Mrs.
Miller: I thank the Minister for her reply and for her
reassurance. From listening to what she said, the most important
element will be the chairmanship of children’s trust boards,
because if the partners are to be involved in the parts of proceedings
that relate to them and their activities, it will be important that
they are well-managed organisations, effectively chaired, and that
people’s time is managed in a good way. Hopefully, the Minister
will monitor that closely to make sure that schools are not
over-burdened in the way that perhaps some are concerned about. With
the reassurances that the Minister has given, and as long as she is
prepared to keep her eye on the proceedings, I am happy to withdraw the
amendment at this
stage. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 184
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
185Children’s
Trust
Boards
Mrs.
Miller: I beg to move amendment 190, in
clause 185, page 98, line 31, at
end insert— ‘(2A)
Children’s Trust Boards must seek and take account of the views
of private, voluntary and independent providers of children’s
services when planning and commissioning the provision of
services.’.
The
Chairman: With this we may discuss amendment
191, in
clause 185, page 99, line 33, at
end add— ‘(1A) The
establishing authority and their relevant partners must make payments
to be made to the Children’s Trust Board on a regular basis, as
defined by that Board.’.
Mrs.
Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and
Holderness, who is not able to be with us at this point, summarised
well the Audit Commission’s remarks about children’s
trust boards when he said that to date they were perhaps well-attended
talking shops that are not delivering. They are “talking
shops” because they focus on process rather than improvements in
helping children to reach their potential; too many of those who attend
the meetings, according to the Audit Commission report, do not have the
necessary decision-making powers; and those who can make the decisions
choose not to be as involved in the work of children’s trust
boards as perhaps they need to
be. I
am sure that the Minister is acutely aware that by putting
children’s trust boards in their present form on a statutory
footing, it will not be a magic panacea for solving the problems. There
needs to be real reform, clarity in the role of the bodies and a change
in the way that they work to ensure that they are effective, nowhere
more so than in the role of the private, voluntary and independent
sector. Amendment
190 seeks to put the involvement of the PVI sector on a more formal
footing to recognise the critical role in the commissioning of a range
of services, not just early years educational services but far more
than that. The amendment has been developed with the help of the
National Day Nurseries Association and with comments from the
Children’s Services Development Group. It is not something put
forward by the official
Opposition. In
their comments following the publication of the Bill, the NDNA accepted
that PVI providers may not be full statutory partners but asked the
Government to underline to children’s trusts the significance of
working in partnership with PVI providers who do so much to add value
to early years education, particularly in providing specialist support
for children with disabilities and special needs. As the
Children’s Services Development Group highlighted in their
comments, the front-line delivery for measures laid out in children and
young people’s plans will often be provided by the PVI sector,
whether it is services for children with special needs; residential and
foster care; placements for children in the care of the state;
extending schools provision, and the list goes on.
While it may
not be necessary to place the partnership working with the PVI sector
on a statutory footing in the more formal way that we discussed under
the earlier clauses, there is a need to consider it and to look at it
further. Indeed, many PVI providers would find it difficult to become
true partners in the sense set out previously in the Bill because many
would have difficulty attending the number of meetings involved in
becoming a partner on a children’s trust board. We need to have
a clear pointer to children’s trust boards indicating that the
PVI sector is absolutely key, particularly when planning for the
future, and that is not just for the implementation of plans that have
been put forward, but also for plans that have been developed for the
future provision of services.
There is a
useful provision in section 8 of the Childcare Act 2006 relating to the
general functions of local authorities, which are set out in part 1 of
that Act, and it promotes a notion that, in securing sufficient
early-years provision in education, local authorities should first seek
partnerships with existing PVI providers, rather than directly setting
up their own maintained provision.
Perhaps a similar approach by children’s trust boards would help
to recognise the significant role the sector has to play in improving
our children’s life chances. Amendment 191
touches on the issue of pooled funding, and there are clear provisions
in the Bill enabling children’s trust boards to improve services
by pooling their funding, and that is a move in the right direction
that will hopefully overcome the technical accounting problems that
some children’s trust boards have experienced to date. If
children’s trust boards are to be the success that we all need
them to be, surely there must be some surety in those funding streams.
I have heard examples of money being pooled, or at least the feeling
was that money had been pooled by several organisations, only to find
some way down the line that that money was not as forthcoming as had
perhaps been agreed. It would be helpful to have a provision in the
Bill indicating that a continual stream of funding is a good thing and
something that the children’s trust boards should think about. I
look forward to the Minister’s response because I think that the
amendments would add greatly to the way the Bill will
work.
Annette
Brooke: I would like to comment first on children’s
trust boards, which have now been put on a statutory basis. I cannot
find a clear definition anywhere in the Bill for their primary
function. One reference to children’s trust boards, which was
possibly in regulation, mentioned that they relate to improving the
well-being of children and young people in that area. With something so
vague, it is difficult to measure outcomes. My general question is
whether there is a clear definition on their primary function that goes
beyond well-being and the five Every Child Matters outcomes so that we
really are clear about what they are trying to achieve.
With regard
to amendment 190, I recall having a great discussion during the passage
of the Children Act 2004 on the role of the voluntary sector. Looking
back, I cannot see that that was included. Our discussion at the time
was about the voluntary sector not only being consulted within the
partnership, informally if not formally, but putting its services into
the pool. I cannot seem to relate the discussions we had all those
years ago with the Bill before us today. I obviously have sympathy for
both amendments, but that is because I cannot see what we discussed
previously. It makes a great deal of sense to ensure that the views of
voluntary and independent providers are taken into account. As the hon.
Member for Basingstoke has pointed out, there is a clear statement
within the 2006 Act on the provision of child care, taking on board
that important
sector. Looking
at amendment 191, I am less certain that it is necessary, given the
indicative guidance that the Minister sent us. In fact, the guidance
clearly identifies monetary payments, non-monetary resources, pooling
of resources and so
on. However,
I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady is making, that when it comes
down to it, money from the health sector must be made available. I am
not quite sure how we can put more pressure on so that, for example,
speech therapy, which may well be the responsibility of the health
sector, is made available, and money for respite care for severely
disabled children is made available. That pot of money comes from the
health sector as opposed to respite care money more
generally, which comes from children’s services. It is important
in a host of areas to ensure that the health money is
available. I
am slightly doubtful about the amendment, but I certainly agree with
what it is trying to
do. 8.15
pm
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: First, a couple of general points. The hon.
Member for Basingstoke said that the children’s trust board
could be a talking shop, in view of remarks made in the Audit
Commission
report.
Mrs.
Miller: No, it was not
me.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: No, it was the hon. Member for Beverley and
Holderness, in response to the Audit Commission report. As a result of
the changes made by the Bill, there is a definite job for the
children’s trust board to do, which is to develop, review and
monitor the children and young people’s plans. That will
probably mitigate them just being talked about, because there is a
definite job to
do. In
response to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, well-being
is defined in the 2006 Act as relating
to “physical
and mental health and emotional well-being...protection from harm
and neglect...education, training and recreation...the
contribution made by them to society...social and economic
well-being.” That
is also in the Children Act
2004. On
amendment 195, we agree that the private, voluntary and independent
sectors should be fully engaged in the strategic planning and
commissioning of services by partners represented on the
children’s trust board. Their unique insight into what services
are needed to improve outcomes, especially for hard-to-reach groups, is
essential. The
flexibility to include bodies from those sectors as partners in the
children's trust already exists under section 10(1)(c) of the 2004 Act,
and this is a power that we reinforce in statutory guidance. Statutory
guidance already states that PVI providers must be represented at all
levels of the children’s trust’s activities. It also
urges local authorities to have regard to the views of PVI providers,
and local authorities must have a good reason to depart from the
guidance. The
supplementary guidance produced to accompany the new provisions in the
Bill, which we have shared with the Committee, will emphasise the
importance of the involvement of the PVI sectors in the
children’s trust board itself. We believe that that is the best
way to overcome the practical and legal difficulties inherent in trying
to capture the array of private, voluntary and independent providers in
primary
legislation. I
understand the sentiments behind amendment 191. Local partners have
sometimes been reluctant to use their current powers to pool budgets
and other resources, often due to uncertainty and a fear of excessive
bureaucracy. That is a shame, because where it has been done, it has
worked well. For example, pooled resources are often used to support
joint commissioning for teenage pregnancy
programmes.
The clause
aims to simplify the process of pooling funds but without adding the
element of compulsion that is proposed by the amendment. We believe
that the principle of consent remains key to effective partnership
working and to the success of the children's trust. It would also be
difficult to force the members of the board to give up part of their
budgets to be pooled for shared projects which either did not fit in
with their individual duties or responsibilities, or which they had not
agreed to participate in. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member
for Basingstoke will withdraw the
amendment.
Mrs.
Miller: Again, I thank the Minister for her response. I am
glad that she understands the point that I am making with amendment
191, particularly the need to have pooled funding to make
children’s trust boards work. She is right that it is difficult
to legislate for that but unless we have full funding we will not see
the improvement in services that we all want. She seems assured that
the provisions in the Bill cut the bureaucracy associated with pooled
funding. However, I am not as confident as she is that that will
happen. Perhaps, with her words of understanding, I will withdraw my
amendment.
As for
amendment 190, the Minister has offered some reassurance to the
Committee. However, I am not sure how reassuring it is to say that
provisions are already available through the Childcare Act 2006 to
ensure that the PVI sector is involved. Clearly, the sector has not
been as involved as it wants to be. That is why organisations such as
the National Day Nurseries Association and the Children’s
Services Development Group have come forward and been vocal on this
issue. I am less reassured on that matter, and would like to press the
amendment to a
vote. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
38] Question
accordingly negatived.
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move amendment 368, in
clause 185, page 100, line 40, at
end insert— ‘(4A)
Regulations under this section must specify
that— (a) a children and
young people’s plan deal with transport and travel
matters; (b) a
Children’s Trust Board consult the relevant local transport
authority.’. It
is possible that paragraph (b) will be picked up in the indicative
guidance, but I want to expand on paragraph (a), which is important.
This is a probing amendment
and is designed to seek assurance from the Government that transport
will feature in the children and young people’s plan. It is
important to have links with the local transport authority. When we
talk about local transport planning, we are referring to public bus,
rail travel, community transport, walking or cycling. Transport is an
integral part of children and young people’s lives, enabling
them to access a range of services, facilities and experiences that
will help them to achieve the five Every Child Matters
outcomes. If one asks
young people what the biggest issues are that they want to talk about
and they want improvements on, it is always public transport.
Obviously, children and young people face such a large number of
barriers to travel, including safety, cost and availability in my area,
accessibility and attitude to those providing the services.
Interestingly, we have been talking about school travel and transport
for 14 to 19 education and positive activities, so we are looking to
ensure that the whole Bill takes that really important approach.
Partnership is important, because it involves all aspects of
children’s lives and certainly affects all the five outcomes
from Every Child Matters.
Importantly,
if transport were in the CYPP regulations, there would be a
co-ordinated approach to children and young people’s travel and
ensure that transport was a primary consideration. By increasing
transport charges for young people, local authorities often make
decisions quite to the contrary of what is environmentally desirable.
It is also important to develop greater partnership-working across
children’s services and other relevant local authority
functions. The Minister may reply, “Well, local authorities have
a local transport plan,” but I want services joined up, because
my experience is that transport thinks quite differently from
children’s services. When I pursued inquiries, I was told,
“That’s transport,” but that is not how it should
be; services should be integrated.
We should
also give children and young people a greater voice in influencing
transport planning. They have great ideas about what they want and, if,
as a consequence, a local authority and its partners were to come up
with some innovative solutions, such as blue bus services from villages
and special ticketing, that would be all to the good. So, I hope that
the Minister can reassure us that this matter will not be a separate
item in the local transport plan, but will be pulled into the children
and young people’s plan.
| 
