Mrs.
Miller: Establishing children’s trust boards as a
statutory body is important, and their performance to date merits our
discussions to try to ensure that as we move forward they can do a
better job. It is disappointing that the Government chose to put
important proposals on children’s centres, nursery funding and
the early years foundation stage in a Bill that is predominately about
other areas of education. It has meant that the debate on those matters
has been overshadowed and curtailed. There was not really an
opportunity in the evidence sessions to involve a number of witnesses
who perhaps would have liked to have contributed on those
issues.
In this stand
part debate I would like to raise three specific points that we have
not covered: the relationship between children’s trust boards
and other local strategic
organisations; the importance of giving young people a voice in
proceedings; and the importance of ensuring the strategic involvement
of health in the work of children’s trust
boards. First,
taking the issue of how children’s trust boards relate to other
local strategic organisations, there was very little in the
consultation to clarify the relationship between the boards and the
plethora of organisations that appear to operate within a community.
Issues around the structure of children’s trusts and local
safeguarding boards were detailed in Lord Laming’s most recent
report, issued in March, particularly the idea that local safeguarding
children boards should report to the children’s trust. The
Government have said that they will adopt his report in full, and I
would like to hear from the Minister today exactly how that measure
will affect children’s trust
boards. The
Audit Commission noted that cross working among organisations can
create complexity, ambiguity and confusion. It particularly focused on
problems in the relationship between local strategic partnerships and
children’s trust boards, and recommended, in a lot of detail,
how the roles could be integrated and made more consistent. Have the
Government adopted the proposals? It is not clear from the Bill that
that has happened. Should it be made clearer in the Bill, so that there
is a clear template of operation for organisations on the ground? Will
it be tackled in regulations? Could the Minister bring the Committee up
to date on the Government’s thinking?
Secondly,
involving young people in the development of children and young
people’s plans is important. Obviously, this is an opportunity
to reiterate importance of consulting young people on the plans when
they are developed and the importance of ensuring that those plans are
readily available to them when finalised. I and, I am sure, other hon.
Members on the Committee have been contacted by organisations such as
Participation Works about that. Can the Minister reassure the Committee
that that matter will be addressed? If children and young
people’s plans are to be more effective, as Lord Laming’s
report suggested needs to happen, surely the Government need to
advocate the explicit involvement of young people.
Finally, it
is important to ensure the strategic involvement of health in the work
of children’s trust boards. For many of us on the Committee,
that issue is the elephant in the room when it comes to
children’s trust boards. All of us have experienced, either
directly in our constituencies or indirectly, the problems that
organisations can have in involving health effectively.
Children’s trust boards have had that problem as well. We can
have all the organisational plans in the world, but if the most
important strategic partner—health—is not fully
supportive, fully engaged and ready to put its money where its mouth
is, children’s trust boards will not succeed.
How can the
Minister assure us today that health is fully engaged, that the right
people will come to the table and that the chief executive of every PCT
will see children’s trust boards as something that they should
prioritise?
Annette
Brooke: I shall be brief and, I hope, not repetitive. The
issue is about making children’s trust boards statutory. I have
to comment that making something
statutory is not necessarily going to improve partnership
working—the will on the ground has to be there.
Children’s trusts are the only in option in town because Lord
Laming’s review, which was a good job considering how little
time he had, looked at the existing structure rather than outside it
where more necessary change might be needed. As I continually point
out, adult social services are outside the loop and need to be more
central because they work with
families. On
the basis that making children’s trust boards statutory will
probably not do any harm, we have to proceed with it. The Audit
Commission’s report showed very clearly how patchy the situation
is with children’s trusts. That situation arose because the
trusts did things any way that they liked and never undertook a single
model, or even a group of models. Many different ways have been
undertaken, and it is now a matter of honing in and spreading best
practice that really works. We have been trying to implement that over
a long period and, according to the Audit Commission, have not made
much progress. What will the Minister do to spread some of the good
practice identified by the commission’s report? Different
authorities have been handling their partnerships in different ways,
which is complicated, and those authorities have to face up to actually
modelling their own particular structures to make this work. That does
not necessarily have to be dictated, but there needs to be leadership
to ensure that everything
works. I
must also mention health, because it has clearly been the biggest
stumbling block. It is uncertain whether it has been holding on to
scarce money, and it is a problem because the Government are setting
targets for primary care trusts, which, so they tell us, have not had
funds to put into the pool, that differ from those set for
children’s trusts. I hope that the children’s health
strategy will make a difference, and we need to ensure that there is
leadership in place to make it work. I also emphasise the need for full
participation that involves children and young people in particular,
not just articulate groups or a select few; we need to get the views of
a cross-section of children and young
people.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I will first respond to my hon. Friend the
Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, who talked about
consultation in a general way. There was a three-month consultation on
the legislative proposals during the summer, and we will of course
consult formally on the guidance and regulations in relation to the
Bill and ensure that the Local Government Association and others are
included in
that. We
will return to the issue of warning notices to schools and local
education authorities when we come to part
10.
Mrs.
Hodgson: In case I did not make myself clear, I did not
mean the consultation prior to the Bill, but the consultation once the
Bill has been through Parliament and become law. In other words,
ongoing
consultation.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: That is why I am confused. My hon. Friend
talked about consultation with local authorities, but they will
actually be the driving force of the children’s trust boards
because it is the director of children’s services responsibility
to set up those boards.
Mrs.
Hodgson: Will elected members have a position on the
boards?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: It will be for local authorities to decide
whether they want an elected member on, consulting with or giving
advice to their
board. The
hon. Member for Basingstoke claims that the Bill concentrates far too
much on other aspects of education and that the issue of
children’s centres has been sidelined. The Bill is actually, in
part, about increasing local ownership and the integration of education
and services to children. The devolution of £7 billion of
funding to local authorities and the creation of a single point of
accountability for all children and young people, from nought to 19,
was one measure of that, and what we are doing with children’s
trust boards and children and young person’s plans is another.
To use a word that we heard earlier, there is a coherence to the Bill,
even if the hon. Lady does not agree.
9
pm We
have a duty to make co-operation arrangements to involve
children’s well-being and children’s trusts in section 10
of the Children Act 2004. Since then, we have made significant progress
in developing the ability of partners to work together. As hon. Members
have said, progress overall has been uneven and the provisions in the
clause are aimed at rectifying that unevenness.
We want to
embed the proven good practice that we have seen around the country
into all children’s trusts. Having an effective
children’s trust board is important. Many children’s
trusts already have that, but the clause reinforces that by placing the
children’s trust board on a firmer statutory footing. It also
gives the children’s trust board the responsibility for
producing, publishing, reviewing and implementing—looking at
outcomes of the children and young person’s plan.
Current
legislation already requires most local areas to have a strategic
overarching children and young person’s plan that sets out how
the partners will improve outcomes. That responsibility currently lies
with the local authority alone. We think that placing responsibility
for the plan with the board will be a power boost to local partnership
working.
There were a
few questions about the involvement of children and young people. My
hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West and the
hon. Member for Basingstoke both spoke about that, and we place great
value on hearing the views of children and young people about the
issues that affect them. The children and young person’s plan is
currently the responsibility of the local authority. Regulations
already require local authorities to consult children and young people
when drawing up their plan, and the guidance suggests ways of doing
that through youth parliaments and councils, for example, school
councils or children in care councils. Those have already proved to be
an effective means of communicating the necessity of engaging with
children and young people to local areas.
There was a
specific question relating to local safeguarding children’s
boards, and the recommendations of Lord Laming. As the hon. Member for
Basingstoke said, we have accepted Lord Laming’s recommendations
on that point, but we need further work and consideration, and to have
more consultation.
Health is of
prime importance and a key issue. That is why the PCT was originally a
relevant partner. Increasingly, primary care trusts must work with
local authorities to deliver their own priorities. Performance
management systems are converging, and they must complete a joint
strategic needs assessment. The NHS operating framework 2008-09
specifically identifies child health as a priority. As the hon. Lady
said, there is only so much that we can do through legislation, and the
proof of this provision will be in how people work together. I am keen
for us to use examples of best practice around the country to make
children’s trust boards and children and young person’s
plans work, and to improve outcomes for all children and young people
in the
country. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
185 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
186Arrangements
for children’s
centres
Mrs.
Miller: I beg to move amendment 403, in clause 186,
page 102, line 31, at end insert
‘alongside support for the wider family designed to
improve outcomes for
children.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment 405, in clause 186, page 104, leave
out lines 1 and
2. Amendment
406, in clause 186, page 104, leave out
lines 8 to
10.
Mrs.
Miller: This is another important clause. It puts Sure
Start children’s centres on a statutory footing. The amendments
tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends seek to strengthen the
role of Sure Start children’s centres in supporting families.
One of the biggest strengths—although in some quarters they
would say the biggest weakness—of Sure Start, is that it is
different in every community. The concept behind Sure Start
children’s centres is that they can grow to meet the needs of
each community they serve. Amendment 403 is designed to ensure that
they can continue to do that after the Bill progresses through the
House, and that they retain the flexibility that we in the Conservative
party believe is their
lifeblood. One
of the downsides of putting services like Sure Start children’s
centres in legislation is that they must be closely defined. What they
can do and, by implication, what they cannot do must be set down. In
drafting the remit of Sure Start children’s centres, the
Minister has been clear about what they must provide and that they must
focus on early childhood services, as defined in section 2 of the
Childcare Act 2006. Proposed new section 5A(2) defines those who will
receive the services
as “parents,
prospective parents and young
children”. That
tight definition of users and services was not the starting point for
most children’s
centres. Action
for Children is concerned that the Bill must ensure that there is a
balance between the core offer and responding freely to local needs. To
make that point, I
will describe one of its useful case studies. The Kate’s Hill and
Sledmere children’s centre is located in a very ethnically
diverse community. A number of children there spoke little or no
English when they started school and many families were isolated.
Action for Children identified that to help the children, it must first
help the parents. It launched an early-start English programme for
speakers of other languages at the centre to help children and their
parents learn English. By combining English with a focus on the
children, the course enabled the team to reach families that they would
otherwise have found difficult to
reach. Another
is example is the Carousel children’s centre, which is run by
4Children. It meets the needs of children in the community effectively.
It has developed to include after-school provision and the support of a
pupil referral unit. It also undertakes extensive intergenerational
work to help the old and the young to learn from each other. That
successful children’s centre is leading the way in showing how
Sure Start children’s centres must support the wider family if
they are to improve the start in life for some of the youngest members
of the
community. The
examples that I have given show how the wider family approach can help
to support the most disadvantaged children. The concern raised by
Action for Children and 4Children was also raised in the National
Institute of Adult Continuing Education briefing for Committee members,
which legitimately identified the need for children’s centres to
continue to play an active role in adult learning. NIACE clearly feels
that the Bill may preclude that in the future. As we know, helping a
child to get the best start in life is not just about the child. It is
about the broader family; it is about mum, dad and the siblings.
Whether the siblings are teenagers or under-fives, they are just as
important in the life of the child. Grandparents also have a critical
role. Flexibility
is needed, as the Government said in their guidance on the planning and
management of Sure Start. Their own documentation says that no single
model will suit all circumstances. However, it is not clear that
broader support will be permissible in children’s centres under
the Bill. Will the Minister confirm whether the projects I have talked
about could fall foul of the tighter
definition? Amendment
403 attempts to redress the balance by enabling local authorities to
strengthen the whole family through Sure Start children’s
centres. Amendments 405 and 406 relate to provisions on consulting on
changes in the way that a Sure Start centre is run or on the closure of
a centre. There are barely three pages in the Bill given to enshrining
the concept of Sure Start children’s centres into legislation,
yet a sizeable part of those pages focuses on the need to consult on
changes. Surely, a Sure Start children’s centre that is
delivering a bespoke service for a community will have a clear
understanding of its community needs based on probably strong data as
well as consultation. While members of the community can give us their
views, we also need to make sure those views are backed by hard,
substantive evidence. The requirement to consult on every significant
change to the services delivered, which is clearly defined as
every
“change in the
manner in which, or the location at which”
a service is delivered,
would put an intolerable burden on to children’s centres, taking
management time away from improving front-line services. I would go
further and say it could hamper innovation and the ability of
children’s centres to respond quickly to the changing needs of
the communities in which we all live. The amendments we have put
forward would remove the need to consult on operational changes but,
importantly, retain the need to consult on any
closures. | 
