive behind this amendment. How is inspection going to work? I can confirm that the contributions of children’s trust partners, such as the local authority and the police, are within the scope of the comprehensive area assessment, or CAA. Should inspectorates consider that priority outcomes for an area are at risk due to poor co-operation between partners, two or more of them can inspect a children’s trust board under Section 20 of the Children Act 2004. It would be unnecessary and wasteful to assess or inspect the workings of every board, but provision is already in place to allow for an inspection where it would be appropriate. We do not agree that inspectorates should be consulted in the establishment of the board. "Otiose" was a word used in Committee in other areas, but I think that it applies here. This would compromise the inspectorates’ independence from bodies that they might later inspect, because they would be marking their own homework. On Amendment 198, accountability for delivering the children and young people’s plan remains with individual board partners—the PCT and the local authority. The Bill adds extra public accountability, with the board publishing an annual report on partners’ implementation. Again, I can confirm that delivery by partners is within the scope of the CAA and relevant inspections. So there is a process. The activities of the children’s trust board and the plan, as a description of what has been achieved, are within the sight of the CAA. Government Amendment 199 is minor and technical. Through this amendment, Section 21 of the Education Act 2002, under which maintained schools must have regard to the children and young people’s plan, will not anticipate a scenario in which a children’s trust board does not produce a plan. I am assured that this is a very minor and technical amendment. I hope, particularly with the reassurance that I have offered on inspection and on the voluntary sector, that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, will consider withdrawing her amendment.