Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, the amendment would ensure that the first set of child safeguarding targets, which have resulted from the second report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, following the death of Baby Peter, on which the Government are currently consulting, have to go before Parliament for a debate and vote under the affirmative resolution procedure. In Committee, the Minister agreed with the spirit of my amendment that the proposed targets should be appropriately considered and consulted on. However, she rejected the suggestion that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and vote on the matter. Although the Government have moved towards us on many matters, this is one on which we have had no movement. The Minister outlined the range of the consultation. It will include the subject matter of targets, the indicators against which they would have to be set, the periods to which they should relate and the procedures for setting them. She explained that the National Safeguarding Delivery Unit held stakeholder workshops during the summer to work on this and that the process is ongoing, comprehensive and inclusive. I think that I have summarised the noble Baroness’s case. However, she did not really say why she objects to Parliament having its fivepenny-worth. Many of your Lordships and probably every Member of the House of Commons will have received correspondence from members of the public concerned about the state of child protection in this country. It is a matter of enormous public concern and, therefore, a matter for our elected representatives. Of course we must consult the experts and listen to their advice. However, just as government Ministers have been quick to emphasise over the past week that "advisers advise and Ministers decide", in matters such as this it should also be true to say that "advisers advise, Governments propose and Parliament approves"—or not as the case may be. Parliament must have the opportunity to have its voice heard where the lives of its constituents’ children are at stake. Why ever not? Is this matter not important enough to be heard within these hallowed walls? If Parliament can debate the status of the banks, university tuition fees, tranquilisers and anti-depressants, voting at the weekend, the political activities of former generals and the management of water resources, as your Lordships’ House did yesterday—and even sheep farmers, as it did today—why can it not debate the protection of its children? Of course that is a matter for experts and stakeholders to advise on, but the protection of children is the responsibility of every one of us. We are all stakeholders in this matter. Parliament represents the biggest stakeholder workshop of the lot. Parliament represents us—the public—and we care about child protection, so Parliament must have a say. The Minister may suggest that my measure would entail delay and I know that she would not want that. However, I do not think that having a debate in Parliament will entail any more than 24 hours’ delay and there are certainly no cost implications. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.