My Lords, one of the crucial functions of the Government and their agencies in respect of examinations is to assign a point score to each grade in each examination because that is the mechanism by which examinations are made comparable from the point of view of the general public judging the performance of schools and—although it is not the same authority setting the point score—to some extent for universities judging whether a student has done well enough to enter a course. However, the function of the amendment is to draw attention to the performance tables in all their various forms. Following examinations being reported under different headings, which became very diverse and confusing, whereby you had different columns for IB and vocational exams and a third column for A-level examinations, we now have a consolidated point score. That has made it possible for the performance of schools which teach a broader curriculum to be recorded in a common currency of points, particularly those schools that are introducing GNVQs and, in a constructive way, many city schools that provide a broad range of BTECs and other examinations at GCSE—and to a much larger extent at A-level.

If that is to be believable, it is important that the point setting be carried out independently of any organisation with anything to gain from setting the points to their advantage. The majority of the distortions have been caused by government, although I do not blame this Government in particular. Governments tend to introduce new qualifications and want them to be taken up. One of the ways in which they have incentivised schools to take them up is by seeing to it that they are awarded a substantially excessive number of points. At the moment some GNVQs, which are good examinations, are rated in the league tables as being equivalent to four GCSEs, when clearly in terms of the work required to complete them they are worth substantially less. This distorts the whole pattern of education.

Schools plunge into these examinations not so much because they are what are required by their pupils, but because it is the way in which the schools can be rated highly in the league tables. That is not the motivation which should lie behind a school’s decision to change in this way. These examinations may well be right for their pupils, but the pupils’ interests should come first, rather than how the school appears in the league tables. For the two to be matched up it is enormously important that the point setting should be independent of government and, obviously, of awarding bodies or anyone else with anything to gain from setting the points one way or the other.

I am keen that this function be transferred to Ofqual and I cannot see any reason why it should remain with government. I beg to move.

My Lords, we on these Benches have some sympathy with the amendment, but we are worried that it would introduce a degree of inflexibility to this area and not fulfil the objective of clear transparency that the noble Lord is seeking. We are not convinced that this is necessarily the right formula.

Although I have only just returned to the Chamber, I heard what was being said. Does the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, think that assigning points to particular pieces of information is an adequate way of examining the full range of academic skills and abilities that learners need to acquire? I should be very grateful to hear from him whether I am right to ask that question.

My Lords, there is no such thing as perfection in this, but the Government certainly recognise in their proposals to change the performance tables that, at the end of the day, most parents want some form of simplicity. Yes, there are a thousand different ways of measuring a school; I would not find it difficult to produce 40 or 50 relevant measures even for a primary school. If you have skill and experience, you should be looking at that and, anyway, you should be visiting a school to see what it feels like. However, while there is a need for a measure of how well a school is doing academically—I agree that you may need to split this assessment into different bits—how many should it be split into?

At primary level we have English, science and maths. Can you really lump them all together into one figure, or should we see them separately? Should we just publish the individual subjects that are taken at A-level and not try to lump them together because how can one add physics to drama? The whole process within the breadth of A-level or GCSE of allocating the same grades to totally different subjects is one which, in essence, is a compromise but it is meant to mean something; it is meant to indicate a level of difficulty, a level of achievement; and it is putting things on a common scale because they are easier to understand that way. At the end of the day, even if people want to see the complexity, they also want the simplicity. They want the overall Ofsted judgment on a school as well as the 40 or 50 different criteria by which Ofsted makes its judgment. To get down to one measure, you need a way of translating a BTEC into a GCSE. That is what the point system is for. I am not saying that in any way it is perfection but that it is a useful measure for parents who have to make decisions about schools.

I am delighted to respond to this short debate. I believe that we should consider this amendment further, consider how to take forward the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and return with something on Report. Having seen some amazing physics teachers in action, I can well imagine how one could add drama to physics but I would be interested to know how one could do it the other way around—maybe a lighting-TECH or something like that.

The values put on qualifications in performance measures for schools should reflect both their challenge and their size and how much time it typically takes to study for them. Just as with qualifications standards, I do not believe that Ministers would want to interfere in setting these values, but while there is a suspicion that they might do so now or in the future, we risk undermining the credibility of the school accountability system, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has explained so eloquently.

So, just as we need independent judgments on standards, in matters of school accountability, we also need independent judgments on how the size of one qualification stacks up against another. We believe passionately in the role of Ofqual as a fully independent, expert regulator of qualifications and as part of that, in the area of school performance measurement, we need Ofqual to be involved in checking and providing assurance that we have sound, objective judgments about the comparability of qualifications.

We are therefore working with interim Ofqual and the QCDA to define such a role for Ofqual in relation to the Government’s achievement and attainment targets and, in future, the school report card. Perhaps I need to understand further the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about inflexibility. I should be very happy to pursue that discussion before Report. To allow Ofqual to do full justice to this role, we expect that we will need to amend the Bill. I will look at this further and come back to it on Report.

I am immensely grateful for that reply and I look forward to Report, as I was anyway. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I do not expect the Government to accept this amendment as I do not think it has a place in the Bill. However, it has the virtue of bringing into the light of legislative day this strange committee called JACQA, which exists in order to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether he will fund particular qualifications. I want to discuss it in relation to the next group of amendments because of the power which that gives to the Secretary of State—quite rightly as he is the keeper of the purse—over the whole business of which qualifications shall be taught in English state schools. As a result of the economics of the whole process, he has a strong voice in what is in those qualifications. If the Secretary of State does not like a particular qualification, he can, as he did recently, say, “No, we’re not going to fund this”. Even though the qualification has been passed by Ofqual and is in every other way eligible, he can say, “No, we don’t want to give money to that”.

That is fair enough: it is the Secretary of State’s job and it is what the Secretary of State is for. It seems to me an enormously important consideration when we come to Clause 138, because it gives the Secretary of State all the control he can possibly need over the content of qualifications and how they are delivered. It gives him no specific powers, but it gives him the ultimate veto, which effectively will give him all the control that a Secretary of State could ever have, need or want. I beg to move.

I shall speak to Amendment 274, which is grouped with this amendment. We take the opposite view. In the Bill, we are setting up a system whereby the Government will decide their educational objectives; the QCDA will research and develop the curriculum; Ofqual will recognise the awarding bodies and their qualifications; and the schools will be all set to teach them. The children will then sit the exam and the awarding bodies will mark and grade them.

However, what happens if the Government decide not to fund some of the qualifications that have gone through that fairly rigorous process? It seems to us only right that when a qualification has jumped through all the hoops laid out for it and a young person wants to take that qualification, it should be funded by the department, particularly in the light of the involvement in the system of the QCDA. That is what our amendment seeks to ensure.

Before we get into deep discussion about the QCDA, it seems fitting to begin with a debate about the damage caused by the restrictive nature of qualifications in this country. We have tabled Amendments 273A and 273B to draw attention to what we consider to be the misguided policy of the Government.

Our Amendment 273A calls for a review of the provision of the international baccalaureate examination. This examination has upheld very high standards of qualification and it provides a rigorous and effective assessment that has held standards at a consistently high level. Our Amendment 273B calls for a review of the provision of IGCSE and Cambridge Pre-U examinations in the state sector. These examinations are increasingly being offered by independent schools rather than the traditional state-run examinations.

We have tabled these amendments not just to call attention to the success of these examinations, and certainly not to rerun debates regarding the importance of upholding standards in schools and examinations. It is true that these exams achieve all those things, but we draw attention to them in order to raise two main points. First, we believe that increased choice in examination qualifications will help to drive up standards in schools. The schools which offer these diverse exam choices know that their parents have an option about where they send their children. If the examinations offered are not up to scratch, parents can just take their children elsewhere. In line with the workings of the market, this will have a knock-on effect of ensuring that these examinations will need to uphold their standards in order to maintain their reputation and increase the numbers who select that particular exam. In the light of that virtuous spiral, encouraged by increased choice of examination, can the Minister account for the fact that despite promises to the contrary the funding for IB provision in the state sector has been removed?

Secondly, there is a widening gap in our society which is becoming more marked and one that we must attempt to bridge. It is the gap between those who can afford to go to independent schools and so are given the opportunity to take qualifications, and those who remain in the state sector and are given no option at all.

I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that disparity and will be able to update the House on the Government's intentions. We believe that it is utterly wrong that those with money should be able to go to schools where a more robust examination system is followed than those without. With that in mind, can the Minister account for the Government's decision not to fund the international baccalaureate examination? Can she also inform us of the status of the funding of the IGCSE? At the moment, without funding, the Government are effectively denying access to that exam for those in the state sector.

I am interested in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, Amendment 263. We agree with the objectives behind the amendment, and I am very glad that he has raised the issue. Nevertheless, I feel that I must reserve some judgment purely because it seems rather inefficient to use one quango to administer another. One might say that if JACQA does not need to be independent, it may be sensible to abolish it altogether to save costs.

Similarly, the issues raised by Amendment 274 are useful for the debate. The question is: if the advice of JACQA does not have a bearing on whether qualifications are funded, does that not imply that it should be abolished? It would seem odd to maintain a quango that operates with all the costs that that entails but without any real function or purpose. I will listen very carefully to the Minister.

My Lords, I very much support Amendments 273A and 273B. At the moment, we have something of an examinations apartheid between state and independent schools, which seems to me quite wrong. Independent schools are now experimenting with the IGCSE and with the Pre-U and, so far, the results seem very promising. They are enjoyed by the young people, the young people are challenged by them and the brighter children certainly seem to thrive better with those examinations than with those on offer in the state sector. Of course it was right in the early days to restrict the spread of new examinations, but now that they are much better established in the independent sector it would make sense for the Government to extend them in the state sector as well.

My Lords, we are having a very interesting debate about the committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, described as a secretive and shadowy body. I will be delighted to shine some light on its activities through my remarks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, made some assertions about the international baccalaureate, suggesting that funding for it has been removed. I can reassure her that that is not the case: funding for the international baccalaureate in state schools has not been removed. I turn to her amendments. Of course people should be able to choose from a range of high-quality qualifications, as she suggests, to help them to achieve their potential and to recognise what they have learnt. Of course the qualifications offer should be kept under review, as it is. Of course noble Lords will be interested in the Pre-U, but the Pre-U and the baccalaureate are already available in the state sector. They are regulated by interim Ofqual, so we can be sure that those qualifications will be of high quality.

The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, was also concerned about the IGCSE but, as I have said in this place once before, the IGCSE has not yet been submitted to interim Ofqual. It is not accredited and its processes for maintaining standards are not monitored. That is not to say that it will not be in future, but it would be self-defeating for Parliament to set up an independent regulator and then, in the same Bill, ask the Secretary of State to review whether maintained schools should be able to use qualifications that have not been submitted to the regulator for accreditation. We must have a system and stick by it.

Is the IB included in the calculations for the league tables for schools?

I am receiving inspiration at the moment, which may help the noble Baroness.

Just to clarify, the funding for the international baccalaureate pilot scheme has now come to an end. Like other qualifications approved under Section 96, the IB remains eligible for funding—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, was concerned about this.

The answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is yes; the IB is included in the AATs.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. As I said earlier, it may be for the Secretary of State to decide what should be funded, but he is advised on that by the QCDA, so why does he need JACQA?

My Lords, JACQA’s role is to bring together cross-sectoral advice in a transparent and systematic way to advise the Secretary of State in his decision-making.

Why cannot the QCDA do that?

My Lords, we will come on to the role and functions of the QCDA. Quite different roles need to be fulfilled. JACQA is about making value judgments about funding rather than expert decisions about the curriculum, the running of national assessments, and so on.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her attention to my amendments. She illustrated rather neatly the power that JACQA gives to the Secretary of State and the impotence of any form of publication about what it does when she said that the IGCSE had never been submitted for approval. It was never submitted for approval because the Secretary of State, or rather the Minister for Schools, indicated that, if it was, he would not fund it anyway; so, unsurprisingly, no one has gone to the trouble of submitting these things for acceptance. However, if it was clear that the Government were prepared to fund them, they would be submitted like a shot because there is a big market for them in grammar schools. Indeed, grammar schools would take to them like a duck to water, as have many independent schools now. Particularly for bright kids, but generally for someone of a more analytical frame of mind, they are a great replacement for the rather degraded set of examinations that are GCSEs. This power is a great weapon in the Secretary of State’s armoury, and I agree with the Minister that it is entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State should have it. He can receive all sorts of advice from all sorts of directions, but he must decide these things. It is his responsibility, and I am delighted that the power remains with him.

As my noble friend Lady Perry said, the IB is at a very inflated rate in the performance tables. It is rated as five A-levels, even though the teaching time for it is perhaps three-and-a-half A-levels, which, to go back to Amendment 261, is another reason why I should like there to be a proper independent rating of these things. However, I very much hope that in the future we will see arrangements whereby the state sector is again allowed to innovate. It is wonderful that independent schools are getting back to innovating, are bringing in the IB and are supporting the Pre-U and the IGCSE. But that should be happening in the state sector too, where it will require a degree of openness and encouragement.

Some things really need to be done. For example, our IT qualifications at GCSE and A-level are miserable and boring. They are stuck in the IT of 20 years ago with spreadsheets and business practices. There is no programming or engagement with the web. Certainly, there is no Web 2.0 and interactivity, which is what all the kids are doing for themselves. IT should be a wonderful, exciting examination that sets students off at pace into the outside world. Instead, it is an absolute drag and is done only by those who cannot find more interesting things to do, which is a disgrace. All that needs to happen is for innovation to be encouraged and allowed, and better examinations would emerge. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister that the main focus of our objection to the QCDA is that it is yet another body within this deeply quango-centric Bill, during whose passage we have consistently argued for a change in the Government’s approach. Rather than the quango-filled, bureaucratic tangle we have before us, we would prefer a streamlined, simple and clear-cut structure, which would be transparent and accountable.

Within such a framework we would hope to remove the need for the QCDA altogether and thus cut down on yet another agency. As the Bill stands, the QCDA is responsible for the QCA's non-regulatory functions. According to the Explanatory Notes it is designed to support,

“Ministers on developing the curriculum and related qualifications and delivering National Curriculum assessments”.

It is understandable that the Government, when they removed the regulatory functions from the QCA, thought that it would be only natural to form another agency out of the remaining functions. Nevertheless, this approach is symptomatic of a Government whose first thought is bureaucracy over simplicity.

We would move the functions of the QCA in relation to the national curriculum back to the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which would achieve two goals. First, Ministers who are responsible for making promises with regard to the curriculum could be held accountable for these promises. Secondly, it would carve at least one quango from this Bill and take one step towards reducing the bureaucracy that this Government have introduced.

At this year’s Conservative Party conference, my honourable friend Michael Gove said:

“We need to take education out of the hands of these unaccountable quangocrats”,

and so cut the waste out of the system. We on these Benches feel that removing the QCDA is an important part of these reforms. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s claims that in order to have Ofqual we must, therefore, have the QCDA. We do not believe that this is the case and it is perhaps telling that this is the solution the Government have come up with—another issue, another quango.

I am fully aware that it is doubtful whether the noble Baroness will agree with our assessment of this clause and indeed this part of the Bill, but I was interested to note that Cambridge Assessment has been in touch with its legal advisers and has concluded that it would be perfectly possible to dissolve the QCA and hand its functions over to the Secretary of State. In other words, this is not a wrecking amendment. It is perfectly possible to pass a Bill that includes Ofqual but excludes the QCDA, so I hope that the Minister will consider removing this quango from the Bill. I look forward to her response.

My Lords, I have tabled an unconscionable number of clause stand part debates. It was an e-mailed request to the Public Bill Office which has been interpreted in absolute full. But the effect is exactly what I wanted, which is to demolish the QCDA and leave no trace of it in the Bill, although I could have drafted the last amendment, Amendment 276ZZA, rather better. I think it should refer to the QCA rather than the QCDA, which would not then exist because I would have already deleted the clauses referring to it.

My objective in this is positive. I think that the curriculum belongs with the Secretary of State. We have had a long period of the curriculum being looked after by a quango and what we have now is ever-increasing complexity and specification with less time for schools to teach beyond the curriculum, along with less freedom for teachers. This congestion and sclerosis have resulted in such things as modern languages being thrown out for lack of room because all these other things have to be taught. While quangos tend to complicate matters because they want to take into account, accommodate and include everyone’s view so that the curriculum satisfies every good idea that is brought to their attention, Ministers tend to simplify. They want something that is clear, usable and focused on the sort of things they feel people care about. A Minister-led curriculum would be lighter, clearer and simpler, and would allow more time for schools and teachers to go their own way, which is very much my objective.

I think it would depend on the Minister, and I rather suspect that the Opposition’s attitude to the QCDA has more to do with their expectations of future glory and the wish to bring all this back and centralise it with the Secretary of State. We do not take the same view.

I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that schools should be freed up to innovate and not be restricted by an overly prescriptive curriculum. Our approach would be to have a minimum curriculum entitlement for all children and then a wide range of options for schools to offer what they believe would suit their children in their situation. Indeed, they have a duty to do that. However, a slightly more arm’s-length body such as the QCDA advising the Secretary of State is not quite such a bad idea as the Opposition think.

My Lords, it may be worth trying to assess the reality of the independence of the QCDA. It is to be a non-departmental public body. It was clearly stated in 1997, which is now getting to be quite a long time ago, that non-departmental public bodies were to be, to varying degrees, at arm’s length from Ministers. However, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the QCDA will report to Ministers. They do not say that it will report to Parliament, so the Select Committee procedure will be completely ignored. I can assure noble Lords that if you are in a non-departmental public body and you have some responsibility, the thing that worries you is not that you might be summoned to see the Minister, but that you might be called to appear in front of the Select Committee. Ignoring the Select Committees gives the game away as to what the accountability of the QCDA is intended to be.

An NDPB has a structure, with a chairman and a board, and is almost always said to be “independent”, and, indeed, we may be given some indication of the degree of independence which the Government think the QCDA will have. In the Oxford English Dictionary, “independent” means “free from the control of”. In my study of independence, I have always taken Jane Austen quite seriously. She had a clear idea of what “independent” meant and she spelt it out on more than one occasion; it was usually a desirable feature of a bachelor.

However, the question becomes: at what point does the degree of control over a body mean that you cannot any longer say that it is independent? There must then come a point where the independence is either illusory or so eroded that the game is not worth the candle, and why should anyone of real quality and experience want to be the chairman—or, indeed, a member—of such a body? This is the position of the QCDA. The Bill ties it down to a much greater degree than was the QCA tied down in the 1997 Act. The word “must” has crept into its relationship with the Secretary of State with an unprecedented Hegelian frequency, and directions are more frequent and less specific; previously confined to parts of the Act, they are now of general application.

There seem to be two reasons for this creeping erosion of independence, this centralising of control by the Executive, which is recognised in the Explanatory Notes where they refer to being accountable to Ministers but not to Parliament. The first reason for the erosion is that one driving force of the third way is the secular certainty that centralised executive power in the hands of Secretaries of State is the way forward. We may—as, indeed, the Liberal Democrat Benches do—object to that, but if it is there it has to be recognised; it is no good wishing that it was not. The second reason is ministerial frustration. As policies seem not to be working—as when the decision is reached that the Learning and Skills Council needs to be abolished—so it follows that the rules governing its successor bodies must be more mandatory; Ministers need them to be so. Thus the screw turns: now we see the possibility of independence; now we do not.

Logically, if independence is an illusion—and that is revealed—and the reality is tight control by the Secretary of State leaving no room to manoeuvre, then why have a non-departmental public body? Why devalue the institution in that way? Would it not be more sensible to make the whole exercise the clear responsibility of the Secretary of State, as has been argued by my noble friends? In that way, if Parliament goes about its business properly, parliamentary accountability will be restored. The functions of the QCDA would be better discharged and accounted for if they were in the hands of the Secretary of State.

My Lords, a little history might help us here. Before the 1988 Act brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, there was no external body to control the curriculum. Various bodies, such as the Schools Council, could advise on, consider, discuss and launch various experimental parts of the curriculum and so on but, nevertheless, in those days the Secretary of State was the only person who could have intervened at any stage. There was no national curriculum. It was the 1988 Act—21 years ago now, so I suppose that it is celebrating its 21st birthday before it dies—that laid down a basic curriculum.

I was a great admirer of the concept of having a broad and balanced curriculum and of laying down that it should include English, mathematics, a science, a social science and so on. Much though the national curriculum has become an object of criticism and dislike by many people in recent years, we tend to forget that in its original form it was simple and broad and left an enormous amount of freedom for individual schools to experiment and innovate. It ensured that young people going through their secondary education, particularly the latter half of it, did not become too narrow in what they did. Various surveys by Her Majesty’s inspectorate had found that young people might be taking five GCEs or CSEs, in the days before those were brought together, all in the same corner of the curriculum; they could all be maths and science, or all social science and history, or all English and literature and so on. That did not seem to be a very broad curriculum.

The concept of the broad and balanced curriculum that came through in the 1988 Act was a simple one that could very well have stayed in the hands of the Secretary of State. It was then handed over to the first of these many bodies that have changed so many times, the National Curriculum Council, which was then separate from examinations, and it was that quango that turned it into the nightmare that it became, with 458 different assessments needing to be made and so on. My noble friends are putting forward the concept that the matter of the curriculum should ultimately be left in the hands of the Secretary of State, rather than being handed over to a quango full of people who all have axes to grind—the physicists want special kinds of physics, the historians want a particular kind of history and so on. That is where it went wrong before and I would be nervous that we were perpetuating a system that overcomplicated, overcontrolled, took away innovation and took away the professionalism of teachers in schools.

Again, my Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, took us on a helpful journey and explained eloquently the spectrum of independence, from how Ofqual might be defined as an independent regulator through to the SFA as an agency. This debate gets to the heart of some of the differences around the Chamber.

It might have been helpful in the previous debate if I had mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that the QCDA will be a joint chair of JACQA; I had that note, so I thought that I would throw that in while I was on my feet.

The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, gave us a helpful insight into the history of how we have come to where we are. I stress, though, that on the question of the erosion of the independence of the QCA we would argue that the QCA legislation, the 1997 Act, already provides for the Secretary of State to direct the QCA or to require it to have regard to plans. There really is no significant change for QCDA provisions. Accountability to Ministers is, and will remain, clear. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, asked about the QCDA’s accountability to Ministers and how that might affect its relationship with the Select Committee. I am absolutely confident that the QCDA will come before the Select Committee and be able to be questioned by it, as I am sure noble Lords would expect.

To those who ask whether we need a Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, I would attempt to explain that ministerial decisions on curriculum, qualifications and assessment policy issues need to be informed by expert and professional advice. Once those decisions have been made, we need an agency that is capable of putting them into practice and ensuring that we have high-quality curricular assessments and qualifications.

Since these advice and delivery functions are clearly accountable to Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament, it is fair to ask—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, very clearly—why those functions cannot be performed within the department. There are two principal reasons why we believe that the Bill’s approach is correct. First, the department’s responsibility is to lead and manage the system. Its role and expertise are principally about policy and strategy. It is generally not appropriate for the department to have large delivery and professional functions in-house. This is our approach. Just as funding of teacher training is done by a non-departmental public body, similarly, the specific functions relating to the QCDA’s remit sit well in an agency—an agency that will have the culture and focus to enable it to develop professional knowledge, technical skills and the kind of organisational culture that we need.

Secondly, we need transparency. Some of the functions of the QCDA need to be carried out at one step removed from Ministers—most obviously, when delivering national curriculum tests. I would be very interested to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, whether she would expect the national curriculum tests to be delivered directly by the Department for Children, Schools and Families and whether that is what is being proposed. Given the importance of test results, everyone needs to be confident that they are delivered impartially. Even with Ofqual as a regulator overseeing tests, there must not be any suspicion, however unfounded, that Ministers have an opportunity to influence the detailed delivery—by setting grade boundaries, for example. This point has been made by the party opposite in this Committee.

Like every other public body, the QCDA will need to be efficient, as we would expect the highest standards of governance. The forthcoming move of the QCDA to Coventry, for example, following the Lyons review a few years ago, will significantly reduce the agency’s costs. It is simplistic to argue that the creation of Ofqual means that it is not appropriate to maintain the QCDA functions and that it is a straightforward matter to bring its functions into the department. That would be a significant mistake. We will challenge the QCDA to take advantage of its relocation to drive down costs and I am confident that it will respond positively. The QCDA will be an efficient and effective organisation at the heart of England’s education system. It will not make policy; that is for Ministers.

With regard to the analysis of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, we are clear that the QCDA will be an arm’s-length body, have independence within a clearly defined remit and be accountable. It will support Ministers in delivering policies and be accountable through Ministers, with a clear and transparent remit, reporting to ministerial remits and not going off and doing its own thing. Our approach has an extremely strong commitment to an independent Ofqual and to the appropriate governance for the delivery and expertise that we wish for from the QCDA. I hope that, with those reassurances, noble Lords will allow the clause to stand part.

Clause 169 says:

“The QCDA’s objective is to promote quality and coherence in education and training in England”.

How can anybody do that without going off and doing their own thing? How can you find the line between policy and the delivery of policy? My father was twice the Secretary of State for Education and I thought that the Department of Education was a great department of state. I cannot accept that it should not have anybody within it responsible for any part of the delivery of the Government’s policy. That seems the most extraordinary statement—that in some way we must separate the creation of policy from its delivery. It is not done in this Bill; if the QCDA’s objective is to promote coherence, that is a major policy decision, I should have thought. But I cannot see how you can separate those things in such a way, which leaves one with the question of why there is a wish to separate them. Why is there a wish to erode the accountability of Secretaries of State to Parliament? How does that go down on the “Today” programme? The more one thinks about it, the more it simply does not work.

My Lords, I entirely support what my noble friend has just said. A fundamental problem with the Civil Service as it has emerged in the past 12 years is the continuing divorce of delivery from policy. If you operate the two separately, policy never learns from the problems that arrive in delivery, which just produces new policy with a whole fresh set of problems rather than building on what has gone before. We have seen that with this endless cycling of initiatives and destruction of institutions before they have had time to establish themselves. That must be the wrong way in which to run the Civil Service; delivery must be an integral part of the whole process of managing a department.

I agree with the noble Baroness that I would not have the Minister setting the examinations. As I said under an earlier amendment, I would have that done professionally, as GCSEs and many other examinations are done, by organisations set up for that purpose. I do not see why it has to be retained within government. However, the idea that separation produces anything other than confusion, bad policy and bad delivery is very much given the lie by the performance of this Government and department over the past 12 years.

My Lords, we take the contrary view. We think that separation is extremely necessary.

Would one be entitled to ask what the rationale is behind that?

My Lords, I do not really think that it is appropriate to go back to debating in this group something that we have already debated in Committee.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 269B I shall speak to the amendments grouped with it. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, reminded us that before the national curriculum was introduced in 1988, there was no such thing and that examinations were set by the special assessment boards. They, incidentally, were largely influenced by universities. Indeed, going back a little further in history to the post-war period, one reason that education within the German state was given to the Länder state organisations was because we had poured scorn on the degree to which political influence had set the national curriculum in states such as the Nazi and, for that matter, the Soviet state.

The great danger of politicising the national curriculum is there; we say, carefully, that the Secretary of State has to be the one who decides, yet there are virtues in going back to the situation where the universities set the curriculum. Indeed, I believe that, in the other place, the honourable gentleman Mr Willetts has even suggested that that might be quite a good idea. From these Benches, our notion is close to that which the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, talked about on the early days of the national curriculum. We see there being some advantage in having what we call a minimum curriculum offering, because during the 1970s and 1980s there was certainly a time when schools were doing very different things, and it was quite a good idea to be able to pull it together nationally.

If there is to be some form of minimum curriculum offering, and decisions on what that offering shall be reside with the Secretary of State, it seems appropriate to us—and here I come back to what the Minister was saying—that within the department, if the Minister is to take those decisions it is surely better that those who advise him are people with some professional competence in education rather than his civil servants, whose competence is in policy and strategy, not in the professional area. If the Secretary of State is to have responsibility it therefore seems appropriate, in a way, to have some advisory body, which should on the whole comprehend the professionals rather than just being civil servants.

This group of amendments is, therefore, about who should be on the board of the QCDA. We believe that, in order to carry out its functions properly, the QCDA needs to be able to call on the expertise of people on the board with knowledge and experience in the areas of education and training with which it will largely be dealing. It is vital that it does not consist of just industrialists and accountants but some real, down-to-earth educationalists who know what is going on and are up to speed on the latest thinking.

First, we think that the proposed board is rather too small to contain that expertise, so with Amendment 269B we want to increase its minimum size from eight to 12 and its maximum size from 13 to 15, which is not a substantial increase in size but a slight one. Amendment 269C is in fact taken straight from the Education Act 1997 and the terms of reference for the QCA, so that those who constitute the board shall be persons with experience, first, in education, as in sub-paragraph (a) of that amendment, secondly, in training or, thirdly, in the “industrial, commercial, or financial” world. However, we have added a requirement for two-thirds of the membership to have experience in all the areas of education covered by the QCDA.

Amendment 272 would require that the QCDA take account of the expertise and practical knowledge of the awarding bodies. These bodies are eager to work with the QCDA, as well as with Ofqual, and I am sure that both organisations would benefit from listening to their considerable store of knowledge.

My Lords, I have Amendment 271 in this group, which does not really seem to belong with anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has talked about, most of which I found myself approving of, having been at odds with the Liberal Democrat Benches over a couple of amendments. Even her last amendment, under the scenario she paints in which we would have a curriculum that took only half the time in school, I would approve. However, the idea that it should apply now, when we have a curriculum that takes up 120 per cent of school time? Perish the thought.

The purpose of my amendment is to draw attention to the word “coherence”. It is not a term defined in art, but it seems to be the opposite of “diversity”. It seems to give the QCDA the remit of trying to eliminate any new shoots which may appear and sprout off in unexpected directions, and to remove the diversity in the system. That diversity is in many ways a source of strength to the system. One can find, certainly in independent schools with their broader ability to look at qualifications, a qualification that fits any particular group of learners and replace it with something that requires a focusing-down in which everyone sings the same note. That is what “coherence” means—at least in physics. A “coherent” beam of light does not diverge. There is no diversity and everything sings exactly the same tune all the time. I find that a distressing direction for the QCDA to be given.

My Lords, we have made our position on the QCDA clear, so I will keep my remarks brief. I express particular sympathy with Amendment 269C of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Indeed, as I made clear in the previous debate, we on these Benches do not believe that such a body as the QCDA is necessary. Nevertheless, we have advocated through the Bill the importance of including the views of those with the knowledge and expertise that comes from being involved in education, training and professional matters. If the QCDA is to exist, it is obviously sensible that it should include people with the relevant experience, knowledge and understanding to allow the quango to fulfil its functions more effectively.

I will also be pleased to hear the Minister’s response to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas. We agree with him that the inclusion of the word “coherence” seems strange. The curriculum should be set out in such a way as to improve standards. The body responsible for the development of the curriculum and qualifications should play an active role in seeking to create a framework which concentrates on promoting and improving standards. Does the Minister not agree that, as the objective of the QCDA is laid out in the Bill, it is important that this vital element is included and made clear in primary legislation?

My Lords, it is, of course, absolutely right that the Secretary of State should have advice from knowledgeable, experienced people who have expertise in the field on which they are advising, but I am bound to say that the Secretary of State already has access to such a body. HMI, which is within Ofsted, comprises senior professionals of senior Civil Service rank. They have intimate knowledge of the system and what is happening in schools through inspection. Why cannot the Secretary of State have a small number of the most senior HMI staff within the department to provide advice, as used to happen? In that case, you would not need this quango at all.

I am amazed that anybody should think that any Secretary of State would go short of advice from the education fraternity. It has always seemed to me that the one fraternity willing to give you any amount of conflicting advice was the education community. As regards the national curriculum and qualifications, which is the chicken and which is the egg? Is the national curriculum organised in such a way as to support the approved qualifications, or do the approved qualifications come out of the national curriculum?

My Lords, this matter becomes even more complicated as time goes on. Perhaps one should stick to the old, brilliant Ofsted system, although some might question that. I certainly agree with the import of the two amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp; namely, if there is to be a such a body we should spell out the people who will be part of it, as they have done very effectively.

I think that the national curriculum is the chicken and the assessments and qualifications are the egg. That could probably make a good essay for a budding education student. No doubt I shall hear from many of them because there are bound to be lots of people listening to these debates.

I hope that I can respond fully to these amendments. As I have asserted, Ministers need the QCDA to provide expert and professional advice and support to the development and delivery of their objectives for the curriculum, assessment and qualifications. I appreciate that many people wish to give advice to Secretaries of State about a whole host of issues. However, the QCDA is very much about bringing together that professional advice systematically, being in touch with the national curriculum, keeping it very tightly scrutinised, commissioning research and carrying out a whole host of activities which support the role of giving Ministers that professional advice systematically.

Amendment 271, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, concerns coherence and makes a very interesting point. Everything that the QCDA does, for example on the curriculum, should be with a view to helping young people leave school with the skills and knowledge that enable them to play their part in society, and to be successful in future education or employment. QCDA cannot achieve that by looking at individual parts of the curriculum in isolation. That is where the word “coherence” comes in. QCDA should seek to ensure that, collectively, those parts provide a broad and balanced curriculum—that is very important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, stressed—so that skills and knowledge in different parts of the curriculum reinforce each other. Learning at one stage of the curriculum should build on what has gone before and provide the foundation for what follows. That has been clearly articulated following the reviews of the secondary and primary curriculums. Both words—“quality” and “coherence”—need to be in the Bill.

We do not necessarily want Amendment 272 on awarding bodies in the Bill. The QCDA will be responsible for the development of draft criteria for qualifications such as GCSEs and A-levels. I want to be clear that the QCDA will act as an expert adviser to the Government on qualification policy issues, too. It could not do these jobs effectively without a strong relationship with a wide range of partners, including, of course, higher education—as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made clear—employers, schools, colleges and awarding bodies. We do not need to tell the QCDA to do that; it will be easier for it to have a strong relationship with awarding bodies, particularly now that it will not be regulating them—Royal Assent permitting. I hope that we will see strong relationships developing.

On the further amendment on the Secretary of State’s power to remove qualifications from the QCDA’s scope, I am not sure that the Committee needs me to go into this, but if Ministers no longer need the QCDA’s advice on a particular area of qualifications, it should not be obliged to keep on providing it. That probably goes without saying.

Amendment 275 on including academies in the QCDA’s remit is unnecessary. Our current funding agreements require academies to inform the QCA of its assessment arrangements in respect of the core national curriculum subjects, and it would not be reasonable or proportionate in this case to legislate and hence alter the previously agreed position set out in signed funding agreements. The department already monitors the curriculum in academies before and after they open, and results show that they are improving faster than the national average, as we know very well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talked about the importance of getting the governance right for the QCDA. Under the current legislation, the QCA board has to have between eight and 13 members, and that has served us well. It is big enough to allow for a rich mix of people but small enough to allow it to take decisions effectively. In fact, on the QCA there is strong expertise from the higher education and education sectors. There is a vice-chancellor, a head teacher, an FE principal, as well as employers. However, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concern to obtain the right involvement in the right way from the right experts. The QCDA has general duties to have regard to reasonable requirements of learners, employers and HE. You do not necessarily have to have members on the board to have regard to the requirements of learners, employers and HE. That is not necessarily the only way of ensuring that their views are taken on board at the highest levels. The QCDA will listen to those views and those of all key stakeholders. However, the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, were very reasonable, and I am happy to continue the conversation on that issue.

I think that I have picked up most of the points that noble Lords raised and I hope that they will consider withdrawing or not moving their amendments.

I am grateful to the Minister for her full response. On Amendment 272, I am also grateful for her assurance that the awarding bodies will be consulted by the QCDA, because they have a great deal of expertise to offer. In relation to academies, she says that the detail is tied up in the funding agreements. The difficulty is that time and again there are individual funding agreements and if you want to know what is happening you have to look at each funding agreement to see precisely what it is. I do not think that that is a satisfactory situation. It would be much better if the academies were brought within the general body of schools.

Turning to the main amendments that we put forward—Amendments 269B and 269C—I take on board what the Minister says. Of course, the Secretary of State has the expertise available to him and many of those who currently sit on the board are experts. We proposed changing the numbers because we wanted two-thirds to represent those who have expertise in education and it is much easier to get two-thirds of 12 or 15 than it is of eight or 13. It struck us that, if all three sets of expertise were represented, it would be a good idea to have slightly more people than a minimum of eight and that it would be a good idea to have a number divisible by three. I am grateful to the Minister for her positive reply, which we may talk about further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I can be very brief on this amendment. We tabled it to obtain within 12 months of the commencement of this part a review of the result of the abolition of the national strategies, which was announced in the Government’s White Paper of June this year. This amendment is tabled on the basis that, if the Government will not heed our advice to get rid of the QCDA, it might as well do something useful. As noble Lords will be aware, we supported Ed Balls in his decision to get rid of national strategies in favour of a system that would give more power to teachers, save money and allow attention to be paid to more effective means of raising standards. If, as I hope, the Government might be persuaded on our point in this amendment, I feel that I need say nothing more, other than that we look forward to hearing the Government’s suggestions on how and when such a review might take place. I beg to move.

My Lords, I can be equally economical with the Committee’s time. I agree that it is important when we look at issues such as significant changes concerning the delivery of key policies such as national strategies that we review the impact of the policies. There is a policy responsibility to do so—so a job for Ministers. I would be very happy to commit to the department undertaking a review that we will report to Parliament on the impact of these changes and that it should do so when the changes have had a chance to embed. I propose that we should do this within two years of the new arrangements going live.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 276B, 276BA, 277, 277A and 278. We now come to the children’s services section of the Bill, where we tighten up the arrangements on co-operation to ensure children’s well-being.

The first three amendments in my name in this group relate to housing. Amendment 276A would add housing as a consideration in the arrangements between local authorities and relevant partners for the improvement of children’s well-being. Amendment 276B would extend the duty to co-operate to include local housing authorities by naming them as relevant partners for children’s services authorities in England. Amendment 276BA would add registered providers of social housing to the same group as those with a duty to co-operate.

I am aware that the Government believe that local housing authorities are already included in the arrangements for children’s well-being and the duty to co-operate, but I do not believe that other social housing providers are. Besides, we believe that it is not happening on the ground. There is a lot of evidence from Shelter, which briefed us, that housing can have a profound impact on the well-being and safeguarding of children and young people but that there is currently a lack of information sharing between housing and children’s services and a lack of understanding of procedures and good practice on both sides, which can result in vulnerable children slipping through the safety net.

Since the Laming inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié in 2003, priority has rightly been given to joint working. Since then, legislation and associated guidance have required local public bodies to work together through children’s trusts. There is little evidence to suggest that children’s trusts have wholly succeeded in improving outcomes for children so far and there is a substantial amount of local variation. This Bill is intended to address the existing limitations of children’s trusts by strengthening their statutory basis. In particular, the aim is to improve the co-operation of children’s services authorities with their relevant partners. That is why we want to emphasise housing.

Extensive studies have shown the major impact that bad housing has on children’s life chances. Homelessness, poor housing conditions and overcrowding all have negative effects on a child’s development. For example, Shelter research has found that children living in overcrowded and unfit accommodation are almost a third more likely than other children to suffer respiratory problems.

Despite the proven links between children’s well-being and housing, Shelter’s children’s service has found that there is a lack of information sharing between local authority housing departments and children’s services around preventing homelessness, mitigating the impact of temporary accommodation on children and identifying additional support needs.

Given the significant connection between housing and children’s health and well-being, Shelter believes that it is vital that the new legislation specifically recognises local housing authorities as relevant partners for the improvement of children’s well-being in the establishment of children’s trust boards. We have added other social housing partners in recognition of the fact that many housing associations and housing trusts house thousands of needy children every year. Making specific mention of housing in the Bill would also give housing providers a stronger voice and more influence over the strategic arrangements of children’s trusts. This would go a long way towards ensuring that vulnerable families in difficult-to-reach circumstances are contacted by family support and outreach workers. After all, they all need housing and they will have contact with the housing department at least, or a social housing provider, even if they have no contact with social services or other children’s services.

Amendments 277 and 277A relate to the children and young people’s plans, which the newly statutory children’s trust boards must set up and implement. Amendment 277 would require the CTB to produce a version of the plan in the language and format that is suitable for children to read and understand. Amendment 277A would require them to consult relevant groups when devising or revising that plan.

Article 12 of the UNCRC requires that all children have the right to express their views and have them taken into account and given due weight according to their age and maturity in all matters affecting them. Clause 187 transfers the duty of preparing and implementing the children and young people’s plans from the local authority to children’s trust boards. Existing regulations require local authorities to consult such children, relevant young persons and families in the area of the authority as they prepare their plan and, of course, we welcome the Government’s commitment to transfer this duty to the children’s trust boards. But existing regulations place an obligation on the authority to publish its CYPP on its website and send the plan to its relevant partners in public libraries and so forth. While we welcome these provisions, they really are inadequate because there is no explicit requirement to make the CYPP accessible to those most affected by it—in other words, children and young people.

Research has found that, while children and young people may be increasingly consulted in the preparation of the plan, they are not always informed or told about the outcome of the consultations. Therefore, the duty to consult should be accompanied with a duty to inform the participants on the outcome of the consultation. This currently occurs for parent and partner organisations, but it does not occur for children. Awareness of the plan is low among children. We believe that the benefits for children and young people for understanding local strategies would far outweigh the costs. A summary for children would ensure that they could understand what services they could access and what local service providers were doing to improve their well-being.

Finally, a word about Amendment 278, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, to which I have added my name. I will leave him to make the substantial speech on this, but I would like to thank the Bill team for the time that they have devoted to this issue. I support what the noble Lord is about to say and I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of what the Government intend to do about this issue. I beg to move.

My Lords, in addressing Amendment 278, I speak against the background of the recently published report on children’s rights by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. By any yardstick, the way in which we treat our children in the UK makes depressing reading.

In 2007, UNICEF published a report assessing the well-being of children and young people in 21 industrialised counties. It covered educational achievement, health and safety, poverty, behaviour and relationships. The UK came bottom. In April 2009, the Child Poverty Action Group published a similar assessment of child well-being in 29 European countries. The UK ranked 24th, behind Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta. These findings were widely reported and prompted media discussion about why the UK’s children were apparently so unhappy.

This amendment does not seek to place a new structural or administrative burden on the system. It merely asks that the children’s trust boards have regard to the need to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when preparing its young persons’ plans. I for one can see no burden here.

In December 2007, the Government published their first children’s plan. It aimed to put the needs of families, children and young people at the very centre of everything that we do. It set out the Government’s plans for the next 10 years under each strategic objective of the Department for Children, Schools and Families. The introduction to the plan records that it has been developed with regard to the principles and articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is therefore unclear on what grounds the Government might oppose this amendment. Children England and the NSPCC have suggested that the UK needs to build a culture of respect for children’s rights and believe that this could be achieved by embedding the principles of children’s rights in policy-making and practices.

The Joint Committee, in its report, agrees with those witnesses who emphasised the benefits of incorporating the UNCRC into British law, accompanied by directly enforceable rights. The Joint Committee also stated that it is particularly significant that all four children’s commissioners in the UK, with their extensive experience of working with children, think that it would make a real practical difference to children if the UNCRC were incorporated into UK law. The Government have not persuaded the Joint Committee that children’s rights are adequately protected by UK law or that incorporation of the UNCRC is unnecessary. Having signed up to the convention on behalf of children in the UK, the Government now have a duty and a responsibility to make their agreement and support meaningful in every possible way.

My Lords, the main thrust of the clauses is to provide for the establishment of children's trust boards on a statutory footing and give them the responsibility of providing a children and young people's plan. I have listened very carefully to the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and I look forward to the Minister's response. We, too, think that it is important to address the issue of who will be the relevant partners involved in a children's trust board. I would be very interested to hear what the Minister thought about involving the local housing authority. I would also be interested to hear her views on involving local GPs and Sure Start centres on the boards.

It is a point of fundamental importance that merely making the boards statutory will not solve any underlying problems. We also need to address the issue of who sits on the boards and who the significant, useful and relevant partners should be. We have therefore tabled Amendments 276AA and 276C. A demand for the independence of academies has been constant from these Benches so, again, the amendments are designed to ensure the autonomy and independence of the academies.

We believe that it is essential that academies should have the right to be represented on children's trust boards. It may be mutually useful for them to be represented there. Nevertheless, we believe that academies are independent organisations and should not have a duty of co-operation with the boards. The Independent Academies Association has expressed concern about the duty of having to be a relevant partner, when surely it would be more productive to turn that duty into a right, which would allow them, to cite the White Paper, to be,

“able to influence the strategic direction, commissioning and delivery of services for children”.

As a right, academies would have their independence preserved, but would also have the capacity to be relevant and useful partners. I await the Minister's response with interest.

My Lords, this is again an important and stimulating debate as we move on to talk about children's services, the Bill's provisions for children's trusts and the children and young people's plan.

I start by focusing on Amendments 276A, 276B and 276BA, proposed and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which concern housing. I put on record the importance of good housing and its impact on the well-being of children and young people and acknowledge that decent housing is a major factor in improving children's outcomes. I join others around the Committee in paying tribute to the work that charities such as Shelter do to promote issues of concern about housing—in this case, the impact on the quality of life for children that poor housing can have. I therefore fully support the aim of those three amendments to ensure that housing is integral to the work of children’s trusts. It is important that the amendments allow us to have that debate.

The five Every Child Matters outcomes are what we mean by children’s well-being, and we expect local services to work together more effectively to deliver them. The addition of services such as housing to the list of outcomes is therefore inappropriate, but I agree that good housing will be an important contributory factor in delivering the Every Child Matters outcomes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed to the fact that housing authorities are already captured by existing legislation. Top-tier and unitary authorities are the establishing authorities and district councils are relevant partners in children’s trusts. Their housing departments are therefore already involved. However, the Government recognise that housing departments need to get more engaged; I support the noble Baroness in her remarks on that. I can reassure her that the new statutory guidance, going out for consultation shortly, will state that the chief executive, along with the director of children’s services, should ensure that those links are forged and are working well.

We also recognise the important role that registered social landlords play. Through the children and young people’s plan regulations, we intend to require children’s trust boards to consult them when drawing up their plan. Also, the new statutory guidance will seek to ensure those responsible for housing locally are involved in the work of the children’s trust board itself. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was especially concerned about the lack of information-sharing between local housing departments and children's trusts. I make clear that we are strengthening statutory guidance there. Through the comprehensive area assessments, we will assess whether the new arrangements are working effectively in practice. That is an important development to watch.

Turning to Amendments 276AA and 276C, I can assure the Committee that the clauses do not threaten academies’ independence. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, in that regard. Adding academies to the list of relevant partners empowers them—in the way that I think that she is looking for—not only in local strategic decision-making, but also in forging strong links with other children’s trust partners.

Although Amendment 276C would give academies the right to be represented on the children’s trust board, that is different to the automatic representation that would be given to academies as relevant partners. Under that amendment, academies could choose not to be represented on the board. That could leave academies, which educate some of the most vulnerable children in our country, outside the most important partnership in the children’s services world.

We are about empowering academies. I can assure the Committee that that is about better outcomes in services for young people and their families by making services integrated, accessible and available, not about academies losing their autonomy. Yes, we are requiring academies to work with children's trusts, but let me be clear: we expect children's trusts to engage positively with academies, as with other schools. There will be significant benefits from that way of working.

As a post script to my response to those two amendments, I remind the Committee that the consultation conducted last year into legislative options for strengthening children’s trusts gave a clear steer that academies should be included on the same basis as maintained schools.

On Amendment 277, we wholeheartedly support the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, promotes of involving children and young people. I am happy to place on the record a clear commitment to set out in statutory guidance that we will expect children’s trust boards to produce a child-friendly version of their children and young people’s plan. That represents a significant strengthening of the current position.

On Amendment 277A, I am happy to confirm that the indicative regulations, which we have sent to Peers, will be placed in the House Library. They set out the different groups and bodies that we intend the children's trust board to have to consult when preparing the children and young people's plan. The statutory guidance will also emphasise the need to consult widely when preparing the plan.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her support for Amendment 278. I thank the Minister for her clear expression of support for and commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. On the basis of the guidance that she is intending to offer to trust boards in the preparation of their plans and on other policy issues, I shall not move my amendment.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply to all the issues covered by this group of amendments. It is very gratifying that the Government accept the importance of housing in relation to the well-being of children. I thank her for mentioning that the guidance will ensure that the links are made stronger and that they will be assessed in the comprehensive area assessment. I am also delighted that she confirmed that social landlords will be consulted and brought more into the family of organisations that are working on the well-being of children.

I am staggered by the suggestion that academies should not have the duty to co-operate in this matter. Safeguarding children is not an option. It should be the duty of all relevant bodies. I thank the Minister for what she said about the child-friendly version of the Children and Young People’s Plan, which was very gratifying, and also about the consultation with the relevant groups. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said in welcoming the commitment she gave about the statutory guidance and the practical advice to children’s trust boards on the compliance of their plan with the convention. As she rightly said, it is the responsibility of the state to comply with the convention that it has signed. However, I would have thought that part of that compliance would be ensuring that the convention was implemented by every relevant body in the state. It is very appropriate that that should be done, and I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

This clause amends Section 10 of the Children Act 2004. I would like to leave a thought in the Minister’s mind for her to reflect on between now and Report. It was stirred in me by hearing the noble Lord, Lord Morris, refer to the question asked by convention officials about why British children were so much less happy than others. That made me remember a large symposium brought together by the honourable Member in another place Baroness Diane Abbott—she is not a Baroness, as yet at least—in which it emerged that children in large parts of London felt safer in the streets that they did at home or school. Section 10(4) of the Act lists those who are to be regarded as relevant partners with local authority children’s services. It includes the police, probation and the youth offending team. The absence of the magistracy in some form needs to be thought about for two reasons: first, they would have something to contribute and, secondly, they would have a great deal to learn. It is very important that those who sentence young people understand the framework in which they have been living and to which they will be sent to live. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind if I put something down on Report.

As ever, I am very happy to think carefully about the contribution of the noble Lord.

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 278A, and I can be brief. Clause 188 inserts a new Section 9A into the Children Act 2004 in relation to setting targets for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. My intention is to make the first determination of these targets a matter for the affirmative resolution of Parliament to allow them to be properly debated, not just nodded through. This is a vitally serious matter in which many Members of Parliament take an interest since we still have far too many neglected and abused children in this country, as well as far too many needless child deaths. The Children Act 2004 contains a provision for a first set of regulations to be subject to affirmative resolution: the sunset provision on private fostering. My amendment is very simple; it refers to that provision and relates it to the first determination of the safeguarding targets. I beg to move.

My Lords, I hope that I can respond to the noble Baroness in 338 words, while in no way diminishing the importance of her concerns.

We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that setting statutory safeguarding targets is a necessary step in the drive to improve safeguarding and child protection in all areas, as the noble Baroness has already suggested. We also agree with the spirit of this amendment; it is absolutely necessary that the proposed targets are appropriately considered and consulted on. However, it is not necessary to achieve this through the affirmative procedure, and I hope to persuade her of that.

While I understand why the noble Baroness proposes that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure, this provision, as she suggested, follows its equivalent in Section 1 of the Childcare Act 2006, under which the Secretary of State sets early-years targets in accordance with regulations. That regulation-making power is subject to the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure. We set this out in our memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is content with our approach.

We have expressly specified in the Bill the matters which the regulations on safeguarding targets may address. These include the subject matter of targets, the periods to which targets might relate, and the procedure for setting targets. These issues have already been discussed as part of the National Safeguarding Delivery Unit stakeholder consultation workshops that were held over the summer, and I assure the noble Baroness that they have been very comprehensive and inclusive. The next stage will commence shortly when we launch a public consultation on the new package of safeguarding indicators and statutory targets.

It is right to consult fully on the details and to listen very carefully. We have listened very carefully in the generation of the documents for consultation. We will outline our proposals in this area, including the indicators against which targets would have to be set, the periods to which the targets would relate, and the procedure for setting them. As I have stressed, we have already consulted stakeholders on the development of our proposals for revised safeguarding national indicators and new statutory targets, and we are committed to continuing public dialogue and consultation on the regulations.

Given the extensive programme of consultation that we have embarked on and propose to undertake in the future, I hope that we will be able to proceed without the need for the affirmative procedure. Obviously that is entirely in the gift of this House—the committee will no doubt have a view on this, and I in no way wish to detract from the importance of these indicators—but we are also working closely with local authorities and stakeholders, and we need to have momentum to make this happen.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Certainly the opinion of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is very important in these matters, and all the consultations which the Minister has been at great pains to explain give me a certain amount of reassurance, but this is a bit technical so I will carefully read the Minister’s reply in Hansard before deciding whether to press her further on the matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot guarantee to be quite so brief this time.

This amendment requires that a child who is the subject of either a Section 47 investigation or a child protection plan shall be seen by the key worker separately from the parents or carers. Section 47 requires the local authority to make inquiries, where a child is suspected to be suffering or to be likely to suffer significant harm, to enable it to decide whether it should take any action. A child protection plan is drawn up when the local safeguarding children board decides that the child is at risk of significant harm.

The amendment does not envisage the child being subjected to any sort of medical or forensic examination or interrogation. I thought that I would make that clear right from the start. However, experience of a large number of sad cases has shown that it is essential that the key worker’s opportunity to get to know the child or to hear from the child is not compromised by the presence of the parent or carer.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, makes her point very strongly. The evidence clearly suggests that it is all too easy for the signs to be hidden and for the issues to remain undiscovered if a child is able to be seen only with a parent. I will be very interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that it would be more suitable or helpful to institute a system whereby children are seen separately from their parents.

My Lords, I very much support this amendment. As has been powerfully put over to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, it seems to me that we have plenty of evidence of things having gone wrong for far too many young children. In particular, I want to think about the way in which children can be seen separately. More often than not, the families who cause problems are strong in their behaviour and the defence that they put up. Something that has always worried me is why on earth two social workers do not carry out the visit and be of sufficient support to each other when facing a difficult situation.

I do not think that what happened in another place is satisfactory. I hope that we can get a much stronger reaction from the Minister. I did not intervene previously, but some very powerful changes have been accepted. We have heard about the importance of the use of human rights, children’s rights and so on, which will be even more important in future. This provision is fundamental and I warmly support it.

This is of very great importance, which is sufficient to justify the elevation of this provision from guidance to statute, particularly as the statute, as I understand it, applies only to investigations under Section 47, which is only half the story. Recent history makes a great case for the Minister to answer if she is going to reply in the same terms as her colleague at the other end of the corridor.

I am delighted to respond to this important discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has identified an extremely important step or principle, which should underpin the approach taken by children’s services when engaging with vulnerable children. This is an important point in our deliberations. I do not wish to be facetious, but it would be possible to put something in statute, as well as in guidance, and still no action is taken. We have to do all those things. I will say why we do not need this on the statute book.

For me, this is about how we make the right statutory guidance and make it happen. The message that came through to me from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was how you go about doing it. “Just do it” was one of his mantras. However, I am for ever in the business of dialogue, as noble Lords have realised through this Committee stage. When the safeguarding clauses were introduced in the other place we made reference to the current provisions set out in statute and guidance designed to ensure that, where appropriate, local authority social workers see children separately from their parents and caregivers. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to the comments made by my right honourable friend, Ed Balls. But we know that there are concerns that, however strong the legislative and guidance framework is, this will not in itself ensure that all children are seen alone when appropriate. We have to think about how we will make that happen. We need to ensure that all children are seen alone, when appropriate, that their wishes and feelings are ascertained and that they are protected from harm in every circumstance.

The progress report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, emphasised the importance of children being seen and their family circumstances being understood through their eyes. It is absolutely right that we tackle this issue of professionals losing sight of the child, which, as we have heard, again and again comes from the feedback and analysis that we see from serious case reviews. This is in line with the Government’s statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, which sets out the local authority’s responsibilities when children are the subject of Section 47 inquiries and of child protection plans.

We have committed to publishing revised guidance later this year and we will make sure that seeing the child, alone when appropriate, and ascertaining their wishes and feelings are placed at the centre of undertaking Section 47 inquiries and implementing child protection plans. We will also emphasise that the social worker should record each visit to a child. I know that there is a debate about the level of paperwork and bureaucracy to which social workers are subject, but we are committed to the important step of record keeping. Where the child is not seen alone during such a visit, the social worker should record why not, which is an important step.

As we know, social work is a profession under significant pressure at the moment. There are significant challenges in capacity and in quality, which is well understood in this Committee. We cannot solve these problems necessarily through more legislation. We are addressing them through investment in, among other things, a support programme for newly qualified social workers to ensure that they have appropriate case loads and the high quality supervision that they need to develop into social workers who can prioritise the face-to-face engagement with children, and make good, professional judgments, as part of a strong profession, about the best way to work with parents and families.

We are also investing in the training and development of managers, as well as encouraging returners back to the workplace by creating new, advanced professional roles within the marketplace that will keep the best social workers at the front line. We are committed to building on this with a comprehensive reform of social work and, most important as this Bill progresses through Parliament, we will look at the report of the Social Work Task Force which is due soon.

As I have said, social workers have an incredibly difficult job to do, and it is vital that the child’s wishes and feelings are taken into account. Section 53 of the Children Act 2004 amended Sections 17 and 47 of the Children Act 1989. As a consequence, local authorities are already required, so far as is reasonably practicable, to ascertain a child’s wishes and feelings about what services might be provided or what action should be taken to safeguard and promote their welfare. It is about how we translate statutory guidance and requirements into practice.

We are revising the guidance entitled Working Together to Safeguard Children 2006 to make clear the responsibility of local authorities’ child social workers and what kind of support and improvements are needed in the field. We are looking at new arrangements for the comprehensive area assessments of local areas, which were introduced in April 2009. Under these, Ofsted will undertake an annual inspection of each local authority’s contact, assessment and referral centres. This is an important lever for driving up standards as part of the new arrangements for comprehensive area assessments. We will see a programme of inspection of services for looked after children at least once every three years. These inspections will include sampling of case files where visits to the child have taken place and whether it has been recorded that the child has been seen alone. The inspectors will look at gathering reviews of children and their families and thus provide a check on practical arrangements, which I believe will provide a significant step forward.

I shall close by saying that in no way are we complacent about the amount of work that needs to be done in order to promote a comprehensive safeguarding framework in this country so that the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is talking about are tackled as a matter of course. I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.

While the noble Baroness is considering whether to do so, might I say to the Minister that I for one will be exceedingly interested to see the reaction of the voluntary agencies engaged in this sort of work as well as that of the professional bodies. I would like to be able to do that before I make my mind up on the issue. If the noble Baroness is minded to withdraw her amendment now, we might be able to return to it.

My Lords, one of the most important steps in the revision of the “Working Together” guidance, which as noble Lords know is the Bible that governs interactions between the different agencies engaged in promoting safeguarding, is that of the statutory sector and the professional bodies working in partnership with the voluntary sector. It is essential that those views and perspectives are borne in mind so that we take up the opportunity to learn from experience in the field, particularly from tragedies such as the death of Baby Peter.

My Lords, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the voluntary agencies are right behind us in their support of this amendment. I thank the Minister, but I have no illusions about the fact that having this on the statute book will ensure that no child is killed by its parent or carer ever again. However, we have to ask ourselves why it sometimes happens that children are not seen alone. We have to do all we possibly can to make sure that social workers have everything they need in place.

I give the Government credit for the fact that they are recruiting more social workers, there is better training, and that only recently the noble Lord, Lord Laming, launched a new programme to provide specialist training in this field for newly qualified social workers in order to give them more confidence to deal with these issues. There must also be better supervision, and I know that the Government are doing something about that. However, they cannot say that they have done absolutely everything if they do not give social workers this particular tool. It will enable them to explain to parents why they must see children alone. The Minister talked about making a record of whether the child had been seen, and if not, why not. That will simply not do. In such a case, emergency powers must be sought to ensure that the child is seen. The noble Baroness used the phrase “as far as is reasonably practicable”. Again, that is not enough when a child’s life is in danger. She also told us about Ofsted and the comprehensive area assessments that will find out whether local authorities have been ensuring that their social workers are seeing children alone, but again that is all after the event. It is all very well, but it only highlights when things have gone wrong. That is too late because by then we have a dead child.

I take this issue very seriously and your Lordships might have detected how passionately I feel about it. I shall read carefully what the noble Baroness has said and decide whether to find a way of returning to this matter at the Report stage. We have to do every single thing it is possible to do. I repeat: I have no illusions that this is a magic bullet, but if we have not done all we can, we will blame ourselves. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I shall speak also to Amendment 281. I thank the Minister for the detailed draft indicative regulations and statutory guidance on Clauses 191 and 192 which have recently been sent through. We all know the evidence that educating parents, in particular educating mothers, provides children with a better start in life. Many studies have shown that you can often predict the educational attainment of children by looking at the levels their parents reached. In particular, if parents receive education and support in the skills and knowledge needed to be a good parent, that inevitably benefits the child.

According to proposed new Section 5A(2) in Clause 191, children’s centres exist to meet the needs of,

“parents, prospective parents and young children in the authority’s area”.

While they may focus on the child, they are also de facto centres for adult education. This amendment was suggested to us by the National Institute for Adult Continuing Education which does valuable work in adult education in other areas. The amendment clarifies that family learning is legitimate and appropriate for children’s centres, and recognising this in legislation will strengthen this rather than risking it becoming a marginalised afterthought, or even being seen as an improper activity. Family learning enables parents to discuss not only parenting and childcare skills, and to understand their children’s development, but also should provide an opportunity for them to reflect on their own careers in the labour force and how they may need or want to upskill or reskill in order to offer better lives to their children. Family learning plays a significant role in delivering the skills-for-life agenda of language, literacy and numeracy, and statutory recognition that it has a place in children’s centres would allow it to become more effective. Educating parents is good for children. This is a probing amendment and we would welcome some reassurances from the Minister.

Amendment 281 requires each Sure Start children’s centre to have a designated lead on child safeguarding, as schools are required to do. This would be particularly helpful in the multi-agency context of the children’s centre as early identification of dangers to children could quickly lead to multiprofessional intervention. This follows on from the words of my noble friend Lady Walmsley on the previous amendment; these are all linked issues. Understanding the early indications of child neglect or abuse can require considerable skill and experience. We know of cases where many experts have missed the signs in the children who have sadly died, where identification and strong action might have prevented tragedy.

The amendment has been suggested by Action for Children, which provides many of the children’s centres. It has noted that within some SSCCs each agency has a separate file for each child. It believes that this is a very risky practice that has already been identified in some serious case reviews. It can be impossible to build up a full picture of the situation when each professional has only one or two pieces of the jigsaw and we strongly recommend better interaction between professionals. We need SSCCs to have a designated lead who has proper training, clear lines of accountability for safeguarding and access to all the relevant information. There should be an expectation for recording and sharing information. The role of SSCCs in child protection is key to this and should be acknowledged. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support these amendments. My name is attached to one amendment but I am equally enthusiastic about the others.

The noble Baroness’s comment that educating parents is good for children is entirely right. It takes me back to an early visit that I made to a Sure Start centre, where the school was thoroughly involved in the process of catering for the parents who could come along. We should not forget that many parents who were not enthusiastic about their own education would often happily do as requested and drop their child at a particular point because they were not allowed beyond that, so we cannot expect them to much appreciate how things have changed since then. Now we have schemes where the adult can learn IT skills or go in for art classes and do the kinds of things that they might have been deprived of doing as a child; and/or they can work with their own children in the nursery classes on learning through play, which we are now back to hearing about as the way forward in every sense. I thoroughly support that kind of approach.

I fully support the other two amendments in relation to the safeguarding side of things and the requirement that community services must include health visiting and community mental health services. It is crucial to recognise that these centres could be other places in which early signs of special needs could be detected and worked on. I support the amendments.

I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us a little more about these institutions. I assume that they are for children of pre-school age, although I cannot see it in the Bill; probably I have looked in the wrong place. I wonder how long they will be open for. Is it term time or is it in the summer, when the parents are under greatest pressure? I thoroughly endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said about—I do not like the word—intergenerational interaction, but we tend to forget that many parents have had no proper childhood themselves and have never learnt even how to play. Single children of single parents in deprived areas who have not had access to playgroups and the like start hugely handicapped when they become parents themselves, which they are apt to do in teenage years. They are therefore in need of emotional as well as intergenerational skills within their own generation.

This could be a lifeline to many children, because the art of loving and caring parenting is like a golden chain; once it is broken, once a child does not have it, they do not have it to hand on and it has to be restored. There is no effective way of doing that at the moment except in institutions, which are never well geared to do it. If these gatherings of adults can, with the child, instruct the parent on how to be a mother or a father, that would be a great step forward.

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the explanation given by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, of her proposed requirement for what Amendment 280 calls “intergenerational learning activities” and to what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and my noble friend Lord Elton have said. The noble Baroness has raised some interesting issues and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

Amendment 280C would mean that health visiting services and community mental health visitors were included among the services that may be provided through children’s centres. We strongly agree that health visitors should be an integral part of an approach to children’s services, particularly for children of a very young age. The decline in health visitor services is very troubling and it is right that the noble Baroness has highlighted this area.

I am not sure whether I heard her give an explanation of Amendment 281, which I understood was in this group. I do not know whether she would like to say anything on it. Having said that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I think that I did speak to Amendment 281, which is about the SSCCs having a lead for safeguarding.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave a good account of how valuable the contribution of a children’s centre can be. He might find helpful the proposed new Section 5A(4) in Clause 191, which sets out the purposes of a children’s centre. Should any noble Lord wish to visit a children’s centre between now and Report, I am sure that we can arrange for such a visit to take place. This will enable noble Lords to see the kind of work that goes on in children’s centres, although I am sure that many already will have done so.

As to Amendment 280, I agree that many children’s centres already work with local providers, offering learning activities to improve parents’ employability and running family literacy, language and numeracy programmes. For example, the London Borough of Merton is developing a purpose-built intergenerational centre, bringing together a wide range of partners from the public and third sectors. This will be built around a planned children’s centre and is due to open operationally in 2010. The building is located close to two schools and is to offer a base to sustain and develop intergenerational projects. In addition to a day nursery and meeting and interactive areas, there will be a kitchen for joint food preparation activities. I remember debating a few years ago how young people were losing the ability to cook and how difficult that was, so that is a great idea. There will also be space for horticultural activities and, if that were not enough, an adventure playground as well. I am off to Merton.

In Oldham, the lifelong learning service used family learning impact funding to develop its work with parents living in local refuges. The courses are delivered mainly in children’s centres—another example of children’s centres being the hub of the community—in particularly deprived areas of Oldham. There is so much going on; I do not want to leave anyone out, but we have over 3,000 children’s centres around the country now.

On Amendment 280C, the Childcare Act 2006 already places duties on relevant partners—including, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, will be interested to know, the primary care trust—to work together with the local authority to provide better integrated services relevant to young children, parents or prospective parents. That will, of course, include health visiting.

Clause 191, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, will be pleased to hear, will require partners to consider whether those services that include health visiting and community mental health services should be provided through a children’s centre. We are developing statutory guidance, as noble Lords will not be surprised to hear, for local authorities and primary care trusts on how to consider which services to deliver through children’s centres, because they are such a wonderful opportunity. In both cases, we think that it is right to leave it to local partners to determine where to locate these services so that they best meet the needs of local children and their families, but one cannot imagine a better candidate than the children’s centre.

On Amendment 2,081—sorry, on Amendment 281; please let us not have Amendment 2,081. I do not think that I could deal with that.

It just feels like it.

With regard to the department’s guidance on children’s centre governance— an important issue, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has said—this practice already reflects our expectation that centre managers, in conjunction with the local authority, should have in place a lead person to ensure that every member of staff is competent in their knowledge of child protection. We will use future statutory guidance to remind local authorities that each centre should have a designated lead on safeguarding. We have also asked Ofsted to pilot arrangements for inspecting children’s centres where safeguarding will be a key part of the inspection and will limit the overall judgment of the quality of the leadership and the management of the centre.

I hope that this will offer the kind of reassurance that the noble Baroness is looking for. As I have said, though, I am always in dialogue mode.

My Lords, the Minister said that every person working in a child centre should be up to strength on child protection. At this point, we need to remember that there is a great danger in this field that people will be prevented from giving the comfort that children need when they are hurt, frightened or lonely. This is a big issue; if you cannot give a hug to a child without being thought to be a paedophile, the child suffers, as does the adult. This is proliferating around the country. It may be unnecessary and it may not flow from statute, but it is certainly a reality. I hope that the department and the Minister will be addressing this and will be able to tell us something about it later on, whether in debate on this Bill or otherwise. This is something that we neglect at our peril.

The point that the noble Lord touches on is a challenging one. It is important for all people who work with young children—I think that the noble Lord is concerned particularly about settings involving young children, because there you are more likely to find a child who trips and needs a hug when they get up, and so on—that we get the training and support right for staff who work in these settings. That is why our department has a children’s workforce strategy looking at these exact questions: what are the judgments that staff need to make and the competencies that they need to have in the various settings in which they work? What is the core knowledge about information sharing and so on that all people who work with children need to have? I would be happy to give the noble Lord more information about that.

My worry is not information sharing but physical contact—the ability to pick up a child who has grazed their knee, to put them on your own knee or whatever. This is not just in child centres; it is in schools and throughout society. Matt of the Daily Telegraph, who so often puts his finger on the pulse, had a cartoon the other day of a child at his 18th birthday party being congratulated on having finished being a boy and instead becoming a suspected paedophile. It is a horrible situation; there are times now when one cannot express one’s compassion without at the back of one’s mind being afraid of being labelled as having some other motive. That is much more general than we are ready to acknowledge.

With regard to the specifics that we are talking about, in children’s centres, I support the noble Lord in raising those concerns in the way that he has. We had a Question a while ago about music teachers—the House was concerned that they should be able to lay a hand on a pupil’s shoulder in order to guide them—and I was able to be clear that nothing should prevent a teacher from appropriately touching a pupil. We need to support teachers and people who work in children’s centres to do that. We would expect the member of staff who was the safeguarding lead to provide exactly that kind of advice and guidance to the team in a children’s centre.

I thank the Minister for her reply and welcome her reassurances on the greater integration of the services—including the health services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has set out—and the importance of involving parents. I also welcome her acceptance of Amendment 281 and share her relief that it is not Amendment 2,081. This would have been a rather longer Session had it been so.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his words—the “golden chain” of parenting is a wonderful concept—and for raising his concerns about the role of adults and children. There was a sort of subtext to the first amendment suggesting that, if parents and children were all within the context of a children’s centre, it might be easier for both adults and children to develop proper relationships that they were comfortable and confident with in an appropriate surrounding.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for his support for additional health visitors. I am slightly concerned because I understand that the Conservatives have plans to pay for extra health visitors by cutting outreach workers in children’s centres. Outreach workers play a vital role in this and we would like to see additional health visitors without the cuts there.

I thank all those who have contributed to this debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Bill team for the helpful discussions that one had towards the end of the vacation, as I suppose we could call it, and for their subsequent helpful correspondence. I also declare an interest as president of the National Governors’ Association. We have not heard a great deal so far on governors, but maybe they are about to come into their own.

My Lords, my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley are attached to Amendments 280A and 280B, but I assume that Amendment 280ZA has superseded them, since one would pre-empt the other and Amendment 280ZA is much more satisfactory. Perhaps I may say from these Benches how much we support all that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has said. She is absolutely correct that what is wanted is a clear, consistent set of rules, that the sensible thing is to have a proper governing body rather than just an advisory board, that the voice of the parents should be heard very clearly and that, therefore, within that governing body there should be established something equivalent to a parents’ forum.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, have raised some very interesting issues. What are the Government’s intentions with regard to the regulation-making powers contained in new Section 5B of the Childcare Act? When might we reasonably expect to see draft regulations on this topic? On the assumption that that is not going to be before Report, can the Minister explain how she expects the centres to be governed, including how independent that governance will be? We think that it is very important for parents to be involved in children’s development and education. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister thinks of the amendment and its reference to the parents’ forum concept.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for a very full and interesting account of the questions around governance and children’s centres. I hope that I can offer her some reassurance. We are very committed to some pretty similar aspirations, but we do not necessarily agree on the way. I am not sure, having just looked behind me, whether the noble Baroness is going to be pleased with what I have to say, but I shall do my best.

I agree—and I am keen to put on record—on the benefits of effective governance in children’s centres. We want parents and prospective parents to feel close to the services that centres deliver. More than that, we want them to know that their views are listened to and valued and that the services are designed around their needs.

The proposals to establish advisory boards for children's centres contained in this legislation recognise that children’s centres will continue to grow and evolve, and that at some point in the future, for all the reasons that the noble Baroness set out, they may require governing bodies in their own right. I believe that our proposals to establish those advisory boards will bring opportunities for local people to influence the services that children’s centres provide and encourage accountability of children’s centres to local people, but without expecting too much, too soon, of children’s centres. That is not by any means to undervalue their potential; many children’s centres are still at an early stage of development. Our regulation-making powers, to which the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, referred, will enable us to introduce governing bodies if, after careful consideration, it seems appropriate.

To be fair, and to be clear with the Committee, we have not yet determined a timescale. There are no firm plans at this stage to introduce statutory governing bodies. I implore the Committee to understand the range of children’s centres and of stages of development that they are at. While many children’s centres already have parents forums, which play a significant role in shaping services, many centres work closely and sensitively with parents in other ways. While the Bill does nothing to prevent parents forums when centres want them locally, we would not want to impose such forums on all centres, as this might disrupt other existing, successful ways of consulting parents.

Finally, I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that new Section 5C will require local authorities to include people representing the interests of parents in the local authority’s area as members of advisory boards. That is the clear connection for which the noble Baroness is looking. In addition, new Section 5D will require local authorities to consult before opening a children’s centre, making significant changes to services provided through children’s centres, or before closing a centre. Our statutory guidance will stress that local authorities should ensure that they consult parents in these circumstances. That is absolutely right. I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendments.

Before I make my final comments, can the Minister address the question that I asked about the children’s centres that are set up already? How many of them have the advisory boards?

I am not sure that I can. However, only a few weeks ago we saw the 3,000th children’s centre opening. Of course, that is a huge achievement in services for children of pre-school years. I have fantastic inspiration here from the Box, which says that I need to write to the noble Baroness on that question—so it was really worth waiting for. With the indulgence of the Committee, I had better sit down.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the assurance that she will write to me. The very fact that there are 3,000 centres in existence is a great tribute, but I cannot say that I am other than disappointed at what I have been told. These centres are not only crucially important but really quite large bodies, which will need very professional and organised governing bodies, or the equivalent. The extent to which the situation has been left, literally, in limbo, with nobody knowing how it is going to develop, is going to be of concern to everybody.

I cannot guarantee that I will not come back to this at Report, but I am grateful for the help of the team and the Minister. I am equally grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for her support, and to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I hope that, between us, we will all keep this issue in mind and come back to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 195 sets out the budgetary framework for the provision of early years education for young children in England. An enormous number of regulations is referred to in this clause. The concern that this amendment seeks to probe is how these regulations will ensure that local authorities use their new powers to fund early-years providers in a way which safeguards centres of excellence. There are many extremely good providers of early-years education. Local authorities that have them in their areas know who they are. Many of them are maintained nurseries, headed up by highly qualified, specialist early-years teachers. Some of them are run by the voluntary sector and some of them are private.

We believe that quality early-years provision can be delivered only when the staff are well trained to understand how children's brains and personalities develop and how to respond to them when they reach each stage of development. There has been much debate about this in the press in the past week, particularly since the Cambridge primary review was published. I believe that education that takes account of child development and how children learn best is what is needed to help children fulfil their potential and avoid turning them off education for good. But this expertise comes at a price; my concern is that those settings that have the vision to employ teachers with their knowledge and expertise are not disadvantaged by the new arrangements. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that local authorities will be able to ensure that these centres of excellence do not suffer under Clause 195. I beg to move.

My Lords, we want to see a level playing field and to create a fairer system of distributing early years funding across all providers by improving the fairness and transparency in how that funding is allocated to providers who deliver the free entitlement. Funding should be based, primarily, on participation rates and not the number of places available. That will enable additional funding to be targeted at the most disadvantaged children.

A presumption against the closure of maintained nursery schools is already clearly set out in statutory guidance. Maintained nursery schools are required by law to have a head teacher, and we have stated clearly in guidance that this cost should be reflected in the new funding arrangements, meaning that they are still likely to be funded at a much higher level than any other early years setting. I noted carefully the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made about the centres of excellence. We do not have a legal definition for those centres, but in listening I understood the point that she made and, indeed, I share her view about the importance of child development.

Clearly, the quality of staff and settings are key drivers for improving children’s outcomes and narrowing attainment gaps. That is why we want to encourage local authorities to incentivise and reward maintained, private, voluntary and independent providers—I stress this—for quality provision. We feel it is right that settings with a higher quality of staff should attract more funding, but not that some settings should be given high levels of ongoing financial protection when they could be supported to make reasonable efficiency savings, thereby enabling redirected funding to reach many more children.

I hope this gives further assurances that the introduction of this clause is not a threat to the future of maintained nursery schools, or of any other high-quality provision, but that it is, rather, designed to support quality improvement across all early-years settings. I trust that, in the light of those assurances, the noble Baroness would feel capable of withdrawing the amendment.

I thank the Minister for his reassurances, and I am particularly reassured by what he said about the extra cost of employing a fully-qualified head teacher. Also, he said that the funding will be based on participation rates, which gives me great comfort. Because parents know a good thing when they see it, the centres of excellence will, I suspect, be the most highly subscribed and so be able to stay open. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 282 I shall also speak to Amendment 283. With these two amendments, we move onto the next part of the Bill, which is about schools. Chapter 1 of Part 10 concerns the intervention by the Secretary of State in local education authorities when a large number of their schools are underperforming. The purpose of this amendment is, first, to ensure that where the Secretary of State intervenes to take over the education services of a local authority—because it is running a disproportionate number of low-performing schools—the judgment on whether a school is low-performing is not the peremptory one of the National Challenge, based on raw performance data, but the more considered judgment of Ofsted, which looks holistically at the school’s overall performance. Ofsted also takes into account the population it serves and the difficulties it may face in serving a particularly disadvantaged or, perhaps, an ethnically and linguistically diverse population.

The second purpose is, similarly, that the question of whether a local authority has a disproportionate number of such schools is, again, to be a matter for Ofsted to decide in its local area agreement, rather than for the Secretary of State to decide and step in. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the Secretary of State would not step in without consulting Ofsted, just as it happened with Haringey and Baby P. Nevertheless, if that is the case, why should we not have Ofsted instead of the Secretary of State in the Bill?

My Lords, I certainly support these amendments, and I very much hope that they will get a favourable response.

My Lords, our intention with Clause 197 is to ensure that all schools and LEAs are aware that we will not accept poor performance in schools. We will ensure that any decision to direct a local education authority to obtain advisory services is supported by robust evidence—such as data on attainment, pupil progression in relation to reasonably expected standards, and standards previously attained by pupils there or at comparable schools—and is not, as suggested, wholly dependent on the Secretary of State simply guessing, without careful assessment, which LEA is underperforming. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked whether we will provide guidance or criteria to define what we mean by disproportionate. I cannot commit that we will provide a full definition but, following consultation in the revised “schools causing concern” guidance, that consultation will, of course, be extended to Ofsted.

Before a direction is made, representations will be obtained from an LEA, which will need to be able to provide assurances that it has the capacity to secure school improvement. It should be noted that the Secretary of State’s direction in these circumstances, and the requirement for the LEA to take advisory services, is a means by which we are offering support in the form of external educational experts to bolster the LEAs ability to support their schools and drive up standards.

These amendments would mean that it is not the role of the Secretary of State but rather the responsibility of the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills to judge whether standards of performance at a school are unacceptably low and thus whether an LEA maintains a disproportionate number of poorly performing schools. It is imperative to remember that the Secretary of State, not Ofsted, is responsible for school standards—and that he is accountable to Parliament for them. We think that is what precludes Ofsted from being involved in this process. The Secretary of State sets targets and annually collects the data, and therefore maintains a legitimate overview of standards and of those schools where there is low performance. Given that responsibility, he must have the freedom to make the ultimate decision when he deems that standards in a school or schools are low, and thus whether an LEA has the capacity to secure rapid and sustainable school improvement for the pupils in an area.

I stress that we do not anticipate that the Secretary of State will make this decision in isolation, or that this power will necessarily be used at the first instance. I can give noble Lords the assurance that Ofsted will be consulted where it is deemed necessary. We must remember that our goal here is to ensure that all children have access to a high standard of education, and that they are able to reach their full potential. I would therefore hope that, in the light of those assurances, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will feel capable of withdrawing the amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We are not seeking to change the fact that it is in the power of the Secretary of State to intervene; that is in subsection (1), which remains. We are seeking to alter it only through our subsection (2),

“where it appears to the Secretary of State that … a local education authority”,

is maintaining,

“a disproportionate number”.

We are saying that who judges whether the number should be disproportionate and whether they are actually underperforming should be a matter for Ofsted.

I come back to the comparison that I made with the Haringey case, where the Secretary of State intervened—somewhat peremptorily—but looked to Ofsted to advise him on that. As the Minister said, he would take account of all those statistics but would look to Ofsted to advise him on those things. The point that I made—if Ofsted is going to be doing it, why not put it into the Bill?—remains. However, the issue is not worth pursuing now, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, briefly, the Minister will remember my declared interest in the mechanism by which the Welsh Assembly Government are drawn into the Bill. I wish merely to know whether Schedule 14, which is set out by this clause, has its origins in Cardiff or London; and, if it has its origins in London, whether representations were made by Cardiff and whether the Welsh Assembly Government were satisfied with the reply that they got.

My Lords, I am desperately seeking inspiration from my left. There has been consultation with the Welsh, apparently.

If I hear nothing further, I will assume that the Welsh Assembly Government were satisfied. If they were not, I am sure that they will let me know.