Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

I start by agreeing with the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr. Timpson), who has great personal as well as professional experience of these matters, about Lord Laming and his contribution. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments and questions, to which I shall return in a moment. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) probed in a way that was pointed and forensic, but which I hope will allow us to move forward consensually as far as possible. I believe that there is consensus in the country that we need to take all the measures necessary to keep children safe. With that in mind, and because of my determination to have ready this year, if at all possible, a revision of "Working Together", the guidance for all areas on safeguarding, I went to Opposition Members a week or so ago to ask their permission to introduce these new clauses at this stage. I am pleased to say that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) gave his, subject to agreement that there would be further discussion on the contents of the targets in new clause 22. I commit to those discussions happening in future. I was pleased also to have the agreement of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) to the introduction of the new clauses, which was confirmed to my office. Because these issues are vital, I hope, as I always have, that we can move forward consensually. I shall come to the points made about new clauses 22, 23 and 24 at the end of my comments, but first I shall respond to the detailed points made by Members of all parties about the other amendments. On new clause 29, we are absolutely committed to independence in the chairing of local safeguarding children boards. There has been debate about Lord Laming's consultation process, because there are some concerns in the children's world about whether we will have a sufficient quality of independent people. We believe, as Lord Laming does, that that can be overcome. There will therefore be full independence. I believe that that needs to be independence from all agencies involved in safeguarding children, but we are not putting that in primary legislation because we believe that statutory guidance will provide more flexibility. It will give some areas time to find the type of high-quality, trained, independent person we will need. On that basis, and with our clear commitment to independence, I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will not press the new clause. I turn to the hon. Lady's second probing amendment, amendment 67, which is about accountability. We believe that current legislation makes clear the need for accountability in the role of director of children's services, and the Bill will make it clear in the case of children's trust boards. It will also make clear the importance of the children and young people's plan being owned by all agencies in a children's trust. The new targets will be duties on the local authority, but they will be owned by the whole trust. It is important that the individual agencies that are part of a trust are also accountable individually for playing their proper role in it. That is why we do not believe that we need to change legislation in the way suggested in amendment 67. The way in which we have designed the responsibility for the plan within children's trusts meets the hon. Lady's concerns. We will ensure that the regulations under section 17 of the 2004 Act about how that plan is drawn up make it clear where the responsibility for individual actions should lie. We will be able to discuss that with her in the coming months. I looked into the matter covered by the hon. Lady's new clause 20 in detail when I read it. Our belief is that, aside from the odd drafting issue about the exact role of the key worker, which we do not need to go into today, the existing statutory law and guidance in the Children Acts 1989 and 2004 achieves the objectives that she sets out. The statutory guidance is clear that section 47 of the 1989 Act should always involve a social worker undertaking separate interviews with the child wherever appropriate. It is also clear that seeing the child alone is not enough, and that the child must be observed interacting with their family and, if appropriate, with other adults or care givers. We will revise that statutory guidance later in the year to make it absolutely clear that if at any point the parents refuse to allow the child to be seen alone, the local authority has powers under that Act to apply for an emergency protection order to require parents to comply with any request to produce the child. The Act authorises the removal of a child in those circumstances if necessary. Current statute therefore provides the powers that the hon. Lady seeks in the new clause. Turning to amendment 15, I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and the Joint Committee on Human Rights for their contribution and their positive comments about the education of young offenders. We believe that in the Bill, and more generally through the children's plan, we are meeting our obligations under the convention on the rights of the child. We appreciate the scrutiny and proposals of the Joint Committee. I would not want a piecemeal approach that applied the convention differently to children's trusts from the way in which we approach the obligations of schools, local safeguarding children boards, children's centres and GPs. We need wider discussion on the Green Paper on rights and responsibilities, which is coming up shortly, but I do not believe that pursuing the amendment would be the right thing to do at the moment. The Conservatives' amendment 54 suggests that more bodies join the children's trusts in addition to the list of groups that are already on them, which is being extended in the Bill. It proposes that a series of groups should join, the first of which is short stay schools. Such schools have a management committee, which takes on some accountability and responsibility separate from that of the local authority, and I am happy to repeat the commitment made by the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), that we will add the management committee of short stay schools to the list of relevant partners in the guidance that is coming shortly. Sure Start children's centres do not have governance arrangements separate from the local authority, like those of a school. They are more places where a range of services are brought together. We therefore think it more appropriate for the local authority to be the representative body on the children's trust rather than individual Sure Start children's centres. In the case of extended schools, the situation depends on how the private and voluntary sectors and schools provide the services in question. It would be hard to define which body other than the local authority should represent extended services on a children's trust. Finally, in the case of GPs, we made it clear in the child health strategy that there would be a lead GP with children's expertise on the children's trust in each area. Our view, and that of the Secretary of State for Health, is that extending the duty to co-operate to GPs at this stage would weaken rather than strengthen our ability to ensure health engagement. The primary care trust, as commissioner, should play that role. I hope that I have covered the points that have been made about Opposition new clauses and amendments, so I shall return to the new clauses that I have tabled.