Education Bill

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker. Several noble Lords touched on this question at Second Reading. I was particularly concerned to hear that there are 88,000 autistic school-age children in England. We should ask ourselves: who among us, if we had a child with special educational needs, would not want the co-operation of every agency and organisation to deliver the best we can for that child? On Monday I was at the launch of a document, We’ve Got Great Expectations, produced by the National Autistic Society. Maria Miller, the DWP Minister, spoke at that event. She said that joined-up support from health, education and social services was needed. If it is needed, why are the Government removing this essential element—the requirement to co-operate? The cartoons on the front of the document have captions such as, ““Support my child to succeed””, ““Let’s work together””, ““Help me, don’t doubt me””, and, as some of the parents I met said, ““I can’t fight any more””. We all know of cases where parents have struggled to get the system to respond. Before I was elected to the other place, I was a councillor for 20 years. Time and again I went into council offices with a problem, only to be told, ““Sorry, councillor, he falls through the net””. Who created the net? We did. Let us not make a bad net by damaging a very sensible policy and the duty to co-operate. At Second Reading, I asked the Minister what evidence the Government have that the duty to co-operate does not work effectively. I appreciate, as will anyone who has been a Minister, that it is not always possible to answer every point. However, I did not get an answer on that occasion, so I tabled a Question the following day, which the Minister has kindly answered today. I asked what assessment the Government, "““have made of the effectiveness of the duty to co-operate in so far as education is concerned””." The Minister’s reply, drafted by his officials, was: "““The findings of the Audit Commission’s report Are We There Yet? showed that before the duty to co-operate was extended, schools and colleges in most areas were engaging voluntarily as partners in local co-operation arrangements””.—[Official Report, 29/6/11; cols. WA 430-31.]" That report was published in 2008. I might be the son of a miner but I had to mine that report just to find any reference to co-operation. The only relevant sentence that I found—perhaps the Minister’s officials have found others—says: "““In most areas collaborative working has improved, but the new arrangements have yet to settle down””." Is that the basis on which the Government will make this decision? In his Written Answer, the Minister went on to say: "““We are not convinced that the addition of schools and colleges to the list of statutory relevant partners, under Section 10 of the Children Act 2004, was … effective or appropriate””.—[Official Report, 29/6/11; col. WA 431.]" If it was not effective or appropriate, what do the Government think ought to be in its place to make it effective and appropriate? I asked a further Question about, "““what impact the removal of the ‘duty to co-operate’ will have on children with complex needs, such as autism, and their families””.— [Official Report, 27/6/11; col. WA 358.]" I have received a two-paragraph reply. I am a great admirer of the Minister and do not wish to be ungenerous to him, but that reply could have been two words: ““no idea””. The duty to co-operate under the Children Act has existed for only a year. It ought to be properly evaluated to see whether there are failures or good points. What key government policy is this duty to co-operate thwarting? What great thing over the horizon can the Government not do because the duty to co-operate exists? How many complaints have the Government received from organisations involved in the duty to co-operate, saying that it is so burdensome that they cannot fulfil it? This is a case on which the Government ought to think again. The strength of this House is that we can try to persuade Governments to think again if we feel that there is a failure. I conclusion, I share with noble Lords some advice that my late mother gave me many years ago: ““My son, in life you will find that sense is not common””. Common sense tells us that this duty to co-operate should remain. I hope the Government will be persuaded of that.