COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 10 November 2004)

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall seek to be crisp in how I speak to these issues, although I can be prolix if that would be more helpful.
In short, we are rationalising planning requirements on local authorities as part of the process of change. These measures repeal the requirements for seven statutory plans and replace them with a strategic children's and young people's plan. Amendments Nos. 32, 53 and 57 make provision for that in England, and the National Assembly for Wales has a similar policy. Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 58 make provision for planning rationalisation in Wales, which will be taken forward in the context of the different arrangements for children's services there.
The children's and young people's plan will be wider than local authority services; it will link, for example, plans for health services, youth justice, voluntary community services and connections in drug action for children and young people. Not only will it be consistent with those other plans, but we expect that it will go further and involve joint planning. The needs of children and young people must be met in a holistic way—and that is as true of planning as of any other aspect of providing services. An intention of the duty to co-operate under Clause 7 of the Bill is to ensure that planning is effective across the children's and young people's agenda.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.—(Lord Filkin.)

§ Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, this set of amendments, as the Minister explained, aims to pull together a set of planning requirements on local authorities at the moment and pull them together into children's and young persons' plans. The aim of those children's and young person's plans, as set out in the summary of regulations distributed by the Minister for Children in another place, was that they should be a statement of local vision for children and young people, in which the children and young people were 988 themselves to play a part in identifying key outcomes and the time scale; the strategic actions of those key outcomes; the commitment by key partners to the delivery of those outcomes; and a statement of how the plans were to play a part in that delivery.
Those objectives derive from Chapter 5 of Every Child Matters, which suggested a single planning and commissioning function emerging in children's trusts, supported by pooled budgets. We are some way from seeing children's trusts up and running and playing a part. It is notable that, in the amendment, the duty to plan is put only on local authorities, not on any other partners, although subsection (3) of the new clause makes it clear that the plans should include details of the partnership arrangements concluded under Clause 7.
Planning to co-operate is different from planning to create the local vision for children and young people. Is there not a danger that, in the process, we will lose what we thought we were gaining by bringing the local education and social services authorities together with the local health authority, the police and the youth justice authorities?
The remarks made by the Minister in the other place about the new clause tell us something of what she had in mind: The core requirement for the plan relates to local authority services for children and young people, but the involvement of other local partners is of fundamental importance. We hope that the plan will link to plans for health services, youth justice, voluntary and community services, Connexions and drugs action for children and young people. Not only do all those plans have to be consistent, but I hope that there will be joint planning. The needs of children and young people must be met holistically. The duty to co-operate in clause 7 is intended to include a duty to plan. Joint planning to improve the well-being of children and young people is a fundamental expression of co-operation".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 19/10/04; col. 219.] I ask the Minister for assurances on three issues. First, "hope" is a fine word, full—if I might say so—of aspiration, but can the Minister give us any assurance that we will see the integrated, joined-up thinking on the part of the wider range of authorities that we need, if the Bill is to succeed? Secondly, the Minister said that the duty to co-operate in Clause 7 was "intended" to include the duty to plan. There is nothing in Clause 7 to say that that is so. Subsection (1) makes it clear that the children's services authority must make arrangements to promote co-operation with relevant partners. Subsection (5) makes it clear that relevant partners must co-operate with such arrangements. We need to look at subsection (8), which says that a children's services authority and relevant partners must have regard to the guidance from the Secretary of State.
Can the Minister give us an assurance that the guidance will make it clear that the duty to co-operate means the duty to draw up and implement plans together? Can he also give us an assurance that, in spite of the Government's resistance to the inclusion of schools, primary care trusts and other health providers as relevant providers, they too will be included?
989 Simply planning co-operation arrangements, as is implied by subsection (3) of the new clause, is not good enough. The key principles of Every child Mutters include prevention by early intervention. That requires not just planning to plan or planning to co-operate but actually working together to achieve the ends. Can the Minister explain how we get from the aspirations to the actual?
Can the Minister explain whether subsection (4) of the new clause lets some authorities—those rated excellent in the comprehensive performance review—get away with producing no plans? Is that right? Even if an authority's children's services are excellent, that will not necessarily be true of the provision of children's health services. Is the clause intended to exclude such authorities from the requirement to produce such plans? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the issues.

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, slightly unusually in our procedures the questions are getting harder as the night goes on. I shall do my best tonight but I shall be direct with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She may get a better answer if I write to her very soon setting out the full picture rather than simply using a mixture of extemporisation and the ability to decipher cryptic messages from on high.

§ Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I shall be happy for the Minister to write to me but I should like a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library so that it is available for other Peers to see.

§ Lord Filkin
My Lords, I very much agree with that. These are good questions. It is not just a matter of the lateness of the hour. I would be able to give a bit of a "fist" of an answer to these issues but it would not be as precise and detailed as the noble Baroness wants. I do not detect that this is an issue on which we shall divide the House although who knows? Therefore, I can best respond by an early and detailed letter which I shall copy to noble Lords on the other Front Bench and a copy of which I shall place in the Library. I do not normally say that but I believe that would be more helpful to the noble Baroness than a bit of "busking" by me.