Schools: Pupil Premium
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Nash
The right reverend Prelate is quite right to point out the problems with rural deprivation; it is similar to coastal deprivation. There are particular schemes that schools follow: mentoring; systemic feedback; much more involvement of parents; early intervention, particularly using the better teachers; and peer tutoring. Much can be learnt from groups like Ark, whose academy in Portsmouth, for instance, which is in a classic coastal town, has improved results in four years from 24% to 68%.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister himself just said, Ofsted has a crucial role in improving the standards of attainment for the most disadvantaged pupils. Does he therefore agree that its effectiveness depends on it being a very strong and independent organisation? Does he therefore regret the political interference of the Secretary of State in the reappointment of the current chair of Ofsted, who by all accounts has done an excellent job?
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that this is not just about 12 and 13 year-olds; I have seen primary schoolchildren making sexual advances to younger children and girls. I have seen primary children sending and looking at the most sexually explicit messages that you could imagine.
We spend a lot of time arguing about which kings and queens we should be studying in history, yet we seem to just push this issue aside. It is important that we equip our young children with the skills to deal with the social and emotional problems that they are going to face in their lives. It is important that they know about relationships, loneliness and isolation, and that they know how to deal with being bullied, or indeed with being bullies themselves. Other things, such as how to manage their finances when they get older, internet safety and child abuse, are also hugely important. As a society, though, we pick up the problems but almost ignore how we can deal with them.
Sadly, passing an amendment like this, as good as it is, is not completely the solution. You can pass such an amendment but we must also get quality training for our teachers in PSHE and sex and relationship education, and leadership in schools that does not look at this as a little tick-box exercise and say, “Well, we’ve done that, we’ve carried out our duties and if Ofsted come along we can show them a bit of paperwork here”. I have seen that happen far too often. It is also about inspectors, when they go into schools, properly ensuring that PSHE is being taught. We as a society have to understand and appreciate that this is probably the most important thing that we can do to support young people in schools.
On the website of the PSHE Association, which is a very good site and well worth going to, a question that I constantly ask is highlighted: “Do academies and free schools have to teach PSHE?”. The answer on the website is no. Why are we not giving as much importance to ensuring that all our schools, whether they be academies, maintained schools or free schools, are teaching PSHE? The amendment just talks about maintained schools; it does not mention academies. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, when he was—no, I am not going to say that.
Labour introduced academies and I understand why they did so; they wanted, if you like, to give a sort of uniqueness to them by saying, “Okay, you can have more control over your curriculum”. However, that has suddenly now led to a huge growth in academies—some 53% of our secondary schools are academies—so half our schools will not be bound by any amendment that is carried. We—again, as a society—should say that a narrow national curriculum should say, as it does on the label, that it is national and it is a curriculum for all. I hope that we will give some thought to ensuring that this involves all schools—even, dare I say, independent schools as well.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
Perhaps the noble Lord has not noticed that subsection (7)(d) of the new clause proposed in the amendment says that the schools to which it would apply includes academies.
Lord Storey
I would need to know whether that overrode current legislation. I suspect that it does not, although someone is nodding and saying that it does.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I am sure that the Minister will confirm this, but legally free schools are academies.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)
My Lords, the previous speaker has made very plain that the ingenuity of young people is very considerable. I admire greatly his technical knowledge and understanding of the issues before us now. However, I draw attention to a very important point made by the noble Baroness: that it seems appropriate in the non-internet sphere to have regulations to do what we can; yet the ingenuity of young people is huge there as well. Big brothers buy cigarettes or alcohol for small brothers. There are ways of pretending that you are 16 when you are only 14 and a half; huge ingenuity can be shown. If regulation is important, as we accept in the law in the non-internet sphere, then surely there is a case for considering it in the sphere of the internet. The benefits of it are huge, but the downsides are massive as well, and I look for consistency between law dealing with non-internet activity and with the internet.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I, too, speak in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, which is also in my name, and congratulate her on encompassing in the amendment the main elements of her Online Safety Bill. I shall be brief, given the time, but the fact that I am being brief does not mean that I do not think that this is an incredibly important amendment, which I support strongly.
We have heard in this and previous debates about the growing awareness of, and concern about, the impact on young people of unfettered access to pornographic and other adult material. The noble Baroness outlined the measures in the amendment which, among other things, would introduce a mandatory requirement for default filtering to restrict access to adult content, an age-verification process and further regulation by Ofcom. Those are very important measures.
I accept that there are legitimate arguments about what filtering and age-verification can achieve, but I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the amendment contains measures that would be either futile or impossible to achieve. He will know that they are already being achieved to a degree by some ISPs in some circumstances. The problem is that that level of good practice is not being achieved consistently or universally, but very imperfectly.
I suspect, given our debates so far, that most people across the House would support the measures in the amendment. The Government and, perhaps, one or two others, may argue that the voluntary approach is either more effective or preferable or both. I understand the argument in favour of self-regulation—at least in trying that first. Under the Labour Government, I chaired the internet safety sub-group for a while. It is appropriate to try self-regulation first, but I am clear that although it is good that the Government have built on that approach and recognised the importance of the issue, it is time to put these measures on a statutory footing.
There are three main reasons why. One is to maximise compliance. It is absolutely clear that the voluntary code has already failed in some instances. Many Members will be aware of the cases of Tesco and BlackBerry, which are very big providers. The key factor in both those examples was that the providers themselves and the whole industry knew what was going on, but nobody said anything about it, and Ofcom was none the wiser because it has no powers. We are entitled to conclude from those failures that we cannot trust the industry to regulate itself effectively.
Secondly, we need independent regulation. It cannot be right that, under the current voluntary arrangements, each company itself decides how it will classify what is adult content—so different companies can make different decisions about the same content—and which system of age-verification it will adopt. That means not only that there is significant variation in the age-verification process between companies but that the system adopted is weak.
For example, the big ISPs have refused to apply the age-verification process at the point when someone is trying to access the adult content; they will apply it only at the point when someone wants to open an account. They say that they will send an e-mail to the account holder when someone is trying to gain access but, of course, parents are not looking at those e-mails every second of the day. I wonder why the industry is allowed to adopt much weaker measures in relation to children than, say, the gambling industry.
The third reason is enforcement. Without statutory regulation, there is no effective enforcement. As a number of people have said today, these are child protection measures and ought to be backed by powers of enforcement vested in a public body such as Ofcom to protect consumers, and in particular children, in the same way—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland—as offline child protection measures.
Later in the Bill, the Government have announced welcome additional measures to protect children from smoking by banning the proxy purchasing of cigarettes and the selling of e-cigarettes to children. The Government are not saying that people can decide for themselves whether a prospective purchaser of those products is a child; the onus will be on retailers to find out whether those children are under age and, if they provide to children, they will be prosecuted. I think that we need the same approach to these online products. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment, which is very much needed.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for tabling this amendment and for noble Lords’ cogent argument. I am aware that the amendment is drawn from the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill, which received its Second Reading on 6 December. I thank her for the tributes that she paid to the Government for the progress that has been made.
I have read the proceedings of that Second Reading debate and, out of interest, I read the debate about the internet in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, on 16 January. It is interesting to contrast them. Those two debates show both the downside and the upside of the internet, but they both show how utterly astonishing is the speed of change. That is a point we need to bear clearly in mind.
The debate on the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was passionate, committed and informed. We all agree, as my noble friend Lord Gardiner, made clear, on our huge concern for the issues that we are discussing. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and my noble friend Lady Benjamin have made very clear the dangerous implications of exposure to inappropriate online material. We share the common objective to make sure that children and young people are as safe as possible when they are operating online. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, we support the principles of the amendment, rather than its measures, as she put it.
I read with great interest the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to the debate on that Bill on 6 December. Responding for the Labour Front Bench, he showed great sympathy, as one would expect, for what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was arguing, but he noted,
“it needs more thinking”,
and especially,
“to make it fit for purpose and to guard against unintended consequences”.—[Official Report, 6/12/13, col. 532.]
He rightly put his finger on our shared desire to counter the risks of the internet, and the difficulty of ensuring that we do so effectively.
My noble friend Lord Lucas has pointed out some of the technological changes which already pose challenges to the way the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has drawn up her proposals. This field is moving fast, and new social media emerge all the time. It is for that reason that we believe that the best way forward is to challenge the industry, which knows this field best, to engage and to take responsibility. I emphasise strongly that we do not rule out legislation, but right now we believe that the approach that we are taking is likely to be the most effective. An industry-led, self-regulatory approach will have most impact, allow greatest flexibility for innovation and is likely to be faster than any regulatory measures. Legislation can rarely adapt and change quickly enough to respond to the constantly evolving online environment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 53ZAC standing in my name and I shall speak in support of Amendment 53A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and others.
There are government measures in this Bill that allow for the establishment of childminder agencies. These are organisations that in future will be responsible for the registration, support and inspection of individual childminders who register with an agency. We had an extensive debate in Grand Committee, especially about the proposal that Ofsted would no longer inspect all individual childminders registered with an agency but instead inspect the agency’s procedures and a sample of individual childminders.
Since Grand Committee the Minister has sent me a helpful letter outlining the experience in Canada as well as some background on two of the agency pilots. I shall not rehearse the arguments that we made in Grand Committee and I have taken on board the comments that the Minister made in his letter. However, I still feel that moving away from universal inspection for every childminder at some point needs stronger safeguards than there are in the Bill. That is the purpose of our two amendments. They do not seek to frustrate the Government’s purpose in any way. They are about safeguards.
Amendment 53ZAB would give the chief inspector the power to inspect any individual childminder at any time—that is, any childminder registered with an agency in addition to the inspection of the agency, or the sample for which the Bill provides. This is a permissive amendment, not a prescriptive one. It simply means that if the inspector has any concerns about a childminder or agency, the inspector can go in and inspect that childminder at any time. Amendment 53ZAC would also ensure that over a period of time to be prescribed in regulation every childminder would at some point be inspected by Ofsted.
The reasons we need these extra safeguards for parents are twofold. First, we cannot and should not rely on Ofsted’s inspections of the agencies and their procedures to assure us and, more importantly, parents that every agency is conducting thorough and valid inspections of its childminders. Ofsted’s inspections of agencies will be desktop and paper-based. They will be about process and will be the kind of inspection that saw Ofsted rate Haringey’s children’s social care services good when baby Peter Connelly was killed. It is crucial that the validity of the agency’s judgments is tested by direct inspections of childminders by Ofsted, not just by inspection of a sample of childminders. Secondly, every childminder needs to know that even if they are registered with an agency, Ofsted can and will inspect them at some point over time. These two together are the minimum safeguards necessary to ensure, first, that agencies are more likely to inspect properly the childminders who are registered with them and, secondly, that childminders maintain good standards. Otherwise it is not impossible that a childminder registered with a not-very-thorough agency who happens to escape inspection through the Ofsted sampling process may allow standards to fall to poor or dangerous levels with potentially serious consequences for children. These are important amendments. They are predominantly permissive. They do not frustrate the Government but they do build in some extra safeguards for parents.
I also support Amendment 53A and the related government amendments which incorporate the inspection of agencies’ quality assurance mechanisms by Ofsted and require it to report on them. That seems to be something that Ofsted should be doing anyway, and if it needs to be spelt out in legislation, I certainly do not oppose that. I beg to move.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, and my noble friends Lady Walmsley, Lady Tyler, Lady Sharp and Lord Storey for raising these important issues and bringing their experience to this matter.
The purpose of the Ofsted inspection of a childminder agency is to hold it to account for the quality of care its childminders provide, in order to deliver the best outcomes for children. Last week, Ofsted published its consultation on childminder agency inspections. This set out its proposals to ensure that Ofsted regulation of agencies will support quality improvement and will be centred on the needs of young children and their parents.
A key feature of the childminder agency model is that it is the agency rather than Ofsted that is responsible for the monitoring and quality assurance of the childminders who are registered with it. As part of the inspection of an agency, the Bill already gives Ofsted the power to inspect the individual childminders who are registered with an agency. Ofsted plans to use this to undertake sample inspections of childminders registered with agencies, which is comparable to the arrangements that already exist for Ofsted inspection of voluntary adoption agencies and independent fostering agencies.
We want to empower agencies to improve childminder quality. Requiring direct Ofsted inspection of agency-registered childminders could weaken the incentive for agencies to be responsible for improving the quality of childminders registered with them. We intend that agencies will help remove some of the burdens that childminders currently face. We do not want to complicate the quality assurance regime for agency childminders by making them subject to two separate inspections by both the agency and Ofsted.
However, Ofsted will retain its existing powers of entry to any registered childcare premises to determine whether providers are complying with requirements imposed by the Childcare Act 2006. Therefore, if there are concerns about an agency-registered childminder, Ofsted will have the power to go in and investigate, as my noble friend Lady Walmsley said. Indeed, we envisage that childminders registered with agencies will have much more contact, including more frequent home visits, than childminders currently have with Ofsted. Under the current Ofsted arrangements, a childcare provider might have to wait up to four years between inspections.
I am sympathetic to the concerns of my noble friend Lady Walmsley about the scope of Ofsted inspection of agencies, and how such inspections relate to the quality of care and education offered to children. Ofsted intends that inspection reports of agencies will consider how a childminder agency can assure itself of the quality of its registered childminders. While this was always our policy intent, I can see, for the avoidance of doubt and to make it absolutely explicit, that it would be helpful to reflect this in the Bill. I have therefore brought forward an amendment to place a requirement for this in the Bill. The amendment will require Ofsted to report on the effectiveness of a childminder agency’s arrangements for assuring itself of the quality of its registered childminders, and of the quality of experience offered to children. I hope that this gives my noble friend the reassurance she sought, and I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and thank other noble Lords who contributed to the debate. I will briefly make two points. First, inspection of voluntary adoption agencies is directly comparable to the inspection of childminder agencies in the sense that with the former, the situation of the child in an adoptive situation is much more open and is scrutinised by a wide range of people. When a child is placed for adoption, the suitability of adoptive parents who have been selected and prepared by the agency is ultimately overseen by the court and will have been seen by many other professionals concerned with the child’s welfare. When young children are in a childminding situation—and we are talking about very young children—nobody, apart from the childminder, sees what goes on there day to day. It is a very closed situation.
That is why I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, because this is one of the most important situations, which should be subjected to the highest level of inspection that we can possibly muster. Things can happen in that situation, and the quality of what is provided can be poor. That is more likely to be an issue in areas where childminders are in short supply and where children are disadvantaged in a range of other ways. Therefore, it is of great concern that we may be going in a direction in which there is less scrutiny of the situations of very young children in a childminding situation than of almost any other area of children’s social care and children’s services.
However, I note the Minister’s responses. I am also concerned that what may be driving this, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, is that Ofsted feels that it cannot manage this. The level of resource is driving the policy; we are not being clear about what we should be trying to achieve for young children by way of inspection and ensuring quality. That remains of great concern to me for the reasons I have outlined, but I accept that the Government will not move from their position at the moment, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 53C, which is also in this group and which would leave out Clause 76 from the Bill. Clause 76 would repeal the duty, under Section 11 of the Childcare Act 2006, of local authorities to undertake and publish regular assessments of the sufficiency of childcare in their area. This would, effectively, neutralise the general duty under Section 6 of that Act to ensure that there is sufficient childcare for working parents.
In Grand Committee, we rehearsed the reasons why this is very short-sighted and I regret that the Minister has not listened to those arguments. In his letter to me about this, the noble Lord simply reiterated his position without taking into account any of the points we made. I will not rehearse them all but I will set out the main arguments. First, the Government’s consultation, on which this proposal was based, was inadequate: its findings were inconclusive and, at best, one-sided. Contrary to the Government’s claim, the consultation did not show support for removing the Section 11 duty, but rather for the need for revised guidance and a real effort by the Government to help all local authorities implement the duty as well as the best already are doing.
As I said in Grand Committee, I agree that some action is necessary. There are shortages of childcare in many areas and in relation to specific needs such as parents working unsocial hours or those with disabled children. Although some local authorities are doing very well, many are not. They are all using different definitions and methodologies, they have different action plans or poor action plans, and so on. However this could, and should, be addressed, not by repealing the duty itself but by revising the guidance, developing a consistent measure of childcare demand and a framework for action plans which the five-year review in 2009 showed was necessary.
The Government may say they have revised the guidance but they have not done so in a way that addresses those issues. They have reduced 70 pages of guidance, which I agree is far too long and bureaucratic, to fewer than two pages of sketchy and vague requirements. This sends a clear message to local authorities that this important duty does not matter to the Government any more. Repealing Clause 76 would drive a coach and horses through the sufficiency duty itself, as the position in Scotland demonstrates. There is no duty there, just statutory guidance similar to that which the Government are now proposing for England. In Scotland, one-third of the authorities do not collect adequate data. Scotland has only half of the proportion of private and voluntary providers because they do not work to stimulate the market and promote new childcare providers in the way the best English authorities have done.
A much better alternative would be to replace the three-year assessment with an annual one; improve the guidance by simplifying it and include some frameworks for consistent supply and demand measures. Local authorities should be required to produce action plans and their performance against those plans should be monitored. This is not rocket science: it is the way performance is driven up.
Finally, on Clause 76, will the Minister explain why the Government are neutralising the sufficiency duty in childcare at the same time as they are bringing in a new sufficiency duty in the Care Bill in respect of adult social care? I asked this question in Grand Committee but did not get an answer. It would be good to have one now. I hope the Government will listen, even at this late hour. In the event that they do not, I hope they will accept the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. At least with a review and monitoring we would be able to assess the impact of the changes and look at them again if they end up having the consequences which I fear.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions on this important issue. There is consensus across the House about the importance of making sure that parents have access to good quality, affordable childcare, as we heard during the debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, earlier this month. Changes in demographics and in parents’ behaviour mean that this continues to be an important issue. It is important we see the reform of the statutory assessment duty that we are discussing here in this wider context. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to set that out.
The most important thing for ensuring sufficient childcare is to create the right conditions for growth in supply to happen in every part of the childcare market. To that end, the Government are making it easier for schools to increase their age range to take two year-olds and to offer childcare out of school hours. We are relaxing planning rules so that nurseries can expand more easily. The aim is that childminder agencies will make it simpler for people to become childminders, provide training and support, and help parents to access home-based care. Local authorities also will have a very important part to play. They are under statutory duties to ensure that eligible children can access the funded early education entitlement and to ensure that sufficient childcare is available in their areas.
My noble friend Lady Tyler is right that we need an effective means of holding authorities to account for their performance against these statutory duties. In its current form, however, we believe that the sufficiency assessment duty that we are debating is not the most effective way to do this. We remain convinced that it is better for local authorities to be held to account locally for the delivery of their sufficiency duty, and we want parents and council members to have regular information in a helpful format about the sufficiency of childcare in their area.
The childcare sufficiency assessment process does not currently meet these objectives. It seems that the two noble Baronesses who have spoken agree with that. It is too long and technical to be useful to parents and, as it is produced only every three years, it will usually be out of date. Instead, we propose to repeal the duty on local authorities to publish a sufficiency assessment every three years. In its place our statutory guidance already sets out that local authorities should prepare and publish an annual report on the sufficiency of childcare, giving parents more frequent information which is more focused on what they need to know. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said about an annual assessment. This change has been welcomed, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, in terms of it being annual, and these proposals were supported by the majority of respondents to the public consultation. More than 60% of respondents agreed with the repeal of Section 11, with only 10% saying they were not in support of it.
In order to support parents and the public to hold authorities to account, which in many ways is the crux of what both noble Baronesses are saying, I can commit that the Government will explore how we can present data in the clearest and most effective way. We will, for example, continue to monitor parents’ perception of the availability of childcare regionally through the biennial parent surveys.
Turning to the specific issues raised by my noble friend Lady Tyler about assessing the impact of this repeal, we agree entirely with the spirit of her proposal. The Government keep a watching brief on the impact of everything that they do and we are sure that childcare will continue to be high up the political list of priorities. We would support any post-legislative scrutiny of this undertaken by Parliament. There is also the extremely important point about the difficulty that parents who work irregular hours can have in accessing childcare. I can commit that the Government will include this point within revised statutory guidance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, asked a specific point and I am waiting for inspiration which has not yet come to me. I had hoped that it would come while I was speaking. She asked about differences between the provision here and in terms of social care.
Baroness Northover
That is incredibly kind of the noble Baroness. If inspiration does not come, I will be very happy to take her up on that and to write to her. I now hope that my noble friend is willing to withdraw her amendment.
Ofsted: Annual Report 2012-13
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness makes a good point, and I am grateful to her for her work as chair of Ofsted. There are two lessons from the point she made. One is that school-to-school support is the key model. We are focusing the academy programme on a regional, school-to-school cluster basis—whether that involves national chains operating regionally or local schools supporting local schools. Those are the absolute key things that we learn from the London Challenge and the academy focus. It has to be done on a local basis.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, at the same time as publishing his report the inspector also said that grammar schools are acting as a brake on social mobility and there should be no more of them. Do the Government agree with that as well?
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have a suggestion following what the noble Baroness has just said about implementation, but first I must say how pleased I am to see that my noble friend Lord Nash has listened tremendously well and gone away and done something about it. This has been a great example of the way this House works so well behind the scenes. I am very pleased that the blanket statement that all the good stuff in the Bill should not apply to children in custody has been got rid of and that my noble friend the Minister has grasped the opportunity that the Bill gives to put something better in place. Let us see whether we can get it as perfect as we would like to see it.
It occurs to me that it is a very good thing that the responsibility moves back to the home local authority. What we want to see when young people come out of custody and go back to their home local authority is continuity of provision. I know that the Local Government Association has welcomed this provision, but the people actually delivering the services while the young people are in custody are a company, an organisation that has been contracted to deliver that service from outside. They are not the prison authorities. These education services are provided by external organisations under contract. Why should those contracts not always have a proviso within them that says that there is somebody within the organisation with the responsibility of liaising with the home authority to ensure that the EHC plan is delivered, or the assessment is made, whichever is appropriate, and that the services are provided while the young person is in custody? That should be a condition of the contract for delivering education services within the prison. They should be obliged, under their contract, to provide what EHC plans say should be provided. I see no reason why that should not be a condition of winning a contract for providing services within a prison.
My final point is that I am particularly pleased about the duty that is being put on health commissioners to provide services within an EHC plan. I am aware, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has emphasised it on many occasions, that speech and language therapy is much needed by a high percentage of young people in custody. Let us hope that those services will be provided better in future under these new provisions.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 50 along with that of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. The amendment seeks to take Clause 70, which disapplies the provisions of Part 3 to detained young people, out of the Bill and I am pleased that the Government have accepted that. I also support Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
I can be brief because most of the points have been made. I welcome the Government’s recognition that, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, it was unbelievable that the provisions in Part 3 ought not to apply to detained young people and they have come some way, at least, to applying some of the provisions to young people in custody. However, I regret that, compared to the situation that will exist for young people in the community, the provisions in the government amendments are weak and that, as they stand, they will not give detained young people the same rights to and expectations of support as those in the community.
A number of points have been raised and I would like to summarise two significant holes in the proposals in the amendments as they hang together. First, where there is an EHC plan in existence before a young person goes into custody, the amendments will require the home local authority to maintain that plan and be ready to re-implement it on the release of that young person. That is good. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Storey and others have said, the amendments will require the local authority and the healthcare authority to use only their “best endeavours”. That is very different from the duty on the local and healthcare authorities for young people in the community to secure the provision in the EHC plan. That is a big hole and I should be grateful if the Minister would address that issue and say why the Government have diluted the duty on local authorities in respect of detained young people.
The other big gap, which has been addressed in different ways by different contributors to the debate so far, relates to what happens to young people while they are in custody. Most of the amendments address the issue of what happens when the young person is released—they ought to be able to go back home and the home authority should carry on implementing the EHC plan that was in place—but there is nothing in the amendments about what happens in custody. There is a duty on YOIs and custodial institutions to co-operate with the local authority but there is no requirement on the institutions to, for example, identify if a young person has SEN if it has not been identified before they go into custody. This may well be the case because many of them have special educational needs. There is no responsibility on the custodial institution to request an EHC assessment. They can, but there is no requirement for them to do so. There is no responsibility laid on the custodial institutions to take over the responsibilities that would exist for a local authority if that young person was still in the community.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the contractors providing the education, but the responsibility ought to lie with the public sector organisation, or the quasi-public sector organisation in the case of a privatised institution, which is holding these young people. It ought to be its responsibility to address the special educational needs of those young people while they are in custody, working closely, of course, with the home local authority from which a young person has come and to which they will return.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is satisfied that we are nearly there. However, as always, we do not quite seem to be there. The best endeavours clause that we are proposing for home local authorities would place incentives, we believe, in the right place—it is in the home local authority’s best interests to arrange quality provision, as it will remain accountable for the young person while they are detained and when they return from detention.
I remember many late nights in lawyers’ meetings when I have been strongly advised not to give a “best endeavours” undertaking, as it is a very strong under- taking, but to try to get away with a “reasonable endeavours” one. My legal training teaches me to believe that a best-endeavours undertaking is actually a very strong one.
The amendments specifically require the local authority to secure the special educational provision that is specified in the plan. If that is not possible, best endeavours would require home local authorities to do everything they could to arrange the special education provision specified in a young offender’s EHC plan while they are in custody—or provision that corresponds as closely as possible to it or to other appropriate provision. Some provision specified in EHC plans cannot be arranged by local authorities while a person is in custody: most notably and obviously, any requirement for a young person to attend a particular school or college, which of course they cannot attend while detained. It is for this reason that it is necessary to use the term “best endeavours”. It is a technical term that avoids placing a legal duty on local authorities which is impractical or impossible for them to deliver.
Amendment 47E does not, we believe, provide a get-out enabling home local authorities to have a free choice about which services they arrange for detained children and young people. They cannot simply decide, without robust justification, that some provision is no longer appropriate, just to avoid arranging it. Under the best endeavours duty, their starting point must be to arrange the provision specified in the EHC plan. They can arrange alternative or other appropriate provision only once they have done everything they can to arrange the provision specified in the plan.
Local authorities and the health services commissioner will be accountable to parents and young people in respect of this best endeavours duty. Parents and young people will be able to complain to their home local authority or to the health body—with ultimate recourse to judicial review. Our strengthened best endeavours duties will be accompanied by a robust code of practice.
The existing contracts for education services in public sector young offender institutions are due to end later this year. We will ensure that the arrangements made with the new education providers support local authorities as they seek to fulfil their best endeavours duty to ensure that provision in EHC plans continues to be delivered while a child or young person is in custody.
The current draft code of practice was of course written before we tabled these amendments. We will now rewrite the code to reflect them and the intent that I have today set out. I am very happy to discuss the wording of the code with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, outside the Chamber. The code is of course subject to affirmative procedure. I hope that the noble Lord will find that helpful. I look forward to those discussions with him so that it will not be necessary for us to come back to this at Third Reading.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I am not clear: could any requirements in relation to young offender or custodial institutions included in the code of practice actually be applied to those institutions? Could they come within the purview of the code of practice legally?
Lord Nash
I have no idea, but I hope that by the time I have finished dealing with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Addington, I might have an answer.
My noble friend Lord Addington tabled Amendment 48A to require the host local authority to make arrangements to ensure that the workforce has the skills and knowledge to identify special educational needs and put in place effective interventions. It is already a requirement of those we commission to deliver education in the youth secure estate to ensure that the needs of those young people with SEN are properly identified and addressed. Education providers in the youth secure estate are contractually required to have an appropriately trained and qualified workforce to conduct assessments. They will also have a SENCO who is responsible for managing the effective delivery of specialist SEN services.
Education providers are required to conduct an educational assessment of anyone entering custody unless this information is already known. That includes both assessments of levels of literacy, language and numeracy, and the screening of anyone who shows signs of a specific learning difficulty or special educational need. They also use a variety of tools for this purpose, including the hidden disabilities questionnaire developed by Dyslexia Action which screens for a range of hidden disabilities. Provision is subject to regular inspection by Ofsted, where appropriate working with HM Inspectorate of Prisons.
The current contract between the Education Funding Agency and education providers for young offender institutions requires all secure settings to have: procedures for ensuring that the identification and support of specific learning difficulties in young offenders is inspected, evaluated, monitored, reviewed and developed; and an appropriately trained workforce that will identify and support a young offender’s individual learning needs and deliver relevant and individually tailored programmes of learning support to those young offenders whose profiles provide evidence of specific learning difficulties. With the amendments I have proposed today, a young person identified as being at risk as a result of the screening process could be referred for a full EHC assessment. In view of this, and the existing requirements on providers and the amendments I have outlined, I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
I am confident that the government amendments in this group will result in vastly improved provision for children and young people with SEN in custody, and that they address the views and concerns of noble Lords. We have made significant steps on this. As I said, I would be very happy to continue discussing this further—including, if I may, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I rise briefly to make two points. First, I welcome the amendments. The wording of the government amendments is very sensible and I am pleased that the Minister has listened. The critical moment was when the Government published their policy position on this issue when it was crystal clear to everyone that the position as outlined was not reflected by the words “having regard to age” in the Bill. That was a kind of “light bulb” moment, and I am pleased that they have recognised that. The wording in so far as it goes is fine, and I am very pleased to support it.
Secondly, I commend the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, repeated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Howarth. It is important that the Government pay attention to the way in which the code of practice reflects this change and make sure that the wording in the code is expansive rather than restrictive on local authorities and other service providers, so that they can look in the round at these young people as they approach and go beyond 18, in terms of their various needs, and not limit it only to a formal definition of education and training. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks on that, but I very much welcome the changes.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I thank again my noble friends Lady Sharp and Lady Cumberlege, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for their insights during Grand Committee. I welcome the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has given us to clarify how we have secured continuity of adult care for young people with EHC plans. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her kind remarks.
On the point made by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, yes, we are making it clear that the outcomes that we are looking for are wider. The outcomes specified in the plan do not have to be formal or accredited; we are happy to make sure that that is clear in the code. On a point made more generally by my noble friend Lady Sharp, the draft code predates the amendments, and we will make sure that the code fully reflects the amendments, including making it clear that outcomes rather than age must be considered.
In response to the important issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I am delighted to state categorically that no young person who turns 18 and is in receipt of children’s social care will face a gap in provision while consideration is made about their adult care. This applies if they move to a new local authority or if their EHC plan comes to an end at that point because they are leaving education. Clause 47 provides for regulations that ensure continuity of support and provision when a child or young person with an EHC plan moves to a different local authority. For those turning 18, Clause 50 enables local authorities to extend children’s services beyond the age of 18 for those with an EHC plan where that is the best option. Provisions in the Care Bill ensure that there is no gap in care services when a young person moves to a different area, turns 18 or their EHC plan comes to an end. Those 18 year-olds who have eligible needs for care and support will in future receive a statutory care and support plan. Both we and the Department of Health are clear that this will form the care part of their EHC plan when one is in place and would continue in its own right as a statutory plan once their EHC plan is no longer maintained.
Furthermore, Clauses 37 and 38 of the Care Bill ensure that support is continued when someone with a statutory care and support plan moves to a new local authority. When a young person turns 18, Clauses 59 to 67 of the Care Bill ensure that assessments for adult care are carried out in good time so that support can be put in place promptly. In particular, Clause 67 requires local authorities to continue to provide existing support under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 or under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 until adult care begins, or a decision is made that an adult care and support plan is not required. Young people who have made a successful transition to adulthood and are now in employment, higher education or adult learning, will continue to receive support in those settings that will enable them to maintain and build on the outcomes achieved while in formal education. For example, Access to Work is available for those in employment.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about the reading of the words “for some other reason”, the Department of Health is clear that this phrase does not in any way change a local authority’s duty to meet an adult’s eligible needs for care and support under Clause 81 of the Care Bill. “Other reasons” could refer to, for example, a person changing their place of residence to a different local authority area before the assessment has been completed. It does not provide carte blanche for local authorities to refuse to provide services for spurious reasons. I hope that is helpful. I believe that the amendments I am moving today represent a genuinely positive change to the Bill, which, along with reforms in the Care Bill, further strengthen arrangements for young people making the transition to adulthood. I hope that noble Lords will support them.
Lord Storey
My Lords, if you are going to agree an education, health and care plan, it is clearly important that all elements have to be provided. That is agreed. I understand that there are complex difficulties here. I have spoken to the Local Government Association, which recognises those difficulties. I know that the Minister himself is—perhaps “wrestling” is too strong a word—looking in detail at how we can get what we all want. I hope that your Lordships will be patient on the issue, because I am sure that with good will on all sides we will eventually get there.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment and I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that this is one of two outstanding, key issues on which the effective implementation of the Government’s welcome approach to integration of education, health and social care depends.
Clause 42 states that where a local authority maintains an ECH plan it must secure the special educational provision. Where the plan specifies healthcare provision, the responsible commissioning body must provide the healthcare. The amendment would simply place a parallel duty on local authorities to provide the social care that is outlined in the plan. This is a key issue for parents as well as, obviously, for many noble Lords in this House. As the legislation is currently drafted, the ECH plans would offer no more legal entitlements to support from social care services than current statements do at the moment. Let us remember that social care provision can be detailed in those statements in a separate section from educational provision. However, the aim of these reforms and the Bill is to provide a simpler system for disabled children and young people, and those with special educational needs and their families, that integrates the different forms of provision into one piece of legislation. One assessment and one plan is what the Government are trying to achieve for those families. There is an opportunity in the Bill to bring everything together. One of the main aims of the Bill is to provide clarity, transparency and integration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, so eloquently identified.
In Committee and at the various meetings that we have had on this matter, while the Minister has been trying to listen, I do not think that so far the Government have provided any coherent reason for excluding the local authority from the duty to provide the social care specified in the plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, reminded us, the first argument put by the Government was that other legislation—the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act together with the Children Act—already provide for that duty. A second argument deployed at later meetings was that placing such a duty in this Bill would give disabled children an unacceptable priority in law above other children in need.
The debate has been rather clouded by well meaning but exceedingly technical legal opinions on both sides. However, the clearest and most helpful opinion has come in the further opinion, dated 13 May 2013, from the lawyers commissioned by the sector. This asked the crucial question in relation to these different arguments as to whether placing local authorities under a duty to deliver the social care set out in the plans would represent a significant change to local authorities’ legal duties under that existing legislation. The crucial question is whether it would represent a significant change. The answer in the opinion is emphatically no. If noble Lords will bear with me, it is worth putting this opinion on the record.
The crucial question asked is whether placing local authorities under a duty to deliver the social care provision set out in the EHC plans would represent a significant change to local authorities’ legal duties in other legislation. Paragraph 13 of the opinion states:
“No. If there were to be a specific duty to provide the social care provision set out in an EHC Plan, this would simply mean that the Local Authority would be discharging its CSDPA 1970 duty (either wholly or in part) by providing the provision set out in the Plan. Indeed, for children who qualify for an EHC Plan the inclusion of social care provision within the Plan is a helpful way of determining that the Local Authority considers that this provision is necessary to meet their needs—in other words that the test for the 1970 Act duty to arise is met”.
The opinion goes on to say:
“This is very similar to the approach that the Government has adopted in relation to the duty to arrange health care provision … the Government accepts that in arranging the provision specified in the plan a CCG”—
a clinical commissioning group—
“will be discharging its existing duty pursuant to section 3 of the NHS Act 2006”.
This was a question that we asked in Committee: why the difference between social care and healthcare? Paragraph 14 states:
“Any concern that this would involve treating disabled children more favourably than other groups of children ‘in need’ is misplaced. Firstly, disabled children have already benefited”—
for more than 40 years—
“from the specific duty … in the CSDPA 1970 to provide them with support, a benefit which other children ‘in need’ do not enjoy … Secondly, it is a well established tenet of discrimination law that reasonable positive measures intended to correct significant disadvantage experienced by a particular group are unlikely to be discriminatory. Indeed Equality Act 2010 … provides that compliance with the public sector equality duty … ‘may involve treating some persons more favourably than others’”.
Therefore, in this view, the inclusion of social care under the duty to provide the services specified in an EHC plan would not make a significant difference to existing entitlements in social care and, indeed, is simply consistent with local authorities’ current duties.
However, there would be a number of significant advantages to putting this duty into this Bill as well. A main advantage is that it would clarify for parents the responsibilities of the three agencies together regarding what must provided—in other words, everything in the plan—and that would be a very big benefit for parents. Secondly, it would consolidate the integrated approach that runs right through this Bill until we get to social care. Thirdly, it would give children under 18 the same demonstrable, enforceable rights that adults already have under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and thus there would be a seamless and equal status for disabled children from birth to 25. Those are the simplest legal arguments in favour of the amendment.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I, too, moved an amendment in Committee on a single point of appeal. It beggars belief that you would have progressive legislation that creates for the first time a joined-up approach to education, health and social care but not a joined-up approach to an appeals mechanism. Everybody I have spoken to agrees with that.
Of course, the problem is the current systems that we have, so the notion is that we establish a Bill that creates single education, health and social care plans but then the appeals mechanism is threefold. We expect in this child and family-friendly approach for parents then to navigate their way through these different systems. Currently, the health appeals mechanism is not very transparent and on patient or family satisfaction ratings is very low indeed. Local authorities, as we know, vary.
What do we need to do? First, the code of conduct very much highlights the need for mediation—but it talks about mediation in terms only of education, not on the health and social care side. I hope the Minister might respond by telling us how we bring the mediation together for all three strands of the plan. In my view, mediation could considerably reduce the number of people wishing to appeal.
Then you come to the appeals mechanism itself. Whatever happens here today, I am utterly convinced that, in the years that follow, there will be one tribunal for these plans. The difficulty is the bureaucratic systems, as eloquently extolled by the noble Lord, Lord Low. Currently, the bureaucracy is not fit for purpose. My great fear is that we push the bureaucracies to agree one tribunal, they go kicking and screaming, and the whole thing does not work. We have to negotiate and make sure that everybody is on board to make this happen. Having talked to Ministers in health and education—though having been slightly disillusioned by officials—I am sure that we can achieve that eventually. We need to give my noble friend Lord Nash more time to continue those negotiations. Again, as has been said, I am sure that on the education side we all agree.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I support Amendment 40A moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and colleagues. We supported him on this in Committee and it would still be our first preference as it would add health and social care provisions to the list of matters in respect of which children, young people and families could appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
This was first moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, as he just reminded us. I recall that he subsequently said, as he has just done so, that he was unsure as to the feasibility of this approach in terms of the technicalities. For that reason, because we may not be able to evaluate those technicalities at this point, we have tabled Amendment 40B, which I will refer to in a moment. I do not know if the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, mean that he would support that amendment but it has the intention of giving the Government time to resolve whatever the issues are.
As other noble Lords have said, the issue is simple: the Government want to establish an integrated system for meeting better the needs of disabled children and those with special educational needs. That integration would be at the point of assessment and planning education, health and social care. However, as the Bill stands, that integration is blown apart at the point of appeal. As we have heard, parents and young people would potentially have to go through three different routes of appeal simultaneously for the three different elements of their plan. Like the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Rix, I sense that behind this is the considerable resistance from the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government to any change.
Having previously been a Minister for some time, I feel quite strongly that agencies should bend for the benefit of families. Families should not be imposed with the burden of mobilising three bureaucratic systems that just happen to exist. It is the job of all of us, particularly the Government, to make those agencies bend, albeit by negotiation and discussion, to make the system work for the people that we are here for.
In a letter to noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, said that the tribunal is only for special educational needs, and that, as we have heard:
“There are established routes of complaint about social care through the local authority complaints procedures”,
and, for health, to the health complaints procedure and the health ombudsman. That is not adequate, even if local authority and health appeals systems were simple—and they really are not, even for a Member of Parliament. I see the Minister for Children at the Bar and I am sure he will have tried to mobilise those complaints procedures on behalf of his constituents. It takes for ever, it is labyrinthine, it is completely not transparent and it is very bureaucratic. The idea of parents doing that on three fronts at once is simply unimaginable. There should be a single point of appeal and we support Amendment 40A.
However, should that not prevail tonight and the Government not accept it, we have tabled Amendment 40B which would require the Government actively to seek a way to secure a single point of appeal and to report back to Parliament within a year. That would keep the possibility alive. It would require the Government to do what they have not done and maybe have not had time to do so far: namely, to find a way to make this work for parents and families, to take on the resistance of those agencies and, if necessary, to change the law to establish a single point of appeal.
I am afraid that I do not share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that without anything done this evening there will at some point in future be a single point of appeal. I was constantly surprised and depressed by the inability sometimes to change some of our big public organisations. Without the drive and initiative from this and the other place, I do not think that will happen. I hope the Minister will take that on board.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I support Amendment 40A but particularly Amendment 40B. I agree absolutely with the principle of Amendment 40A but believe that the complexities that need working through to get a single point of entry are so great that we need some sort of driving project.
However, I sincerely believe that we need that single point of entry. Everyone has said how difficult it is for families to negotiate the different kinds of tribunal. I remind noble Lords that these families are struggling with children with severe disabilities. One thing they do not have is time. If you have a disabled child, it takes three times as long, if not more, to do anything, so you are immediately short of time. These negotiations then cut into what time you have. You are also short on emotional energy. If you have been through any sort of tribunal—I have been through a few in my time in a number of different positions—you know the emotional energy that it takes. Disabled children drain emotional energy, much as you love them.
The other thing is that the information you need for the different points of entry is extremely complex. Many families are poor, have not had educational advantage and do not always have the help of someone to take them through the information to enable them to understand it. Were the Government to achieve one different kind of tribunal, perhaps an independent tribunal, it would be more efficient and more economic, because there would be fewer people involved and less time used up.
I have to say that no Government have achieved that yet. No Government have managed to bring health, social care and education systems together. It would be a real triumph were this Government able simply to take a project through to consider the issues and complexities involved and what would be possible to make life so much easier for families who are already struggling emotionally and with their time in trying to care lovingly for a disabled child.
“Single point of appeal: review
(1) The Secretary of State will, within a year of this Act coming into force, carry out a review to assess the feasibility of enabling a child’s parent or a young person to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal in relation to the healthcare or social care provision specified in an EHC plan.
(2) In undertaking a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State will pay particular regard to the need for an integrated appeals process.
(3) The Secretary of State will publish, and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report setting out the conclusions of the review.”
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
On the basis of what the Minister has just said, I will not press this amendment. However, I say to him that whatever strengthening he may propose in terms of mediation, that is not the same as moving towards an integrated system of appeal. We will need to see some substantial progress towards that, or a route map for getting there along the lines of Amendment 40B, if we are not to rehearse this debate and put the amendment again at Third Reading. I hope that he does not mind my making that clear.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who knows more about children’s law than practically anyone in this House. There is one real problem after divorce, which is that fathers, for whom the door is open, do not come and visit their children. We cannot do anything much about that. The clause may give such absent fathers the notion that they have rights but no responsibilities. If there is one thing that our family courts have got right in recent years, it is the welfare of the child. I very much hope that the House will listen to the wisdom of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and will let the courts get on with the good job that they have been doing without resorting to a rather artificial notion as set out in the clause as it stands.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to which I have added my name. We had a very good debate in Committee on Clause 11 about the status of the presumption that is enshrined in that clause. Concerns about preserving the overriding status of the presumption of the best interests of the child in the Children Act have been largely assuaged.
By definition it is very difficult for both parents and children when a family breaks up, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has underlined, things can get very heated and parents can get very focused on coming out of that conflict with what they regard as the best arrangements for them.
As I made clear in Committee, I start from the position of sharing the Government’s desire to enshrine in public policy the principle of joint parental involvement in a child’s life, including after separation. I argue that for most children, the paramount principle of the child’s welfare, as enshrined in the Children Act 1989, cannot be fully met unless both parents are fully involved in the child’s life and have a continuing relationship with the child. Perhaps slightly differently to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I think that there is an issue to be addressed here, particularly for fathers. I agree with the Government that the principle of parental involvement needs strengthening.
However, if we agree—as I think we all do—that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, and that this principle should not be jeopardised or diluted, then we must also ensure that the presumption in Clause 11 is not misinterpreted and applied in ways that can be detrimental to children. Specifically, Clause 11 must not send the signal that parental involvement, which regrettably the Government initially called “shared parental responsibility”, is taken to mean that the child is divided according to some a priori formula, whether that is 50-50 or something else. Clause 11 gives a right to the child to expect continued meaningful involvement by both parents after separation. It must not be interpreted as giving a right to both parents for equal—or near equal as possible—time with the child. I know that the Government’s Explanatory Notes make clear their intentions. But there are a number of reasons why the Minister must take seriously the possibility, indeed the likelihood, of such misinterpretation.
First, the experience in Australia is that 65% of fathers interpreted “shared parental responsibility” to mean equal time. Litigation between parents increased as a result, and they had to change the system. Secondly, as touched on by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth: the clause, unless it is qualified on the face of the Bill in the way that this amendment seeks, could inadvertently increase the risk of harm to children, because only 10% of separating couples resort to the courts to resolve their contact disputes, with the majority of parents reaching agreements privately. There is concern that if it is the expectation of those parents that the law now says that the child’s time has to be carved up, then some parents may seek to use the new changes as a bargaining tool and put pressure on the other parent into making contact arrangements which are not in the best interests of the child.
Again, evidence from Australia suggests that similar reforms resulted in an increased reluctance for mothers to disclose abuse, for example, with many feeling that if there is a legal presumption of shared contact, there was little point in disclosing problems in the family. Given that the vast majority of cases do not go to court, if as a result of Clause 11 there is a common perception that having the child’s time shared out will be the norm in future, then even in families where there is no abuse or there are not problems we may still see the unintended consequence of nomadic arrangements, with a child moving between homes in a way that we would all want to avoid for obvious reasons. This would not be in the interests of most children.
Finally, and very significantly, we have to respond strongly to those parts of the media, which have promoted the interpretation which we are discussing now, despite the best efforts of the Government. I do not believe that any amount of communication or clarification can shift this now. This is why Amendment 14 is so necessary—the Government’s intention and interpretation would be quite clearly on the face of the Bill, and enshrined not in guidance but in law.
Last night we received a policy statement from the Government about Clause 11 and Amendment 14. This makes clear the Government’s intention—it is not to promote a particular division of time, but they feel that the most effective way of dealing with this is through a wider communication strategy to explain to parents what the interpretation is. This is wholly inadequate, for the reason I have just expressed; this view is already well entrenched, partly because of the initial nomenclature of shared parental responsibility and partly because parts of the media have triumphantly proclaimed that this means an equal proportion of the child’s time is to be spent with father and mother. That view is now so well entrenched that I am very concerned about the impact on expectations and, therefore, on negotiations between parents, particularly those not going to court. The most emphatic and unambiguous way of disabusing people of that false impression is to put the amendment alongside Clause 11 into the Bill. The Government will then have something in law that they can go to town about in communications, explaining Amendment 14 if it became part of the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I believe that there is only one a priori formula, as the noble Baroness puts it, that we should have in our mind today, and that is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which gives children the right to be safe and protected and the right to a family life. We all agree that that right to a family life, where it is in the child’s best interests and safe to do so, should include an ongoing relationship with both parents. Unfortunately, in many cases the parents themselves feel that they cannot continue to do that within the same home, so they separate. I believe that it is the Government’s intention in this clause to give the child that right back and ensure that the child continues to have a relationship with both parents where it is safe to do so and in the child’s best interests.
Governments make their intentions clear in more than one way. The wording of legislation is one thing, but Pepper v Hart is another. I am hoping that, in his reply, my noble friend the Minister will make it very clear that what the media have been saying is not the Government’s intention. Indeed, my noble friend has made that very clear to probably all of us in this Chamber now in private meetings, but of course it has to go on the record for people to be able to rely on it, and I am very much hoping that he will be able to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, mentioned the media. I call on the media—indeed, I challenge them—to give just as much space and just as large headlines after today’s debate to the Government’s real intentions on what this legislation and any surrounding regulations really mean, rather than what they mistakenly thought that they meant, which caused an awful lot of concern and worry to families who can really do without that sort of worry when they are going through the stress of breaking up and wondering what they can do to cause the least possible damage to their children’s lives while they do so. I very much look forward to my noble friend’s reply.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I certainly had not intended to take part in this debate, which has been at a very exalted level. However, the speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, reminded me of another point that has not been touched upon. If one reads the amendment as it is worded, one has the impression that the test should very probably be on the balance of probability. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to the judgment by Lord Nicholls in Re H 18 years ago. The judgment as I remember it, and correct me if I am wrong, was to this effect: normally the test will be on a balance of probability—less or more likely. However—I believe that these were his words—the more serious the accusation, the more cogent must be the evidence to establish that accusation. If I am right about that, and I believe that I am, it means that this amendment would undermine that principle in Re H completely.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, this has been a very long debate and I do not intend to extend it much longer, but I want to join the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, as another non-lawyer in redressing the balance slightly. I have listened very carefully to all the excellent contributions. I say at the outset to the Minister that this situation presents a challenge to the Government and I hope that they will rise to it constructively; I am sure that he will try to do so.
We have heard from people across the House today, all of whom are very experienced in one way or another and absolutely committed to the welfare of children, yet this is a highly contested issue with at least three separate points of view being expressed during the course of today’s debate: those who think that there is an issue to be addressed and that the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, attempts to address it; those who do not believe that there is an issue to be addressed; and those who believe that there may be an issue but this amendment is not the way to do it. I think there is an issue but, although we will wait to see how the noble and learned Lord sums up, I do not think it is one that the House could resolve by amendment to this Bill. However, I hope that the Minister, having heard the debate tonight, will be prepared to examine it further before Third Reading and come back with some proposal to try to reach a resolution.
It is clear from the debate that there has been a change in the way in which courts, rather than social workers, can apply the Children Act. That change was as a result of the intervention of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. In those situations where a child is living with someone who is a possible perpetrator of proven abuse to another child, whereas previously the court could have said, “That’s enough, that’s the threshold; we will now consider the welfare issues”, the noble and learned Baroness has said, “No, that is not enough”. Now the court cannot even consider the welfare issues to the child in the round. That is the crucial change.
I will not go through the arguments that have been put forward, but I shall just make one or two comments. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for whom I have the most enormous respect, said that there ought not to be the possibility of court intervention on the basis of suspicion. Normally that would be right, but the problem in this case is that it is not just suspicion; there is a proven fact of harm or death to a previous child by one or other, or more, of the parties. The difficulty is that we do not know which one.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, said that it is a terrible thing if a child is removed from its home on unfounded evidence. Yes, it is, but it is also a terrible thing if we learn only with hindsight that that child was actually living with someone who was the perpetrator and who was a danger to that child and injured or killed that child. Those are the very difficult judgments. I feel that, faced with that very difficult situation, I would be more comfortable—I am entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on this—if a court were considering those issues rather than it having to say, “No, we can’t look at it, because we’re not allowed to any longer because the threshold can’t be met and that is the current ruling”. That is a great concern. As I say, I hope that the Minister will rise to the fact that we have a hotly contested issue on a very serious matter on which people whom we respect across the piece have come to different judgments. This needs to be resolved, and I hope that the Minister will set out a pathway by which that can be achieved.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I will certainly try to rise to the challenge. It would be a lot easier to rise to if the Titans who have clashed today had come to anything like a conclusive agreement about how it should be met. I have never been one to think that Parliament should never challenge the views of our courts, or vice versa. I have said before that I think a little friction between the two is sometimes quite useful. On the other hand, we have a separation of powers where we entrust our learned judges with making wise decisions.
I am therefore a little tremulous about suggesting that we accept an amendment that, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, is to be believed, and I am sure he is, flies in the face of six separate judgments by either the House of Lords in the old days or the Supreme Court. We have to think very hard before we pass an amendment that would challenge those judgments. If the case that has cast the matter into doubt was an artificial case aimed at clarifying the law—I have to say that the words you usually use are, “With the utmost respect”—it did not work.
I cannot make commitments to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, that we can solve this between now and Third Reading. Of course I shall take back the debate that we have had and the considerable arguments that have been made. It would be impertinent of me to try to encapsulate those; those who have been in the debate have heard cogent arguments on both sides.
All of us, whether we have had these responsibilities or are just ordinary citizens, know that when these things go wrong and a child is murdered, the media pack descends on, usually, a social worker and the consequences are extremely grave. On the other hand, as we also know, voices are raised saying that we are too casual in our willingness to take children into care. Accusations have been made at the other end of the corridor that local authorities can be cavalier. I fully take the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that if you are going to take a child from its family you must have proof as well as suspicion.
These are very weighty matters. I put it to—I was going to say “my noble friend” but he is more like the constant thorn in my side—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that today would not be the day to test the opinion of the House. If he were to do so, I would ask the House, in all sense of responsibility, to vote against him.
The Government believe that Section 31 is robust enough. The point was made that it is not a threshold for social workers to make child protection interventions. That has been made very clear. The rarity of the case was dismissed. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, rightly said that so artificial a case on such a single issue is the rarity. That is where some of the confusion has arisen.
We have had some very strong arguments. In the light of the very full debate held in Committee, we have discussed this further with the chief social worker, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and the College of Social Work, and they have all confirmed that they do not support this amendment.
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, does not press the amendment, I do not want to inflict another debate like this on the House at Third Reading. I do not think it would do a service to the House or be the way to make a very important law. This will have to stand for a very long time. If there are initiatives or suggestions that can get some unanimity across the Chamber—and, perhaps even more helpfully, on the Cross Benches—there may still be some time for movement, but as it stands now, and in the light of the advice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, gave us in a considered and thoughtful speech that Section 31 has stood the test of time and has been examined six times during that period, it would be impetuous of this House to back the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, this evening. If he wishes to press it, I will urge the House, with the proper sense of responsibility, to reject it.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I shall briefly, but strongly, support both amendments. On Amendment 34A, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has fully explained her concerns, which I share, about the possible consequences of allowing specialist SEN academies to admit children without an ECH plan. That seems to run counter to the principle of inclusion and it also seems dangerous to admit children without that comprehensive assessment of their specific needs. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that point.
When the noble Lord, Lord Low, moved Amendment 16A in Committee, he rightly said that although the code of practice had improved guidance on inclusion, in the Bill as it stands, inclusion is not referred to anywhere. Given the commitment of the Government and of noble Lords across this House to increase access to mainstream schools and to act in accordance with the recommendations of the JCHR, it seems very odd that this overarching principle is not enshrined in the legislation.
The purpose of the amendment is to insert that general principle alongside other general principles that are included in the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has said, this is not about pushing inclusion above everything else; it is about parental choice. At the moment, because local authorities and schools have not moved far enough towards making mainstream schools accessible to disabled children, many children are denied that choice.
Clause 19 sets out other key principles to which local authorities must have regard in fulfilling their obligations under Part 3: the wishes and feelings of children and their parents; the importance of child and family participation in decisions; providing adequate information; and supporting the child’s development and educational progress. Those are all very important. But equally important, I would argue, is the principle that local authorities should seek to maximise the opportunities for inclusion.
As the noble Lord, Lord Low, told us, when the Minister was arguing against the amendment in Committee, he said that the Bill maintained the general principle of inclusion in a number of other provisions and went on to list some of them. He also said that schools and colleges had important duties under the Equality Act and he told us about other measures that the Government were adopting to help mainstream schools improve their ability to include disabled children more effectively. However, he did not tell us why the Government would not accept this amendment alongside the other general principles that appear on the face of the Bill. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment today, I hope that he will not rehearse that information as we have already heard it and it is on the record. What we really want to know is why he will not accept the general principle of inclusion sitting alongside the other principles in Clause 19. That would send a strong signal to all educational settings, and to local authorities, that they must up their game and move closer and faster to being able to offer places to disabled children. That would catalyse a very positive and marked shift. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warnock and Lady Wilkins, for tabling Amendment 16A, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for tabling Amendment 34A. I had an extremely helpful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Wilkins, recently, and I am grateful to them for helping me to understand these issues. As noble Lords know, they are, of course, immensely knowledgeable on this matter. They have spoken eloquently about an issue that I know is important to many in this House—inclusive provision for children and young people who have SEN or are disabled. We have had an informed and passionate debate.
Amendment 16A picks up a recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, a member of the committee, mentioned. The Joint Committee welcomed the Bill as containing,
“a number of provisions which … enhance the UK’s implementation of some of the relevant rights of children and young people”.
Those include the general principles in Clause 19; the extension of education, health and care plans to young people up to 25; the requirement for academies to be covered directly by the statutory framework for SEN; the duty to provide SEN information to children and young people; the measures to ease transition from children’s to adult services; the explicit reference to assist in preparation for independent living in a local offer; and the provision of direct rights of appeal for young people and the proposed piloting of children’s rights of appeal. However, the Joint Committee felt that including a principle on inclusive provision in Clause 19 would demonstrate the Government’s commitment, under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to the progressive realisation of the right to inclusive education.
I make it clear at the outset that the Government are fulfilling their commitments under the UN convention. The Bill maintains the general principle of inclusion and does so through some of its key provisions. It places duties on schools and colleges to use their best endeavours to ensure that those with SEN get the support they need and holds a presumption for inclusion in relation to choice of schools and colleges through Clause 33. However, it also recognises that children and young people have different needs and different preferences for where they wish to be educated, including specialist settings such as special schools and independent specialist colleges. That is entirely consistent with the reservation and interpretative declaration that the Government made to Article 24 of the UN convention recognising special schools as part of the general schools system.
Beyond the Bill, as we have discussed in previous debates, local authorities, schools and colleges have important duties under the Equality Act 2010 to prevent discrimination against disabled people, to promote equality of opportunity, to increase access over time and to make reasonable adjustments to their policies and practices. Indeed, it was this Government, in 2012, who included schools in the provision of auxiliary aids and services, such as specialised computer programmes, sign language interpreters and hoists, within the reasonable adjustments duty under the Equality Act. I made a commitment in Grand Committee to look at the scope for improving the links to the Equality Act duties in the SEN code of practice and I am happy to reaffirm that commitment now.
We have previously discussed the inclusive schooling guidance. One of the striking findings in the responses to the Green Paper Support and Aspiration was that nearly half of those who responded to a question about the guidance did not know that it existed. That is why we put the key elements of it into the code of practice. I am happy to consider how the code of practice can be further improved in that regard. In view of all that, we do not believe that it is necessary to add to the principles in Clause 19 to fulfil our commitments under the UN convention. The principles in Clause 19 are designed to underpin the key features of the reforms, placing the views, wishes and feelings of children, young people and parents at the heart of the system and placing a focus on improving outcomes. They apply irrespective of where children and young people are educated.
We have heard in other debates about the important role that specialist provision plays in supporting disabled children and young people and those with SEN. The noble Lord, Lord Low, referred to the importance to parents of having that choice. Amendment 16A could run the risk of being perceived as a threat to specialist provision and as encouragement to local authorities not to place children and young people in specialist provision where that is appropriate for meeting their needs and where parents wish it, and could threaten the viability of high-quality provision for children and young people with SEN. I know that that is not in any way the purpose of the amendment, but it is an example of the kind of balance of arguments that we have to weigh.
The Government take very seriously their commitment to the convention. In addition to the provisions in the Bill and the government amendments on disabled children and young people that we will be debating later, we have taken a number of practical steps to build the capacity of mainstream schools and colleges to support children and young people who have SEN or are disabled. I spoke about these in Grand Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Low, referred to them as “soft measures”, but I would not describe them as such. They are certainly extensive. I will not go through them in detail, because I know that noble Lords have heard this before. However, we have invested considerable sums of money in training: there are over 10,000 new SEN co-ordinators, a number of schemes to develop the training of SEN, we have made grants to the Institute of Education, and we are involved in many other projects.
Chapter 6 of the draft SEN code of practice provides strong guidance to all mainstream early-years settings, schools and colleges to ensure they have high expectations for all pupils and students, provide high-quality teaching, have clear systems for identifying those who need additional support and provide that support as quickly as possible. We make it clear that schools are responsible for setting their own priorities for the continuous professional development of their staff and we recognise the key role played by the SEN co-ordinator in this and in other ways. In addition, as noble Lords know, the Bill now includes a new clause on supporting children with health conditions. Noble Lords will see that a number of government amendments have now been tabled to include disabled children and young people with SEN in the scope of a number of key provisions in the Bill. I will speak about those amendments shortly.
On Amendment 34A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, I understand her concerns and those of other noble Lords about the provisions in Clause 34(9), but I hope to reassure them. Clause 34(9) would enable a child or young person with special educational needs but without an EHC plan to be admitted to an individual special academy or special post-16 academy whose academy arrangements permit this. The admission of children or young people without EHC plans to special academies or special post-16 academies would be limited to those academies where the Secretary of State for Education had specifically agreed to permit that in the funding agreement in relation to specific types of children.
I reiterate what I said when we debated this issue in Committee. This is not a blanket policy and it is also definitely not part of any dark plan. On the contrary, the Government’s intention is to facilitate innovative new approaches and provision for the benefit of children and young people with SEN. The Secretary of State would look carefully at the detail of any proposal made by a special academy or special post-16 academy and would consider its educational merits and viability. Indeed, we have approved 16 free special schools. All are able, as things stand, to apply to the Secretary of State to have the competence within their funding agreements to admit non-statemented pupils. That is the status quo. Only one has so applied. They were approved to admit, on a temporary basis only, children with autistic spectrum disorder or with specific communication and language difficulties, but as far as we know none has been so admitted.
Concerns have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and others that children and young people might be forced into special provision and parents coerced by local authorities into placing their children in special schools. We will ensure safeguards against that are in place. First, the relevant academy’s funding agreement must stipulate that the special academy or special post-16 academy could admit only children or young people without plans who had a particular type of SEN set out in the agreement. Changes that suggested reducing the number of places for children with statements to enable the admission of children without statements would not be approved unless the case was supported by the local authority and by parents, and a lack of demand for statemented places could be demonstrated. Secondly, such a child or young person would be admitted to the academy only if their parents or the young person had applied to go to it. Thirdly, the child or young person should have those particular needs and their admission should be supported by a relevant professional opinion, such as that of an educational psychologist. Of course, parents of young people will continue to have the right to ask for a statutory assessment of their child’s needs to be undertaken and a right of appeal to the tribunal if the local authority decides not to carry one out. The academy would also have to adopt fair practices for such admissions in line with the principles of the school admission code. We would take very seriously indeed any instances where these freedoms were being abused. Very significantly, the new secondary accountability, the best eight progress measures, will become the main measure by which we assess the performance of all maintained schools and academies. This new approach will strip away the previous perverse incentives and will hold schools to account for the progress made by all their pupils, not just blunt measures of absolute attainment at grade C. This will move schools that have focused too much on those pupils who can achieve a C grade to focus on the progress of all their pupils and should particularly benefit SEN pupils in those schools.
“Children and young people with special educational needs
For the purposes of sections 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32 and 62 of this Act, the term “children and young people with special educational needs” will be interpreted to include children and young people with a disability under the Equality Act 2010.”
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, Amendment 17 would, for the purposes of Sections 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32 and 62 of Part 3, include children with a disability under the Equality Act. It would interpret children and young people with SEN to include children and young people with a disability as well. The Government have tabled a number of amendments, I think, to achieve the same thing.
I will be very brief as this is not now contentious, given that the Government have moved on the issue, but my amendment would ensure that key clauses that relate to identifying children with needs, duties of the health authority, joint commissioning arrangements, the duty to keep provision under review, the local offer, advice and information for parents and so on would all now apply equally to disabled children without a special educational need under the terms of the Equality Act. This is important, not only in principle, but also in its practical effects, particularly for the local offer, which we will debate later on Report. The local offer is particularly important for children with a disability but without a special educational need because that is now to be the only way in which they can get services that they and their families need. It is very important for the local offer, particularly Clause 26 on the joint commissioning arrangements between health education and social care. When they are looking at what is needed in an area they will have to take into account the needs of all children with a disability, including those without a special educational need, which was not the case under the Bill as it was drafted.
I very much welcome the Government’s concession here, as far as it goes. The Minister knows that I would have preferred to have an amendment to apply the whole of Part 3 to children with a disability as well. That would have achieved a truly inclusive, integrated and comprehensive system for all disabled children, whatever their disability and whatever the extent of their need. Many feel that this was the promise of the Green Paper. However, we have come part way and that is to be welcomed.
Turning to the government amendments, I think that my Amendment 17 has the advantage of being completely comprehensible when you read it, but the 40-odd government amendments are not so easily understood. I understand that it has been done in this way to achieve a more comprehensive effect and I look forward to the Minister explaining that. I beg to move.
Lord Nash
My Lords, it may be helpful if I outline our government amendments in this group to enable noble Lords to have a debate if they wish to. In Grand Committee we had an extensive debate about the support for disabled children and young people and I know that this is an issue on which the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, has reflected deeply, as have I since then. Many Peers expressed concern that disabled children and young people without SEN would miss out on the benefit of our reforms and, at the time of the debate, I introduced a government amendment to require schools to make arrangements for supporting children with medical needs. I also asked for help from noble Lords in understanding which groups of disabled children would not be supported by this Bill, the government amendment in respect of children with medical needs, the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and Part 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Following the debate, the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign sent some very helpful advice to the department in which it said:
“The Government rightly made the point in the debate yesterday that disabled children and young people are already protected by a range of other legislation, such as the Equality Act 2010, the NHS Act 2006 and the Children Act 1989.
We would like to stress that our concern is not about the rights of individual children and young people who may have a disability but no SEN. We completely accept that on an individual level they are protected under the Equality Act 2010 and other legislation. Our concern is about disabled children and young people as a group not being included in the joint commissioning arrangements, review functions, and local offer duty”.
It went on to suggest which clauses in the Bill might be amended to achieve this—Clauses 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 and 32—and drafted a single amendment to deliver this. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes of Stretford and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for their amendment, which is largely based on the Every Disabled Child Matters amendment.
We agree with Every Disabled Child Matters that the clauses identified should be amended. However, our view is that, by relating the provision for disabled children and the young people to special educational provision, a single amendment would not deliver the outcome that we all want, and that we need to amend each clause.
Clause 22 would be amended to require local authorities to exercise their functions with a view to identifying both the children and young people with SEN and disabled children and young people. Clause 24 would be extended to require health bodies to inform the child’s parents and their local authority where they are of the opinion that a child under compulsory school age has, or probably has, a disability. Clause 25 would now require local authorities to exercise their functions with a view to ensuring the integration of education and training provision with healthcare provision and social care provision for children and young people with SEN and disabled children and young people, where they think that this would promote their well-being, including in relation to their participation in education, training and recreation. In Clause 26, the duties on local authorities and their partner commissioning bodies to make joint arrangements for the commissioning of education, health and care provision for children and young people with SEN would be amended to include disabled children and young people.
Clause 27, which currently requires local authorities to keep under review the special educational provision and social care provision for those with SEN, would be extended to cover provision for disabled children and young people. They will broaden it to cover all education and training provision, not just special educational provision, for children and young people who have SEN or are disabled.
The amendments also require local authorities to consult disabled children and young people and their parents when carrying out that duty. The provisions in the local offer would include disabled children and young people, both in relation to the information to be published and in developing and reviewing the local offer and publishing comments. In Clause 32, the requirement on local authorities to arrange for young people with SEN and parents of children with SEN to receive advice and information on SEN would be extended to include provision for disabled young people and the parents of disabled children to be provided with information about matters related to disability. I have also tabled an amendment, which we shall come to later, to extend the requirement to cover children themselves as well as their parents. Clause 73 would make it clear that the definition of disability applied to the provisions covered by these government amendments is that in the Equality Act 2010.
Noble Lords will also be aware from commitments that I made in Committee that we are looking at ways of strengthening links to the Equality Act duties, including those to make reasonable adjustments in the SEN code of practice. The amendments that I am speaking to today will sharpen the focus on the Equality Act duties considerably. Since the code of practice is statutory, the guidance that it provides cannot be ignored. I will respond to the debate in the normal way in due course but I hope that noble Lords are reassured by these amendments.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)
My Lords, I have much sympathy with the amendment, particularly the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, about those who do not have EHC plans. As she rightly said, we are talking about a large number of children—a much larger number of children than will have EHC plans—and it is important that there are facilities to meet their needs. The onus is now on schools to provide those facilities, but we know that traditionally, schools have relied considerably, first, on local authorities to help provide them and, secondly, on health authorities and, for that matter, social services to supplement them.
At the moment, there seems to be a void in the Bill on the question of how more specialist facilities are to be provided. The joint commissioning arrangements, as identified in the Bill, are fine, but at the moment they are targeted at those with EHC plans; there is no mention of those without them. I think that the idea is that what is available will be spelled out in the local offer—I look forward to what the Minister has to say when we discuss the local offer. At the moment, there are a lot of loose ends and, given the number of children and young people involved, I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendments, especially Amendment 19. I do so because Clause 26, which deals with joint commissioning arrangements, is an extremely important part of Part 3 and the new apparatus that the Government are constructing. I support the amendments because they are aimed at strengthening the joint commissioning arrangements. They need strengthening because of the wording of the Bill. We discussed this in Committee. Clause 26 seems to provide that local authorities and health and education authorities must set up arrangements so that they can have a discussion about what needs to be provided in an area, but it does not say that they must secure the provision that they think is needed. That is an odd omission. Amendment 19, in particular, would create an obligation to secure the provision for children and young people who have not got the education, health and care plans agreed under Clause 26(3)(a). That is a very important amendment to make to the Bill.
As the clause stands, it says that the local authority and its partner bodies “must make arrangements”. The omission to do with “securing” is particularly important with regard to health. As we said in Committee, potentially they can use other legislation for absolving themselves from improving on the provision available, on the ground of cost. It would be very helpful if the Minister could put on record the Government’s intentions in Clause 26 in relation to securing the provision that is identified as being needed through the joint commissioning arrangements, particularly, but not exclusively, in relation to health.
Given that Amendment 19 seeks to strengthen Clause 26 in relation to that securing and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, identifies the rather insecure position at the moment of children and young people without plans, I support it and hope that the Government are sympathetic.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and arguing his case for him. He and I had very useful discussions before he had to leave and I know how reluctant he was to depart. Noble Lords are right: this is a very important issue. These amendments are designed to ensure that those without education, health and care plans can have their needs met and that the joint commissioning arrangements are transparent and effective. We understand the purpose behind that.
It is worth emphasising—and helps me in understanding the provisions here—that I have just come, as it were, from the Department of Health and worked on the health Bill. The NHS is, and continues to be, a universal service. It must respond to the reasonable health needs of the population it serves. That will be an absolute requirement, connected with the fundamental duties on commissioners to meet the health and care needs of children and young people, and supported by the requirements in the National Health Service Act 2006 on CCGs to engage with the public and with professionals and to promote integration of health and social care and health-related services. It is worth remembering, then, the strength of those provisions from the health side when looking at these arrangements.
Joint commissioning is the heart of the new arrangements for SEN. The statutory framework makes local authorities and CCGs working together fundamental to how we meet the needs of children with SEN and disabled children. Working together is not an option; it will be a “must do”, thanks to this Bill.
Our joint commissioning requirements are backed up by powerful statutory accountability. NHS England’s mandate—the “must dos” for the NHS—sets a clear objective that the NHS must ensure that children with special educational needs have access to the services identified in their agreed plan. NHS England will be held to account for delivery of that, and it in turn will hold CCGs to account.
There is also local accountability, as every CCG’s plans and performance are scrutinised by the local health and well-being board. That board has a specific role to improve the health and well-being of the local population and reduce health inequalities. It must include representatives from each local CCG, Healthwatch and the local authority directors for adult social services, children’s services and public health. Those are key people, accountable for local services. They will prepare the joint strategic needs analysis of the population, including this group, at high level.
I hope this helps to reassure noble Lords that the needs of children and young people with SEN and disabilities with and without plans will be met, and that on that basis Amendments 19 and 22 are unnecessary.
The joint commissioning arrangements require that partners across education, health and care work together to deliver integrated services for those with SEN and disabilities. In the draft SEN code of practice we are explicit that arrangements must be established that are clear and robust, including what happens in the event of a dispute between partners, and should be specifically accountable to councillors and senior commissioners locally.
Equally, subsection (4) makes it very clear that partners must be able to reach agreement on a course of action in every case. The wording in the joint commissioning clause reflects the fact that the parties are expected to follow the arrangements unless there is a good reason to depart from them.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
That is very helpful. Could the Minister clarify subsection (4)? It says:
“Joint commissioning arrangements about securing education, health and care provision must … include arrangements for”,
securing EHC needs assessments. It talks about EHC assessments only and EHC plans only; it does not talk about securing services for children without plans.
Baroness Northover
The noble Baroness will note that I have talked about supporting children with and without plans. If she bears in mind the responsibilities within the NHS, the NHS mandate, the responsibilities of the CCGs, what the health and well-being boards are designed to do and the intention within the health service to reduce inequalities and ensure that nobody is left out, and looks at those matters in conjunction with that, I hope she will see that there are very strong provisions coming from the NHS side that help to address this. In a minute, I may give her some more comments from the education side, but I hope she will appreciate that joining up with the NHS is a very positive move forward.
Under this Bill, the local authority is also required to consult on the local offer and when it is keeping its education and social care provision under review. Equally, there are duties on CCGs to ensure they, too, consult with local partners and patient groups, including at the commissioning stage. CCGs are held to account by NHS England for delivering this statutory duty, and NHS England has issued statutory guidance for CCGs on engaging with patients.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, made the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made to me about the role of Nick Hurd and the Cabinet Office taking responsibility for youth strategy—for example, youth clubs and national citizenship services. That is distinct from departmental responsibilities for education, health and social care, which, obviously, are about the best services for young people as well as children. Cross-government working, especially between the Department for Education and the Department of Health, is critical to the success of these reforms. The Cabinet Office has a role to play because of its strategic oversight of support for young people.
I reassure my noble friend Lady Sharp—and this also picks up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes—that the provisions in Clause 26 for joint commissioning embrace children and young people without EHC plans, as well as those with such plans. I hope that the noble Baronesses will be reassured by that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and I discussed before his departure tonight, the Government are clear that further legislation is not the answer. The noble Lord has identified an important implementation challenge and the noble Baroness made reference to that challenge.
We must indeed ensure that local areas take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the NHS reforms which I have, I hope, spelt out and by the Bill to secure the best possible planning and commissioning of services to meet local needs. Children with SEN and disabilities, who particularly need their health services, schools and local authorities to be joined up, must benefit from this. That is why I propose that instead of pursuing this amendment a better proposition, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and I talked about, would be to arrange a meeting with those working on implementation at the Department for Education and the Department of Health. The noble Baroness referred to that meeting; it would also be with the interest groups that the noble Lord mentioned—the noble Baroness mentioned local authorities, which are obviously also relevant here— and would be about what we should be doing to get the implementation right. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was enthusiastic about contributing to that. Of course, he has a lot of expertise in this area.
I hope very much that we will go down that route and that instead of pursuing this amendment, we will take forward these discussions about how this is best implemented, while taking on board the issues which noble Lords have flagged up. I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that the joint commissioning arrangements clause offers a strong framework that works with the NHS and will drive forward the SEN reforms locally, for those with and without plans, and that the NHS mandate, with its specific emphasis on inclusivity, addressing inequalities and on children with special needs, helps to underpin this. On that basis I urge the noble Baroness, on behalf of the noble Lord, to withdraw the amendment.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) When it relates to a direction given under subsection (3)(b) or (c), the power to make a direction under subsection (1) will be exercisable by statutory instrument not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 4 and 5, which variously attempt to circumscribe the power that the Secretary of State is taking in Clause 3.
Clause 3 grants the Secretary of State a new power to force local authorities to franchise out adopter recruitment services, either to another local authority or to a registered adoption agency, by amending Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The new section inserted by Clause 3 provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct the outsourcing of local authority adopter recruitment functions, either from individual named authorities under subsection (3)(a) or from classes or groups of local authorities under subsection (3)(b) or from all local authorities at once under subsection (3)(c). The important aspect is not the power to outsource itself but the manner in which it would allow the Secretary of State to make change on a large or even national scale at once through a direction. The Secretary of State, in issuing a direction as opposed to bringing forward primary or secondary legislation, would not obviously have to subject himself to any parliamentary scrutiny, and Members in either House would not have the opportunity to question or amend the changes. This is the nub of our concern.
Our Amendment 5 would have the effect of deleting subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c) and therefore remove the power of the Secretary of State to direct outsourcing from classes or groups of local authorities or from all local authorities at once. We tabled this amendment in Committee to probe the Government’s intentions and we do not intend to press this amendment here. It was tabled at an early stage following Grand Committee to signal our continued concern and before we were able to see the Government’s response to that debate.
At the meeting last week, Edward Timpson said that there would be an amendment to respond to those concerns and we wanted to see the terms of that amendment before finalising our position. We were hoping that the Government would address those concerns by amending the clause to make subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c) subject to an affirmative resolution order. However, unfortunately both the government amendment and the policy statement that was issued alongside it really are a wholly inadequate response to what noble Lords across the House have been saying. Government Amendment 6 would simply delay the implementation of subsection (3)(c), which provides the power to outsource to all local authorities at once. Along with the government amendment, there was also a written commitment to report that decision in some as yet unspecified way. Delaying implementation is really neither here nor there—it is irrelevant—and reporting to Parliament falls far short of parliamentary scrutiny.
The policy statement that was published does not explain why the Secretary of State is seeking power through a direction rather than through secondary legislation but simply restates the arguments about the need to reshape the market in adopter recruitment. That is an argument with which we would not necessarily disagree but in support of which the Government have provided no evidence. These are important issues, but they are wholly irrelevant to our point that taking powers to institute major change to the national system of adopter recruitment by direction is a completely unacceptable way to treat this House and the other place. We cannot support the Government’s amendment.
Therefore, our Amendment 4 would retain the powers in subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c) but make their implementation subject to an order by affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament. We all support efforts to improve adopter recruitment if this will mean more children finding good homes. The Government’s policy statement sets out why the Government believe that major structural change may be necessary to address the shortfall in adoptive parents despite the 34% increase in the last two years, which is a very welcome improvement. However, even here the statement is contradictory on the role of the powers in Clause 3 in reshaping that market. Paragraph 11 says that the purpose of Clause 3 is to provide a powerful market-shaping lever to help restructure fundamentally the adopter recruitment system, but paragraph 12 says that, in moving towards the Government’s vision for that restructured system, Clause 3 is not seen as the sole or even the principal driver of reform—its role is to drive change only if there is little or no progress in reshaping the structure of the market and reducing the shortfall of adopters. That is because, as the Minister admitted in Grand Committee, Clause 3 is not of itself a solution to the problem of the shortfall of adopters that the Government have identified; Clause 3 itself cannot change that market. Indeed, it can be deployed only if and when it has been demonstrated that adopters can be recruited in sufficient numbers by different arrangements.
The policy statement goes on to outline the real levers for change which are happening now on a voluntary basis and which do not need legislation—for example, the consolidation in the local authority sector through mergers such as that involving St Helens, Warrington and Wigan in my region, the north-west, and the development of commissioning and provider relationships between local authorities in adopter recruitment. The adoption leadership board is encouraging and facilitating these developments, as well as supporting partnerships involving voluntary adoption agencies.
If these developments were successful, one could envisage that the system would have changed to such an extent that it reached a tipping point at which the use of the power in, say, subsection (3)(c) might make sense. However, if these developments were not successful, what would the Secretary of State do? Would he outsource adopter recruitment from all local authorities anyway when there was no credible alternative? That would be wholly irresponsible and I cannot believe that the Government would take such a risk. Either way, the point is that there really ought to be parliamentary oversight at that point.
The point is that mobilising the power in Clause 3 becomes necessary, and indeed possible in practice, only if and when the developments between local authorities and the voluntary sector reach a critical mass such that wholesale change across the country is a viable option. That is my concern with Amendments 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D. Together, they would have the effect of applying the affirmative resolution procedure only in the event of the Secretary of State wanting to outsource these adoption functions from all local authorities simultaneously—that is, using the power in subsection (3)(c). If these amendments were agreed, the Secretary of State would still be able to direct significant proportions of local authorities in groups under the power in subsection (3)(b) and require them to outsource their adoption functions. For instance, he might require that in respect of all shire counties or all metropolitan authorities. Indeed, by announcing three or four successive directions, each of which related to a large group of authorities, the Secretary of State could effectively sweep the country without any parliamentary scrutiny. In other words, by using a few directions under subsection (3)(b), he could achieve what I think we all agree we want to prevent, which is the use of subsection (3)(c) without any scrutiny.
In my view, it is not logical to try to apply the affirmative resolution to subsection (3)(c) but not to do so also to subsection (3)(b). The effect of that would be not to constrain the Government at all, because they could still use the power in subsection (3)(b) successively to include all local authorities. That is my big concern, and it is expressed and supported by organisations in the sector such as Barnardo’s.
We believe that, apart from in relation to individual named authorities under subsection (3)(a), we should expect the Secretary of State to come to Parliament and, via an affirmative order, outline the progress that has been made and to answer the questions that Members would inevitably have—questions such as how secure the changes are, what the national picture is in terms of the number of consortia recruiting adopters, how many adopters are being recruited, and whether the capacity of the voluntary sector has grown and what role it is playing. The voluntary agencies and local authorities might have issues that they would want us to pursue, as would be normal. There would be many legitimate questions, and answers to them could be put on the record.
The Government are right to address the problem of insufficient adopters. If they wish to review the adopter recruitment system and propose something radically different, they are entirely within their rights to do so. However, they should not try to instigate radical change to a national system on the judgment and pronouncement of an individual Secretary of State. They should come to Parliament so that those proposals could be properly debated and scrutinised in the normal way. That is all we are proposing, and I think it is very reasonable and very normal. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I should advise the House that if Amendment 4D in this group is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 5.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am acutely aware of the concerns Peers have raised about this clause. I thank particularly my noble friends Lady Hamwee, Lady Eaton, Lord Storey and Lord Eccles for helping me to understand the nature of those concerns.
Following constructive discussions, I am persuaded that the Government’s amendment and the commitment to report to Parliament do not provide for the parliamentary scrutiny that many noble Lords would wish to see. I am therefore very grateful to my noble friends for tabling their Amendments 4A to 4D and 6A. I am persuaded that it is right for a direction to all local authorities to be subject to full and rigorous scrutiny by Parliament. I therefore confirm my support for their amendments and, if they are accepted, I will not of course need to move my Amendment 6.
Before I address Amendments 4 and 5 I remind noble Lords of the rationale of the clause as set out in the recently published policy statement. The clause is intended as a backstop should the current and significant efforts of local government and voluntary agencies prove insufficient. Unfortunately, we have to accept that this is a possibility as adoption agencies have to work within a flawed system. The fundamental problems are the structure of provision, based around local boundaries, and the unhelpful incentives associated with this structure. This constrains the ability to recruit adoptive parents in sufficient numbers. As a result, the system fails to deliver enough adopted parents to meet national demand, as we have already discussed.
However, let me be quite clear: it is the system that is failing to meet national demand, not the individual local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies that make up the system. The distinction is important and can be demonstrated by statistics. Recently published Ofsted data showed a 34% increase in adopter approvals in 2012-13 compared to the previous year. This is a huge achievement on the part of individual agencies. Local authorities have delivered a 32% increase in adopters recruited and approved and voluntary adoption agencies a 53% rise, and they should be congratulated.
Impressive though these numbers are, the sad truth is that this is still not enough to meet the needs of the number of children waiting for a loving home. At the end of March 2013, there were 6,000 children approved by the courts for adoption, waiting to move in with a permanent family. This is 15% higher than the year before. Furthermore, we estimate that we need around 3,100 additional adopters to meet the existing demand of the children who were already waiting with a placement order.
So we face a real challenge to recruit more adoptive parents. To meet it, we need to transform the system and tackle the underlying structural problems. I feel that we are well placed to do so. After welcome and constructive discussions with colleagues from local government and the voluntary sector, we have an agreed proposition for a national adoption leadership board. This is a significant milestone and demonstrates a collective commitment to take nationally driven action to close the adopter recruitment gap. The board’s members will be senior figures from the core organisations within the adoption system in England. I therefore see this board as the principal forum to deliver significant improvements in the performance of the adoption system.
Under the board’s leadership, we expect to see significant changes in the shape and structure of the providers available, including increasing consolidation and scale among local authority adoption agencies; growth in the capacity of the voluntary sector and an increase in the proportion of adopter approvals for which it is responsible; and more partnership working between local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies, local authority employees, spinouts into mutuals and the entry of some new providers.
These sorts of things are already happening. For example, I was pleased to see from the recent Ofsted publication that, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to, 12 local authorities now provide adoption services under joint arrangements. These are Bedford borough and Central Bedfordshire; the west London tri-borough; Leicestershire and Rutland; Shropshire and Telford; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, referred to, Warrington, Wigan and St Helens.
I also welcome the partnership arrangements that exist between local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies—for example, those operating in Harrow, Kent, Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. We just need to see these types of arrangements happening more quickly and more often.
Clause 3 therefore provides levers of last resort. It is the backstop to a number of things that Government are doing to support local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies. I have already mentioned the Government’s support for the new national adoption board. We have invested £150 million through the adoption reform grant to support local authorities in 2013-14. We are also investing £16 million to build the capacity of the voluntary sector.
We know that these investments are having an impact. We expect there to be a number of new voluntary adoption agencies in the near future and we know that many local authorities have made good use of the adoption reform grant. For example, they have recruited additional staff, provided staff training and development and funded a range of marketing activities to recruit more adopters. I was particularly interested in the work the Southwark area is doing, as I have already mentioned. It used some of its funding to develop an innovative recruitment campaign to target harder-to-reach prospective adopters using a reward scheme. Southwark is also working with Lambeth to fund an outreach worker to promote the recruitment of adopters from the BME community.
I will now explain the government amendment, which tries to address some of the concerns raised in Grand Committee. Amendment 6 delays the implementation of new subsection (3)(c) until March 2015 at the earliest. It therefore provides more time for current reforms to embed and for the new leadership board to have an impact. The Government also commit that the Secretary of State will report to Parliament before issuing any direction under new subsection (3)(c).
This report would set out an updated analysis of the state of the adopter recruitment market. It would cover both the local government and voluntary sectors and analyse their current structure and effectiveness. It would also include the latest estimate of the adopter recruitment gap. In essence, it would justify the requirement for a direction under new subsection (3)(c). Any such direction would provide sufficient time for new arrangements to be put in place. This is an important point as structural change cannot happen overnight.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I would like to clarify whether the Minister is withdrawing Amendment 6, as I thought he stated earlier on.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
For absolute clarity, is the Minister saying that he is withdrawing Amendment 6?
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am and I am accepting Amendment 6A.
In the period prior to March 2015, the Secretary of State would retain the capacity to issue directions under new subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b), if absolutely necessary. As I set out in my policy statement, these directions would follow due process. For example, they would be preceded by a letter setting out the Secretary of State’s intention to issue a direction. This would explain the underlying reasons and provide the affected local authorities with an invitation to respond. Only then would the Secretary of State take a final decision to issue the direction. In considering the issuing of any direction, I expect the new adoption leadership board to play a key advisory role.
Amendment 5 would largely reduce Clause 3 to an intervention power to tackle individual local authorities. But this is not the purpose of Clause 3 which, as I have said, is intended to tackle whole-system failure. Nor would such an intervention power be necessary. As noble Lords are aware, the Secretary of State already has the power to intervene if the performance of individual local authorities requires it.
We have already seen a welcome increase in the number of adoptive parents recruited. This is testament to the efforts of adoption agencies to rise to the challenge. Simply having Clause 3 in the Bill has undoubtedly helped to galvanise agencies, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Storey, but Amendment 5 would simply undermine this stimulus to further progress. I therefore urge the noble Baronesses not to move it.
Turning to Amendment 4, the Government do not agree that directions to “one or more descriptions” of local authorities under new subsection (3)(b) should also be subject to the affirmative procedure. New subsections (3)(b) and (3)(a) provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to take swift, decisive action if required. For example, to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, they could be used to direct a small number of local authorities who were resisting a successful regional initiative, driven by other local authorities, to collaborate and work more efficiently. A direction given in this way would be the result of a dialogue with the affected authorities. It would thus be an iterative process, not a unilateral declaration.
I can confirm to my noble friend Lady Hamwee that it is not the intention to use new subsection (3)(b) as a method of achieving the aim of new subsection (3)(c) without the affirmative procedure. My noble friend also asked whether the direction has to be about all the functions in subsection (2), or merely some of them. She is right; it can be about all or any of the three function in that paragraph.
I understand that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Meacher, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, wished to make the case for the affirmative procedure and I have agreed that this should apply in relation to new subsection (3)(c). I am also surprised that Amendment 4 does not encompass the March 2015 milestone. This is an important staging post to ensure the reforms have maximum impact. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I thank all Members who participated in this debate. It is an important issue and it is right that it was aired again on Report. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, characteristically put her finger on one reason why this is important: the danger of allowing any Government, now or in the future, to interfere in a heavy-handed way with local authority functions without parliamentary scrutiny. That is the key issue.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee, Lady Eaton and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, all felt that there was no need for the affirmative resolution in relation to new subsection (3)(b). The Minister’s statement has just put on the record that the Government would not use new subsection (3)(b) as a way of progressively working through local authorities in this country, and thereby achieving new subsection (3)(c) through successive application of new subsection (3)(b). That was a very helpful statement to put on the record and it gives some reassurance. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee, Lady Eaton and Lady Walmsley, that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pinpointed the danger of that. Although the Minister said that new subsection (3)(b) could be used for small groups of local authorities, equally, it could be used for large groups of them in exactly in the way that the noble Baroness identified: all metropolitan districts or all boroughs, and so on. It would take only two or three directions of that nature to encompass all the local authorities in the country.
However, the Minister’s statement putting it on the record that the Government will not do that is helpful. With that, I think we have consensus across the House; this was evident in Committee and in the meetings that have taken place since. That consensus is on the principle of parliamentary scrutiny—particularly when the Government are implementing significant change in public services, which they would be if they applied new subsection (3)(c)—and that implementing change on that scale, involving all local authorities at once, should have the affirmative resolution procedure. It is very good that the Government have at last conceded the strength of feeling in the House on that issue and agreed the affirmative procedure in relation to new subsection (3)(c). Having achieved that, and with the Minister’s statement in relation to new subsection (3)(b), I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I ask for guidance as to whether we can now speak on Amendment 12, which the business paper incorrectly describes as “g12”—a government amendment. I think it is confusing people.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
There is an error on the paper. The government amendment is number 11 and the amendment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is number 12. The two are grouped together, so the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, may speak to her amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, rises, I will say one or two words and not delay the House. The Government have recognised how dear this issue is to the hearts of so many noble Lords, including to myself. I am very pleased that they will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading. I wanted in particular to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who have both led the charge on this.
As the Minister said, the pilots were initiated by the previous Labour Government, and we would certainly have extended the provision across the country had we been able to and had the general election not intervened. I will not rehearse the benefits that the pilots have identified, but they are significant. However, despite those benefits, as the Minister said, figures show that depending on local authorities voluntarily to move in this direction and enable young people to stay put is not working.
I reiterate what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. While the Minister has today given us some reassurance about the terms of the amendment that they will bring forward, we need to see it as soon as possible. The amendment that has been tabled envisages continuation of accommodation for young people up to the age of 21 unless there are very specific practical reasons why that is not practicable. In other words, the amendment that has been tabled would move the centre of gravity on this issue and make it much more the norm that a young person in care would stay with foster parents rather than not. That is what we would like to see in the government amendments. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the amendment will be published in good time so that we can consider it?
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for informing us of the Government’s proposal to bring forward their own amendment at Third Reading to introduce the staying-put amendment. I was very grateful to him for his preparedness to listen. Our first meeting had to be postponed because of family illness, but he was very prepared for us to meet again to discuss this, he listened carefully to concerns and we met on subsequent occasions. I was most encouraged by his attention and his responsiveness to my concerns and to those raised by other noble Lords.
I was also very moved in Grand Committee by the strong support from all around the House, from so many noble Lords who are parents and grandparents, who recognised that they look after their own children until the age of 25 or 30. The average age of a child who leaves home is 24 or more. However, many young people who leave care move out at age 16, 17 or 18. I am so grateful to all your Lordships that this change has come about.
In the evaluation that was done on this following the pilots in the 10 local authorities that the noble Baroness set up under the previous Government, 24% of young people stayed put. Those who stayed put with their foster carers towards the age of 21 were twice as likely to be in education and more likely to be at university. Those who did not benefit from staying put, who did not stay with their foster carers, were more likely to have multiple changes in habitation immediately after leaving care and to have far poorer outcomes. As Natasha Finlayson, chief executive of the Who Cares? Trust, said, this is a huge change in the lives of many young people leaving care—one of the biggest changes we have seen in many years. It is very much to be welcomed.
I want to raise one issue at some point with the Minister, which Natasha Finlayson raised in her comments, on dealing with children in children’s homes. They would not be touched by the legislation as it stands, and I understand that it would be a considerable extra cost to allow young people to stay in their children’s homes past age 18. However, it has been suggested that there might be a method of connecting young people in residential care with foster carers towards the end of or early on in their stay in residential care so that, if they chose, they could move on to a fostering arrangement as they moved towards the ages of 18, 19 and 20. I hope that the Government might look at that. Perhaps that is something for guidance rather than statute, and therefore perhaps not for the amendment the Government will bring forward at Third Reading. However, I hope that they will consider it.
I am particularly grateful to the Secretary of State who, at a time of serious austerity, was prepared to come forward with £40 million to enable this to happen. I very much wanted that to be achieved, but felt some concern for the directors of children’s services, who would have to make some very difficult choices in the short term to make this possible. As regards this matter I am therefore extremely grateful for the actions of the Minister, to the Minister for Children and Families, and to the Secretary of State.
Education: PISA Results
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Statement, which had a much more measured tone than the public pronouncements on the PISA results that we heard yesterday and this morning from the Secretary of State.
The results show that after three and a half years in government, the coalition has so far failed to make any further progress in improving standards in these core subjects of English, maths and science, compared to other countries. Any serious Secretary of State would regard these results as a call to action and a reason to scrutinise very carefully government policy in the light of the findings.
Instead, and typically, this Secretary of State’s line of defence has been one of attack, I think to try to divert attention from his own record. The Secretary of State claims that the UK’s current position in the international league tables is,
“a verdict on the last government”.
I say to the Minister, and believe profoundly, that if we had not had a Labour Government prioritising and investing in education year on year, the UK would be at the bottom of the league table. Without doubt, if the OECD had been comparing countries in 1996—it was not—the UK would have been on the floor. After 18 years of a Conservative Government, the education system in this country was in tatters, with crumbling schools, standards flatlining, teacher morale at rock bottom and a school system in chaos. The Labour Government, quite simply, had to rebuild that system from top to bottom.
That is why we saw the first and biggest transformation ever for pre-school children, with free early years education for all three and four year-olds and, later, for disadvantaged two year-olds. We also saw capped class sizes in primary schools and radical reform of the secondary curriculum. We introduced academies in disadvantaged areas because the Labour Government really did care about social justice and equity in our education system. We also saw massive investment in teacher and head teacher training and development, including the introduction of Teach First, and year-on-year improvements in GCSE and A-level results—achievements which this Secretary of State has ridiculed and said were a fiddle.
When we left office in 2010, the coalition inherited record results and the best cadre of teachers this country has ever had, by common acclaim, including from Ofsted. That was a solid foundation for the continued progress that we agree is undoubtedly still needed for us to compete with the rising economies elsewhere in the world. It would have been good to hear the Secretary of State acknowledge that progress, but instead of doing that and trying to build on it, this Secretary of State is in danger of squandering those advances by taking our education system backwards to didactic teaching and a rampant free market between schools.
The Minister selected certain factors that he thinks these results tell us. However, if PISA tells us anything, it is that the countries doing better have understood and are relentlessly implementing three important lessons. First, as a teacher using the Singapore maths model said on the news this morning, learning by rote is simply not good enough for the innovative technological world in which our children will work. However, this Secretary of State is returning the UK to an obsolete curriculum and an exam system that measures what children remember, not what they can actually do.
The second lesson is that collaboration between schools and schools challenging each other drive up standards. However, this Secretary of State has abolished the London Challenge, where schools worked together, challenged each other and produced the fastest rise in achievements. He also abolished the Greater Manchester and Black Country Challenges, which were beginning to produce similar results in some of the most disadvantaged parts of the country. If the Minister cares about social justice and equity in education, that should not have been done, as the scheme was addressing extreme disadvantage in our education system.
The third lesson is that qualifications, along with continuing development of teachers, is the single most important factor in improving education and achievement. However, this Secretary of State, as we just discussed in Questions, has allowed academies and free schools to employ unqualified people to work as teachers, even in core subjects. As I said, we have seen some academies putting out adverts for unqualified people with four GCSEs to teach maths.
I could not agree more with the Minister about the need to focus on social justice and equity, to introduce rigour and standards into the education system and, particularly, to make sure that those from disadvantaged backgrounds can gain the most. However, although we support some of the Government’s reforms, I cannot agree that all of their measures, taken together, will achieve those ends. Will the Minister explain to the House why the Government’s policies are flying in the face of the lessons from elsewhere in the world, which I have just outlined, that emanate from the PISA results today?
I agree that this is a most important subject and we should use the OECD findings to our advantage as far as we can. Will the Government bring forward a considered and comprehensive analysis of the OECD findings so that we can have an informed debate in public about the implications for the UK, and regear some of the Government’s reforms to ensure that we can position our young people to compete with the best in the tiger economies?
Lord Nash
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. He made his opening point extremely eloquently and I think we all realise that you do not turn around an ocean liner in a couple of years. He is absolutely right and we should all just avoid having that conversation in the future.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
If the Minister will give way, I have to clarify the points I made in my opening speech. It was not that I expected the Government to have turned around a tanker. What I said was that substantial progress had been made during the years of the Labour Government, and necessarily so because of the state of the education system in 1997. In their three and a half years, the Government could have built on that progress rather than starting again with some very destructive reforms.
Lord Nash
We will have to beg to disagree on this because I do not see our going from seventh to 25th in literacy, from eighth to 28th in science or from fourth to 16th in maths as progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to a war room. I look forward to him perhaps taking me to visit that school at some stage. I entirely agree on the question of leadership. I was particularly impressed when I visited the Perry Beeches schools in Birmingham, which are run by an inspirational head, Liam Nolan, and by how he has managed to turn around a number of failing schools. He has not only kept in place people who were clearly not performing well under the previous regime but promoted them to very senior positions.
I entirely agree, too, about governing bodies. Whether the school is a local authority maintained school, a church school or an academy chain, real decisions can often be made in the governing bodies and we are focusing much more on them. We have recently made it absolutely clear that governing bodies should focus on a few key things: the vision and strategy of the school, holding the head to account for the attainment and progression of pupils, the performance management of his or her staff, and the finance. We need smaller governing bodies, in many cases, but with many more of the appropriate skills.
Local Authorities: Child Protection
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(10 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, in the light of the shocking findings published today by the Children’s Commissioner—that the extensive use by boys of adult pornography is fuelling sexual exploitation and abuse of girls on an apparently massive scale—what action are the Government taking to ensure that social workers and teachers in particular are better equipped to protect young people from this new and escalating abuse taking place among them? In view of the widespread concern across the House about these serious issues, will the Minister host a meeting with the commissioner and interested Peers to discuss further her findings and recommendations?
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Staff to child ratios: Ofsted-registered childminder settings
(1) This section applies to Ofsted-registered childminder settings.
(2) The ratio of staff to children under the age of eight must be no less than one to six, where—
(a) a maximum of three children may be young children;(b) a maximum of one child is under the age of one.(3) Any care provided by childminders for older children must not adversely affect the care of children receiving early years provision.
(4) If a childminder can demonstrate to parents, carers and inspectors, that the individual needs of all the children are being met, then in addition to the ratio set out in subsection (2), they may also care for—
(a) babies who are siblings of the children referred to in subsection (2), or(b) their own baby.(5) If children aged between four and five years only attend the childminding setting outside of normal school hours or the normal school term time, they may be cared for at the same time as three other young children, provided that at no time does the ratio of staff to children under the age of eight exceed one to six.
(6) If a childminder employs an assistant or works with another childminder, each childminder or assistant may care for the number of children permitted by the ratios specified in subsections (2), (4) and (5).
(7) Children may only be left in the sole care of a childminder’s assistant for two hours in a single day.
(8) Childminders must obtain the permission of a child’s parents or carers before that child can be left in the sole care of a childminder’s assistant.
(9) The ratios in subsections (2), (4) and (5) apply to childminders providing overnight care, provided that the children are continuously monitored, which may be through the use of electronic equipment.
(10) For the purposes of this section a child is—
(a) a “young child” up until 1 September following his or her fifth birthday;(b) an “older child” after the 1 September following his or her fifth birthday.”
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 235 and 236 would simply place in the Bill the current permitted staff/child ratios for childminders and nursery settings respectively. The current ratios are at the moment in regulations which can be changed by order of the Secretary of State. I had hoped I would not have to speak to these amendments, which were precipitated in the Committee deliberations of this Bill in the other place by the Government’s attempt earlier this year to increase the permitted staff/children ratios for childminders and nurseries. Noble Lords may recall that, after strong resistance from many parliamentarians but particularly also from childminders, daycare providers and children’s organisations, and after Mr Nick Clegg made it clear that the Liberal Democrats could not support these changes, eventually they were dropped in June.
However, in the last 10 days the Government have launched what I have to say is a very strange online survey using Facebook and Twitter to ask parents what they know about ratios in childcare settings and the qualifications of staff. Entitled “Ratios in Nurseries and Other Childcare Settings”, it asks 10 questions of parents with three and four year-olds in nurseries. All the questions are about ratios and qualifications. The Pre-school Learning Alliance described the survey as “biased”, “unscientific” and easily open to manipulation. Clearly, the understandable concern is that Conservative Ministers are trying to revisit this issue. There is suspicion about the motives behind the survey, particularly when, inevitably given its nature, the results will be random, unsystematic and potentially open to abuse.
Therefore, we felt we had to explore the support for putting into primary legislation the current requirements on staff ratios. As I said, that is the intention behind Amendments 235 and 236. We have done this for two reasons. First, the current ratios have, for the moment, stood the test of time in balancing on the one hand the quality of provision for children and on the other hand the costs to providers and therefore to parents. The evidence from Holland, where ratios were increased in 2005, was that this led to significant worsening of the environment for children and a much impaired responsiveness by staff to the children. They have now reversed those increases in the Netherlands. There is currently no evidence to support an increase of ratios.
Secondly, we also believe, given recent events, that if at some point any future Government were to feel that that was evidence to support a change to these ratios one way or the other, this issue is sufficiently important to require close parliamentary scrutiny and debate. The well-being of the youngest children in our society will depend on getting this right. At one level, the subject of staff/child ratios in nurseries could be taken to be a very dry subject, but I know that noble Lords will appreciate that it is critical. It is the most fundamental factor in shaping the daily experience of children in those settings: how happy they are, how well cared for they are, whether that setting is contributing positively to their development or not.
Amendment 235 and 236 set out the current regulatory requirements. Amendment 235 covers childminders. To set out what we are talking about, a single childminder can currently care for up to six children aged eight, including a maximum of one baby under 12 months and another two children under five. In practice, then, a childminder can now have a baby of six months, two children aged 18 months and three children aged five. In addition, he or she can exceptionally look after a baby sibling of one of the other children and her own baby if parents and inspectors agree. That is up to eight children: three babies, two young children under five and three children under eight. One would think that that was already more than enough to ensure quality of care.
I will share my own experience. I regularly—with my husband—have my three granddaughters for whole days at a time, at least once a week. They are aged three, two and one. I can tell you, at the end of that day, all we can do is flop back and put our feet up. Getting the three of them out with coats on, in separate buggies or whatever, is a logistical challenge in itself. I think that, normally, six children—one baby, two toddlers and three others—is quite a challenge for a single childminder.
For nurseries, there must be one member of staff for every three children under two, one member of staff for every four children aged two to three, and one member of staff for every eight children who are over three, with minimum standards of qualification set out in regulations. In 2008, when my party was in government, the ratios for three and four year-olds were increased. Providers were given the option to increase the ratios to 1:13 for three and four year-olds, provided a qualified teacher had direct contact with the children. These ratios already seem to be as far as one would want to go. For example, a 22-place nursery with six babies, eight toddlers and eight three year-olds would be required to have just five members of staff. Again, that seems fairly challenging.
Professor Nutbrown, who was appointed by the Government to undertake an independent review, opposed increasing the ratios and restated the well evidenced facts not only that good-quality childcare benefits young children’s development, but that that quality is also directly related to the numbers and the qualifications and training of the staff concerned. These amendments do not mean that the ratios could never be changed, but they would mean that the Government would have to bring forward legislation to change them that would precipitate the detailed scrutiny that we think that they merit.
I am pretty sure that the Government will say that putting ratios into primary legislation would make it too difficult to change them. However, when it is judged to be a very important issue, this and previous Governments do and have put detailed requirements into primary legislation. We have at least one example in this very Bill, where the Government have include the maximum time limit for care proceedings, over which courts cannot go. They have put that time—a number—in the Bill. This is an equally important issue, justifying primary legislation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am one of the Peers who is concerned about the government proposals to change the ratios and I tabled an Oral Question on this which the Minister answered. I admire the work that the Government have been doing through Iain Duncan Smith, working in partnership with Graham Allen, on recognising the importance of the earliest years of a child’s life and ensuring a good attachment between the child and the parent. Andrea Leadsom MP is the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sure Start Children’s Centres and a leader of the 1001 Critical Days campaign, which looks at the period covering pregnancy and the first two years of a child’s life. It is thinking about how that time can be made into the best possible experience for both the parent and the child.
I was therefore very worried about the proposal to change the ratios for babies in baby rooms, particularly because one tends to have the least experienced and least educated young women working in them. I recognise that the Government are concerned about affordability, and we all want children to have the benefit of both good quality group care and childminding. In terms of affordability, three or four months ago an interesting editorial piece in Nursery World looked at the various factors that contribute to making childcare expensive or affordable. One of the things the editor emphasised was that the Government need to fund the entitlement properly—the entitlement that had been available up to three years old but has now moved down to two year-olds. The Government should come up with the full whack, and that is an aspect that needs to be addressed. The editorial highlighted that several different factors make this a complicated issue, which means that it is difficult to make childcare profitable.
I was very relieved when the Government decided not to go ahead with the changes in the ratios, and I hope that the Minister can now assure us that, for the foreseeable future, we will not see them changed, particularly for the very youngest children.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
The noble Baroness is correct. However, I would like her to acknowledge that we did not try to increase those ratios, nor did we expect a Government to try to do so. We thought that they were safe in regulations.
Baroness Northover
I think that the noble Baroness understands why it makes sense that they are there.
Noble Lords will be aware—again, reference has been made to this—that the Government brought forward proposals in January of this year to amend ratios where staff were more highly qualified; there is always a balance between how you make child care cost effective and how you ensure that it is safe. However, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Childcare, Elizabeth Truss, made clear in the other place on 11 June, the Government are not proceeding with the proposals to change the staff/child ratios for childminders and non-domestic providers. We do not believe that it is right to put staff/child ratios in primary legislation. I assure noble Lords, and especially the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that the Government have made it clear that we do not intend to proceed with the previous proposals to amend the existing ratios. I hope noble Lords find that reassuring.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, flagged up one or two issues such as the survey. The survey was intended to inform our understanding of what barriers might be preventing early-years providers from using an existing flexibility that is already there for three-to-four year-olds. We wanted to know why that arrangement, which would no doubt have come in under the noble Baroness’s Government, was not being used. Social media was used for that; it is a cost-effective and quick method of gaining some responses that might help to inform that. It was limited; it was live for just under a week and received 260 replies. The department will have a look at that as part of its ongoing work. It was looking at why the existing flexibility was not used.
I reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that the Childcare Act 2006 provides a framework for the regulation of childcare which prescribes the detail in secondary legislation subject to the negative resolution procedure. These powers contain a simple but effective safeguard in that there is already a requirement that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education must consult Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills and any other appropriate persons before making welfare regulations. The existing process achieves the right balance between an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny and taking into account the views of providers, parents and other interested parties.
I hope that I have reassured noble Lords on the key point that the Government are not proceeding with the proposals which were initially put forward. It is important that all these areas should be looked at, addressed and considered, so that we see what their implications might be. However, in the light of that decision not to go ahead, I hope that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment and be reassured about those ratios.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I thank the noble Baroness for her response and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for their contributions. The Minister’s response on the principle of something like this going into primary legislation was pretty much what I thought it would be. However, she did not quite answer the point about why the Government think some issues can be in primary legislation but not this one. However, the Minister did not just quote what the Minister, Elizabeth Truss, said rather ambiguously on 11 June, but on two occasions she said—I have written it down and will check in Hansard—that the Government,
“do not intend to proceed”,
with these changes and, “are not proceeding”, with the previous proposals. That is a bit more definitive. I will check those quotes in Hansard, but I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this point.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, to the Grand Committee. It is very helpful to have a parent who is bringing up her children taking part in the Bill and it was good to listen to her tribute to her childminder, Margaret. I am also grateful to the Minister for hosting a meeting on this matter. The discussion was useful, and it was particularly helpful to be reminded that childminder agencies will be one way to help childminders feel less isolated. I have visited childminders in the past. They were part of childminder networks which they found very useful. They would meet regularly and take on training together. That is the positive side of this.
I want to encourage the Government to be open-minded in terms of how they develop childcare in this country. Perhaps I may highlight the value of nursery schools and other things that the Government are involved in, but I should voice my concern that an over-emphasis on private provision may not be helpful. After all, the cost of this provision is in the pay and training of the women—and it is women—who do this work. Historically, it has been very difficult for these businesses to make a profit. These nurseries have found that they just do not get enough bums on seats and therefore it is costly to run the whole business which means that they have to drive down price by cutting training or pay. We know that pay in nursery care has historically been very low indeed. The risk is that by having too much provision in the private sector we will move towards something which may not be much cheaper but may be inferior in quality. From memory, the turnover of staff in nursery schools is about 4% whereas in some of the large private providers the figure can be 14% or 15%. I recall that the latter offer quite a different setting. It is so important that our young children have continuity of care and that their professionals stay around for them for long periods. There can be stagnation but in general we want that long-term relationship with the carer.
I conclude with a quotation from Childcare Markets: Can They Deliver an Equitable Service?, edited by Eva Lloyd and Helen Penn. Professor Penn states in her summary:
“The key question is whether the childcare market is a reliable and equitable way of delivering childcare. For neoliberal countries, the risks and complications involved in allowing entrepreneurs to provide childcare are either unrecognised or deemed acceptable—or a combination of both”.
I think this was what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was referring to—the possible extra costs of placing more emphasis on the private sector. Professor Penn continues:
“In other countries where there is a childcare market, it is carefully controlled and generously funded, and although there may be many kinds of provider, the type of funding and the regulatory framework means that for-profit companies have limited room to manoeuvre. In yet other countries the childcare market is altogether unacceptable, and the government takes on the responsibility for providing childcare”.
Given that we are having a clause stand part debate, I remind the Government that a range of options are available and they can benefit from taking a very active role in this regard. Professor Penn concludes that there are,
“limitations and tensions in relying on the childcare market. Viewing childcare as a commodity to be bought and sold undermines equity and quality, and regulation has to be comprehensive and wide-reaching in order to try and compensate for these failings”.
This also speaks to the concern that has been expressed about relaxing inspection in these new arrangements. I do not consider that I understand the area sufficiently to be particularly critical or to be either for or against what the Government are proposing but I encourage us all to be as open-minded as possible in this area.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Will the Minister answer two questions given that the statement of policy intention talks about the 20 childminder agency trials that are now up and running, with which the Government are testing this idea? In summing up, will the Minister say how many of the agencies in the trials are private sector companies as opposed to local authorities or voluntary organisations? Do the Government have any knowledge or evidence from anywhere else in the world of private sector companies being given responsibility for the regulation and inspection of childcare providers?
Lord Nash
My Lords, I would like to speak to the group of amendments including Clause 74 stand part, Amendments 237, 239, 240 and government Amendments 240A to 240Q on childminder agencies. As regards Clause 74 stand part, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. There are superb childminders right across the country, but their numbers have fallen significantly in the past 20 years. Through the introduction of agencies we aim to increase the number of childminders in the market, and provide an affordable, high-quality service to parents. This is enabling legislation. Childminder agencies will be voluntary. No childminder will be forced to join an agency. However, some childminders, especially those new to the profession, may want to take advantage of the support that agencies can offer.
Securing high-quality outcomes for children is central to the agency concept. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, the chair of Ofsted, told us when we met with Peers last week that when childminders work together, there is a clear improvement in quality. Ofsted regards this as a way of professionalising the sector and driving up standards. Ofsted will play an essential role in ensuring this through its inspection of an agency—including, for example, observing a sample of childminders registered with the agency to make sure that the agency is providing a high-quality service.
Children and Families Bill
Baroness Hughes of Stretford Excerpts(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey (LD)
I will be quite brief; I do not have all my papers together. I feel that all of us in this Room realise the importance of this piece of legislation. We are looking to support the work that has been going on. The needs of children with special educational needs are not purely educational, or purely to do with health or social care; a combination of provision might be needed. For the first time, as it says on the label, parents will be supported by this legislation and will not have to go through a great difficult bureaucratic system. Their children will have a plan that will clearly spell out their needs. I say again how much I appreciate the revised code of practice, which is excellent and shows clearly the steps that need to be taken.
If a parent wants to appeal against the fact that they have not succeeded in gaining a plan, or if there are aspects of the plan that they are not happy about, we should make it as easy as possible. As it says, this legislation concerns children and families; it is family-friendly and children-friendly. The notion that parents and the child or young person then have to go through a labyrinthine method to resolve issues seems to go against the grain of what we are trying to achieve. As the document says, we are supporting parents all the way through. When there is an appeal, the code of conduct rightly refers to arbitration and how it can be resolved. However, if you then have to take your “complaint” somewhere, you do not want to have to go to three different bodies. You want to be able to take it to one person or one body who can sort it out for you one way or another. That seems to be in the whole spirit of this legislation.
Without pre-empting what the Minister will say, I guess that he will point out that we are talking about very different animals here. Health people are very different from education people and local authorities. I understand that, and that it might cause problems in trying to have that single point of appeal. My preference is to have a single point of appeal so that parents know where they are going and for it to be included in the code of conduct. If that is not possible, is there any way for parents to be supported and guided through the difficult processes? We are all interested in the well-being of the parent and the child or young person. I beg to move.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 181, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to which I have added my name. I shall also speak to Amendments 182 and 272. To some extent, we are rehearsing today, in these amendments, some of the arguments that we had earlier this week about social care. They concern the fundamental question of how serious the Government are about instigating a new system that is integrated right through from the point of early identification, assessment, provision and appeal.
As the Bill stands, we have integrated assessment, at least in the EHC plans, but we do not have equal accountability in terms of integration of provision because of the social care situation. Here we do not have integration from the very important perspective of parents’ and children’s experience in relation to appeals. Therefore, I strongly support Amendment 181, which would add social care and healthcare provision specified in EHC plans to the First-tier Tribunal as a mechanism of appeal. I would be grateful if, in his reply, the Minister would go beyond what he has already said to us, which is that there are established routes of complaint about social care through local authority complaints procedures and the Local Government Ombudsman, and clear and specific routes of redress within the NHS, its complaints processes and the health ombudsman.
Anybody who has tried to help a family to negotiate those two avenues of appeal will know how complicated they are. In addition, it is very important that, in relation to the substance of the complaint—as opposed to maladministration—they do not end up with an independent adjudication between the views of the complainant and the views of the service provider. The parents in this case would have to, for example, fully exhaust the local authority’s own complaints procedures as a first step; that could take many months. Of course, that adjudication is not independent; it is the local authority adjudicating on the complaint. They can then go to the Local Government Ombudsman, but that person will adjudicate only on the principle of maladministration—that is, on whether the authority has not followed the proper procedure. He will obviously not adjudicate on the substance of the complaint. It is a similar situation in relation to health.
Therefore, if the parent has to negotiate those two systems, it can take a very long time. Many noble Lords will have had a number of pieces of correspondence from Jane Raca, who is a lawyer and author and has a 13 year-old, very disabled son. She outlines the detail of the Local Government Ombudsman procedure and shows that it takes months and sometimes years. I know from my previous constituency experience that that is the case and, furthermore, it does not actually judge independently on the substance of the complaint.
The other important point is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that—by their nature, and this is very welcome—EHC plans are meant to integrate an assessment around social care, health and special educational needs. A severely disabled child is likely to have needs in all three categories, so a parent might have concerns or complaints about all three categories of need. Under the current arrangements, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said very clearly, they would be faced with the almost impossible task of appealing through three different systems at once, at the same time as coping with a very disabled child and probably other children in the family. That is just not reasonable. If we came at this through the vision of the parent contemplating that system, it would look impossible. It would defeat many of us, let alone parents coping with very disabled children. Therefore, I really hope that the Minister will take this on board and see this very important and welcome principle of integration right the way through from assessment to appeal.
Our Amendment 182 would oblige the Secretary of State to publish information about special educational needs cases going to the tribunal. We feel it is important to bring much needed transparency into the system and put an end to practices by some, though not all, local authorities, such as systematically taking cases to court, keeping the cost down in the knowledge that many families will not challenge a decision or spend any money on legal fees, in order to avoid having to pay for the provision in the first place—taking the step early of going to appeal, rather than trying to get a local resolution. Whatever the Government decide, it is important that we regularly review which kind of cases are going to the tribunal and their outcomes, and that we have this information published regularly.
Amendment 272 simply ensures that the detail of, and any change to, the provisions in Clause 51(4)—that is, the regulations laid to provide for appeals to the First-tier Tribunal—will be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure through statutory instrument. It is right that Parliament should be able to comment on the proposals for appeals that the Government put forward.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, has also just spoken. The general point must be right: there has to be a unified route of appeal. There is no way that parents can be expected to endure the hassle and aggravation of pursuing three separate appeals or complaints if they are not satisfied with the provision that they are receiving.
This would simply be to answer the bureaucratic hassle identified in the Green Paper and the Lamb inquiry as driving parents to distraction by adding yet more layers of bureaucracy. I assume that the Government have just been defeated by their own bureaucracy in delivering a unified route of appeal; maybe this will give them some insight into how parents feel. To that, I simply say that they need to go away and try a bit harder.
I mainly want to pursue a more detailed point. It is clear that the parent can appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, or SENDIST, about the educational provision. As for health, the local authority must include in the EHC plan, health provision reasonably required by the learning difficulty or disability that causes the special educational needs, and health commissioners must secure that provision. However, it appears that the health commissioner has a veto. The draft regulations say that the health commissioner must agree the health provision. This raises the question: what recourse has the parent if the local authority does not include the health provision in the plan or the health commissioner does not agree it?
If the health provision is directly related to and supports the educational provision—for example, speech and language therapy delivered at school—the parent can appeal to SENDIST. However, if it is purely health provision—for example, if it is delivered at home—what opportunity does a parent have? I ask the Minister: what opportunities do parents have to challenge its non-provision or non-inclusion in the plan? The Government may answer by referring to the NHS complaints procedure but, quite apart from the point that this involves the parent pursuing a second and separate challenge, I am not sure that a complaints procedure is really the most effective way of enforcing the provision of something to which they feel they are entitled.
Similar arguments might presumably be made in relation to social care provision, except that in that case the complaint would be a separate one against the local authority. I would be most grateful if the Minister could respond to these points when he comes to reply.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 206 and shall speak also to Amendments 207 to 209. I will do these two things separately as Amendment 206 deals with one issue and Amendments 207 to 209 deal together with a somewhat separate but interrelated set of issues. I hope that I will be able to do both fairly briefly.
Turning first to Amendment 206, it would require that a plain English version of the code of practice should be made available. Much of the detail of the reforms contained in this Bill will be enshrined in the code of practice. Indeed, the code of practice will be the Bible, both for providers and users of the system. I recall an experience I had when I was one of the founder members of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal back in 1994. We attended a training session and somebody came along to brief us on the old code of practice. She said, “Well, I expect that you would like me to tell you what are the most important parts of this code of practice that you need to be most familiar with. What I am here to tell you is that you need to be fully familiar with it all”, so it is obviously a crucial document. The new code of practice will be the same as the old one in that respect. It was—and the new one will be—a crucial document, and I am sure that we are all most grateful to the Government for making the latest draft available in time for the Committee. That shows just what a crucial document it is.
It is also a very lengthy document—more than 170 pages—and although it will no doubt be subject to change over time, it will remain quite a complex document, so it is incumbent on us to ensure that the document is made as accessible as possible to young people and their families. A version of the code that provided clarity about a person’s rights and choices, made readily accessible in plain English, would be extremely valuable. As the Plain English Campaign has stated:
“The law is the most important example of how words affect people’s lives. If we cannot understand our rights, we have no rights”.
There are precedents for the use of plain English versions, for example, in relation to the Localism Act, so I hope that the Minister will agree to this amendment to ensure that families do not have to grapple with an impenetrable document and get the information that they need made easily accessible to them
Turning to Amendments 206 to 209, at first sight, the Government, with their Amendments 210 and 211, have gone a long way to meeting what these amendments were asking for. Indeed, I readily acknowledge that the Government’s amendments are very helpful, but they do not take us all the way. In two respects they do not take us all the way. Amendment 207 specifies a 90-day consultation period, which I think is perhaps more in accord with usual practice. The Government’s Amendments 210 and 211 seem, at first sight, to concede all that the amendments are asking for in terms of the code needing to be approved by the affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament. The wording of these amendments is a bit opaque but, when you unravel it, it becomes clear that the affirmative procedure is being conceded in relation to the first iteration of the new code, but not in relation to subsequent iterations which are simply subject to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed this out in its report last week, I think, and said that if the Government are conceding the affirmative procedure in relation to the first iteration of the code of practice, they are effectively conceding that any subsequent iteration of the code needs the affirmative procedure.
I therefore think we will want to continue to push Amendments 207 to 209. While expressing gratitude to the Government for the distance that they have moved with their Amendments 210 and 211, I express a little disappointment that they have not moved all the way and, indeed, made the further concession that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has suggested is essentially implied by their concession of the affirmative procedure for the first iteration of the code of practice. I beg to move.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I support Amendments 207, 208 and 209, to which I have added my name. I think we are all very clear that the code of practice is a very important document, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, has just said. It will determine the detail of implementation of the Government’s legislation in a very marked respect. Therefore, the mechanism by which the code is approved, and then subsequently revised, is also very important.
We have been round the houses somewhat with the mechanism of approval. There was a great deal of pressure from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in response to the Government’s initial proposals that the code of practice, even in its first iteration, should be subject to the negative resolution procedure. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, has just said, the Government have conceded that the first iteration should be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is very welcome. However, as he also said, the most recent report from the DPRR Committee said that although that is welcome,
“there is nothing in the Government’s response to suggest that revisions to the code will necessarily be of any less significance or importance so as to warrant a lower level of scrutiny. Accordingly, we remain of the view that the case has not been made for applying the draft negative procedure, and for this reason we consider the draft affirmative procedure should also apply where the code is being revised”.
That is what Amendment 209 would achieve.
I will just briefly mention Amendments 207 and 208, because they also deal with some aspects of the Bill that are not being redrafted by government Amendments 210 and 211. Clause 68(2), in particular, says that, in putting forward the code or any revisions:
“The Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit”.
We think that it should not be the decision of the Secretary of State as to who he or she consults about the code but that there should be a public consultation lasting 90 days, which is what Amendment 207 in particular would also achieve.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 206, 207 and 208 and I will just say a few words about both sets of amendments. In relation to Amendment 206, the current draft code of practice is actually written in fairly good, plain English, as far as I am concerned, and is relatively understandable. I commend those who put it together because it is a very good document and meets many of the comments that I know were made at an earlier stage. It is still subject to consultation and obviously there is still room for improvement.
In relation to Amendments 207 and 208, I will just endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes. Rather than there just being consultation with those whom the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, the code should be publicly available for consultation. That is something on which we would all put a lot of emphasis.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I will just follow up on the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. This is when online and blended education can come in very useful, because it is not expensive, compared with person-to-person education. I hope the Minister will consider it.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I will briefly add to the comments in support of Amendments 213 and 214 and speak to my and my noble friend Lady Jones’s intention to oppose Clause 70 standing part.
Young people who have previously had a statement are very overrepresented in the youth justice system, making up about 18% of young offenders. About 80% of those in young offender institutions have literacy problems or dyslexia to some degree. According to the Communication Trust, around 60% have communication needs. There is a very high level of need concentrated in this population of young people. We would all agree that those are shocking statistics and that clearly, in one way or another, many of these young people have been failed up to the point in their lives when they end up in the youth justice system.
I have some sympathy with the prison system, because it has, as I say, a very high concentration of need. However, in my experience, it also the case that despite some very dedicated individuals—and there are some in the prison system—the system as a whole has never done enough to address the special needs of young people in custody. Under the system that we have at the moment, the local authorities in general—we have heard that many young people in custody have also been through the care system—and the services available in the home communities from which these young people have come, and to which most of them inevitably will return, are also let off the hook while those young people are in custody.
Successive Governments have tried to get this right, and have made some progress, but nowhere near enough. It seems that the Government are now proposing significant changes, which many of us have welcomed, in the Bill in respect of special educational need provision in the community. Surely, therefore, this is an opportunity to grasp the nettle and make that change for young people currently in custody, so that we have some real consistency across the piece for young people with special needs.
Finally, the Minister said in the annexe to his letter to noble Lords that applying these provisions to young people in custody would cause SEN legislation to come,
“into conflict with existing, comprehensive statutory provisions governing how education and support for children and young people is delivered in custody”.
In slight contradiction to that first point, he added that, in any case, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education are now working closely together for changes in the system to improve the provision in respect of special educational needs. Why have a different set of changes? Would these changes not make more sense? That is not least because, as I say, they would tie in the local authorities and the schools from which young people are coming, and to which they are returning, and not simply leave this as a Prison Service issue.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I very much support all that has been said on this amendment about detained children. I believe that the Government have a number of plans that will be quite valuable as the forward march to a much better system for young people is in progress. Above all, if you just have one single test the moment that a young person comes into custody, to find out whether that child had any problems, and started from that point, you would not waste the time that has been wasted for so many years. I very much support this amendment.