Childcare Bill

Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2005.

Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

Childcare Bill

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Good morning. Please dress comfortably. If anyone wishes to remove their jacket, please do so and if anyone is unhappy with the arrangements, please let me know quietly.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move,

That—

(1)during proceedings on the Childcare Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 6th December) meet—

(a)at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 6th December;

(b)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on Thursday 8th December;

(c)at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 13th December;

(d)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on Thursday 15th December;

(e)at 9.00 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 20th December;

(f)at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 10th January;

(2)the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 21; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1; Clauses 22 to 30; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2; Clauses 31 to 47; Schedule 1; Clauses 48 to 95; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3; Clause 96; Schedules 2 and 3; Clauses 97 to 104; remaining new Clauses; remaining new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3)the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on Tuesday 10th January.

We are pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Amess. In your authoritative, but friendly, start to the sitting, you have given us a flavour of how you will help us to take forward our business efficiently. I look forward to that and I have no doubt that Mr. Benton will chair the proceedings equally well.

I open the sitting with a strong sense of quiet satisfaction and achievement, and some pride. As I mentioned on Second Reading, this is the first ever Bill that is devoted specifically to early years and child care. The Committee has a genuine opportunity permanently to transform the shape, quality and availability of early years services to our youngest children and their parents. I welcome the support and consensus that were reflected on Second Reading. I am particularly glad of the opportunity to subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny, which is what it deserves and demands. The programme motion gives us sufficient time to do that. It has no knives, but I hope that we can make reasonable progress to enable us to do justice to the debate that we need to have on all measures.

I am pleased that I am sharing my role in Committee with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I also have a superlative collection of Labour Back Benchers behind me, all of whom have demonstrated their long-standing commitment to this agenda for our youngest children. I see on the Opposition Benches Members and colleagues of equal standing, including the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is developing a deserved reputation for expertise on these issues, having served on the Committee on the Children Act 2004. I welcome the chance to hear from him and I look forward to our deliberations.

The programme motion is a sensible attempt to ensure that all the major provisions are debated and I hope that the Committee accepts it.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I reiterate what the Minister said about welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Amess. This is the not the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, which was fair and entertaining—I am sure that things will be no different in our proceedings over the next few weeks. I mirror the Minister’s comments and welcome the superlative team on the Opposition Benches, two of whom we are holding in store until a little later this morning, when they will appear. I am also grateful for the Minister’s comments about my developing a deserved reputation, as she put it. That will no doubt be terminated at 3 o’clock this afternoon—we shall wait and see what happens when the leadership of my party changes.

I welcome the Bill. We supported it on Second Reading, when we had a good debate that was informative and well informed. I am sure that many hon. Members who spoke in it who are represented on the Committee will contribute to the worthwhile scrutiny of the Bill.

I will set out some of the things that we want to scrutinise, relating my comments to the motion before us and how much time we will spend on such matters. I am pleased and grateful that the Government have given us three weeks in Committee and have not specified any knives—as is the colloquial term. It became clear when we debated Children Bills in Committee that when we deal with pioneering legislation in particular—as we are—it is important that we have as much time as possible to explore new areas. The same goes for this Bill.

Although we support the Bill’s general principles and thrust, we are concerned about the lack of detail. I also notice that along with the many amendments that we have tabled, the Government have tabled some amendments. Will the Minister produce additional explanatory notes to go with those and any future Government amendments? Such notes would be useful, particularly when we need a briefing on detailed and complex matters before their discussion in Committee.

On Second Reading I asked whether the Minister intends to produce draft regulations or codes of practice in Committee. Much of the Bill relies on as yet unpublished regulations. It would enrich our deliberations greatly if we had some detail—not in finished form, which is why I suggest draft regulations, at least—so that we knew about some of the measures that we are signing up to, particularly in those areas that are left to regulation by the Secretary of State.

One such area appears in clause 1, which is why I hope that we shall spend some time on it. Subsection (3) refers to the Secretary of State prescribing targets. The clause goes on to say:

“In performing their duties under this section, an English local authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.”

Clause 5 gives a wide-ranging power to the Secretary of State. She may by order amend the definition of early childhood services. That goes to the root of the Bill, so it would be useful if, in these early stages of our deliberations, the Minister could provide us with much more detail about the powers that she expects the Secretary of State to take upon herself if we pass the legislation in its current form.

We want to scrutinise the detail in clause 1, particularly with regard to the duties of local authorities. That is why the first component of the Bill is important. We need assurances from the Minister about what exactly child care providers—a large business in this country—can expect from the legislation now and as it unravels in the coming years. That must be made clear.

We must know what obligations local authorities can expect. Terms such as “reasonably practical” and providing “sufficient” child care must be defined much more closely, so that we know whether a duty has been achieved and, indeed, whether it is achievable. If it is not achievable by a local authority, we must know what the penalties on it or any of its partners might amount to.

There are also considerations about children with disabilities and children from black and minority ethnic communities. We should like to see more detail in the Bill. We must know how a duty will be assessed, and whether it will work; and when it will be assessed, and whether it is working. One of our watchwords is “quality”, which as far as I can see does not appear in the Bill, or certainly does not appear in its initial provisions.

I welcome the Minister mentioning “quality” as an integral part of the Bill. It is no good just ticking the boxes and assessing whether its aims have been achieved by the number of child care places provided if the quality of those leaves a lot to be desired. We shall judge its effectiveness on the quality of the outcomes that it achieves.

We are concerned also about the capability of local authorities to carry out many of the provisions. We shall ask for further detail about that. I was involved in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and, just a few months ago, the Children Act 2004, as the Minister said. Those pieces of legislation placed, and are still placing, because not all provisions have come into effect, greater duties on local authorities to promote adoption and provide adoption support services. There are new proceedings for care, making adoption orders and dealing with the adoption and adoption contact registers.

The 2004 Act recently introduced new structures for local authorities: directors of children’s services, working with partners, and local safeguarding children boards. Many of the new bodies that are being set up and the new duties on private fostering arrangements, data collection and so on have not come into force and local authorities are still wrestling with how they will deal with them. I hope that they will be successful. My party supported most of those initiatives, which are intended to improve the welfare and outcomes for children, but we are now about to place a new load of responsibilities and duties on local authorities. We must be assured that they can cope with them.

One point that the Secretary of State made on Second Reading was that the Bill places no unfunded duties on local authorities. We do not understand how that can be the case. It is imperative that local authorities go along with the Bill and that they can enact it. There are questions not just about financial resources but also about providing the people. As with the 2002 and 2004 Acts, all the wise words that we may debate here, and all the extra specifications that may come as part of the legislation, will be undermined if there are not professional people on the ground to put them into force.

We know about the great gaps in personnel, particularly child protection social workers and people who provide early years child care services. We want assurances from the Minister as we go through the clauses that the measures are achievable and that local authorities can cope with the enormous duties that are being placed on them, which, by and large, they have welcomed. However, they want detailed answers to some questions. We want to spend a large part of the Committee’s time on early stages, the relationship with local authorities and how the measures will be brought into being, as local authorities are key to that.

On part 2, no Conservative Member who represents a Welsh seat is serving on the Committee, although we could have had someone this time. That has not been possible previously for reasons that you know, Mr. Amess. However, our Welsh colleagues, who are being used in other places, will advise us.

Many clauses in part 3 deal with the functions of the chief inspector. Again, we should like some detail from the Minister. We have particular concerns about the splitting of the register—there are now two—and how they will operate concurrently, how children of different age groups will be dealt with, the registration of early years child minders and the involvement of Ofsted and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The debate will be timely, as CSCI is short lived. The intention is that it should become part of the Health Care Commission—an even bigger leviathan—so we need some assurances that CSCI’s successor will be able to perform the undertakings that it is given in the Bill.

We should like to spend some time on clause 39 onwards. Those clauses deal with the early years foundation stage. We had some lively debate on that on Second Reading. Again, while there is a great deal of common ground between the principle of what the Government are trying to achieve and what we would like to be achieved, we have concerns about language and terminology—more importantly, how the Bill will be interpreted by the local authorities and inspectorates that will be responsible for monitoring whether the early years foundation stage requirements are met.

Many hon. Members summed up the requirements by referring to the word “taught” in clause 41, which we feel is far too educationally prescriptive. “Schoolification” is a horrible expression that has been used by one of the children’s bodies. The very early years, particularly, are about care and development, rather than the teaching of specific educationally biased requirements.

The Minister sought to give some reassurances. I hope that she will be able to go into greater detail than what is in “Birth to Three Matters”, which contains much material that we support and have supported. My concern is about how the requirements are interpreted by those people whose job it is to monitor whether things are being done properly. The difference between care and education is key, so we have tabled amendments to try to distinguish between infants aged nought to two, whom we refer to as babies, and those aged two to five, whom we refer to as young children.

The development of infants aged nought to two is absolutely key and different from what comes later. Some of us touched on attachment theory, brain development and physical development during those very early years. We shall seek to introduce differentiation into the Bill to recognise the different requirements, social skills and development of babies and very young children and, again, there may be some debate about the terminology.

That sets out how we would like to spend our time scrutinising the Bill and I hope that the Minister will allow us to concentrate on those areas. She has been generous in allowing us to consider the Bill without knives over the next few weeks and if we all get on like a house on fire, we might even finish before Christmas, but I will not predict that now.

I am sure that we are all greatly looking forward to reaching clause 101 which, for some reason, deals with the thorny issue of the Isles of Scilly. I do not understand why they are receiving special treatment, but perhaps the Minister will have a long briefing on why they are different from elsewhere in the world.

When I saw Government amendments to clause 104, which refers to the Bill’s short title, my ears pricked up. Whenever I have been involved with a child care Bill I have recommended that its title should be changed because there are too many Children Bills, which causes confusion. However, whenever I have tried to change the title, the Government have not acquiesced, but in this case, it is the Childcare Bill. The Minister said earlier that this is pioneering legislation and there are no previous child care Bills to create confusion so I am delighted not to have table amendments to clause 104. The Government, for technical reasons, seem to have beaten me to it.

Those are the areas on which we want to concentrate and I look forward to a constructive discussion. I am sure that there will be common interest and debate. What really matters is the detail of what we achieve and whether it can be achieved by those who are in a position to put it into effect. If we can have such assurances and the detail that we need to show to local authorities, child care providers and other people involved in child care, we shall be happy to continue to support the Bill.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I, too, welcome your chairmanship, Mr. Amess, and look forward to the next few weeks. My hon. Friends and I also look forward to working with both Ministers and the official Opposition. I hope that the Committee’s approach will be co-operative so that we achieve the best outcome and, most importantly, a Bill that really delivers a difference. We have tabled many probing amendments, with probably more to come, because if there is vagueness and loopholes, we will not achieve what everyone wants. We share the Bill’s objectives.

I am slightly embarrassed about introducing my team this morning. I must apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who served with me on the Children Bill and has great experience and expertise. He will make a great contribution when we discuss part 2, which covers Wales. We have had a change of personnel because we planned that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) would serve on the Committee, but the timing of a family event—twins are expected imminently—is incompatible with his presence here today, as it was yesterday when the House was discussing the Work and Families Bill. I am without a colleague this morning, but that will soon be remedied.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I hope that the hon. Lady will let us know when the happy event occurs. As one of two, I know from my parents what a shock it was when it happened.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the Under-Secretary for that intervention. Rather more to the point, we think that the time available to us will be adequate. I hope that it is. There is a responsibility on us to make the time work for us.

I concur with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—I mentioned this on Second Reading—in that I have a concern about the constant references to regulations, guidance and the powers of the Secretary of State, which, at this stage, we do not know enough about. I hope that, in the course of discussion, more will be revealed. I agree that we will be spending a lot of time considering the duties on local authorities. That is inevitable because, as I said earlier, we want to ensure that the words are translated into meaningful action.

As I indicated on Second Reading, we want to consider not only quantity, but quality. Inevitably that means that, as the Bill progresses, we need to consider the early years foundation stage. I am committed to the principles of that because it is a key to quality, but, nevertheless, we are concerned about some of the terminology. I have tabled some amendments—there are some more to come—relating to what I call “nots” because tighter definition is needed. Once we have got that bit and the function of local authorities sorted, everything relating to inspection will be crucial. We will need to consider quality assurance, inspection processes and how to go for continuous improvement within the settings and the work force. This is the area, among all the others, in which we need to consider the continuous professional development of the work force. I hope that we will be able to touch on that important area as the Bill progresses.

My comments have been brief because, rather than repeating what was said on Second Reading, I would like to get on with the detail of the Bill. We certainly pledge to work as constructively as possible during the process.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am grateful for those remarks from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and from the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) because they reflect the spirit in which all Members have come to the Committee. There is agreement on the direction of policy in the Bill and a commitment to young children and also on getting under the skin of some of the proposals to ensure that, as far as we can, the proposals are enacted and that when other people are charged with implementing them, they will work and deliver the policy objectives.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham describe the Bill as pioneering legislation. It is pioneering and significant. We are about to start discussing amendments to it, but, none the less, we have a commitment to reduce inequalities among young children by means of primary legislation.

I accept the point that such duties inevitably mean that a great deal of the detail will have to be included in regulations and guidance. I understand that Opposition Members want some assurances about the detail of that guidance and those regulations. I am sure that they agree that it would not be appropriate to include the level of detail that will be required in the Bill, so the Government have no option when it comes to proceeding in that way. I understand the concerns of Opposition Members and know that they want to see more detail. As we go through the Bill, where we can, we will bring forward outline guidance. In any case, all the guidance will be subject to detailed consultation with people outside this place. We will do our best to ensure that the Committee gets the assurances that it needs within the constraints of the three weeks available for debating the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about explanatory notes on Government amendments. When they are more than technical amendments, we will certainly provide explanatory notes in advance. There is a great deal of expertise as well as commitment on this Committee. I very much share with hon. Members on the Opposition Benches the view that the issues that they want to discuss are the key issues. It is important that we try to get them right. I thank those hon. Members for their contributions, and I hope that we can accept the programme motion and proceed with our debate.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies of the resolutions are available in the Room. I should also remind Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman Mr. Joe Benton and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

Clause 1 - General functions of local authority: England

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 64, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out ‘reduce inequalities between’ and insert

‘raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out

‘the reduction of inequalities between’

and insert

‘the increase in the levels of well-being of’.

No. 65, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out

‘the reduction of inequalities between’

and insert

‘raising the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.’.

No. 66, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert

‘which must be based on qualitative outcomes.’.

No. 67, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out ‘are met’ and insert

‘do not act against securing long term quality outcomes in the provision of childcare.’.

No. 116, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert

‘, and that one target is not met to the detriment of any other.’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We want to spend some time teasing out the detail of the clause, and so many of the amendments are, by necessity, probing. We shall see how the Minister responds to them. A great number of amendments have been so far tabled, and I guess that several more shall be tabled before the Bill is out. There are some interesting groupings, which involve flitting from clause to clause and, later on, from schedule to clause. However, with your understanding, Mr. Amess, I am sure that we shall pull it off.

The first group of amendments is tabled in the name of myself and my hon. Friends; no doubt, they are supported by the latecomer to this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), whom we welcome. No doubt, she will add her name to the amendments.

Amendment No. 64, taken with amendment No. 1, is about teasing out how the Government plan to reduce inequalities. All in the Room shall applaud the aim of reducing inequalities in well-being between young children. The Government have had mixed success with that during the past eight-and-a-half years. Despite the Chancellor’s claims about taking children out of poverty, the poverty gap between children and between the richest and poorest has by several measures actually widened. I do not want to see the narrowing of a gap just for the sake of ticking a box; I want to see the raising of standards, qualities and experiences for all.

Several hon. Membersrose—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am delighted to give way.

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

My understanding is that the number of children in poverty went up from about 1.9 million to 4.2 million between 1979 and 1997, and that that figure has fallen by about 700,000, going on figures from 2003-04. I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means when he says that poverty has gone up during the past eight years.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We could debate the nature of poverty all day long but you, Mr. Amess, would not allow us. However, reports from Save the Children predict that the target to take all children out of poverty by 2020 will not be met. The definition of what constitutes poverty is a movable feast as well. The point is that it is in everybody’s interests to lift up the standards of all children, because we could so easily achieve a reduction in inequalities by reducing the standard of the best, which none of us wants.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

As we are discussing that point, my hon. Friend should remind the Committee that one way in which the Government made welcome progress on reducing child poverty was, nevertheless, by changing the statistics on which the figures were based. In one fell swoop, the Government removed 1 million children from poverty simply by changing the statistics, although there had been no increase in income whatsoever.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and such a move would not have been the first from a Chancellor who has form. He was hoisted with his own petard when we heard the growth figures yesterday. However, I shall not go down that line, as you would haul me back to order, Mr. Amess.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab) rose—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

If the hon. Lady wants to haul us back to order, I would be delighted to give way to her.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I just want to point out that, on a definition based on children living in low income households before housing costs, the number of children living in poverty has fallen from 3.1 million to 2.5 million since 1998. If we want to use an alternative definition—the number living in low income households after housing costs—that too has fallen, from 4.1 million to 3.5 million.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

As I said, I am trying to find alternative figures to those produced by the Government; ones that have not been doctored. Anyway, the brief itself refers to relative poverty.

The purpose of the amendment is to improve standards for all. That is why we suggest replacing “reduce inequalities between” with

“raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged”.

I am sure that that is where we all would want to concentrate resources and attention. That covers amendments Nos. 64 and 1.

I believe that amendment No. 65 was repeated because of a typo. There was a reference to equality rather than quality, which is why it appeared as a separate amendment. We shall not press it.

I want to get back to the important theme of quality of outcomes. As I said earlier, this should not be a numbers game but should be about the quality of outcomes for children. Also, the parents are secondary. Many of the comments that we heard in support of Sure Start were rightly based on the impressions and satisfaction levels of the children, which are important, but of primary importance is the effect on children, not just for the convenience of parents but for helping children.

That idea is essential and fundamental to what we are debating. It goes to the opening clause of the Children Act 1989, which talks about the paramountcy of the welfare of the child. The Bill, which refers to the 1989 Act in various places, should be based on that. I am much more concerned with raising the quality of children’s experiences and outcomes. Local authorities already have a duty to co-operate with the welfare provisions set out in sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004, so the amendment fits in with that.

We take the theme forward to amendment No. 66, which would add

“which must be based on qualitative outcomes”

to the description of local authorities’ duties of improving well-being and reducing inequalities. We want to raise the qualitative outcomes. As I said, quality is not specifically mentioned in this part of the Bill, but it has a place here. One of our worries is how assessments will be made as to whether the aims of the Bill have been achieved. They must have a qualitative element and not be based purely on quantity. That is reinforced by the comments of the Local Government Association, which stated:

“The LGA believes that the definition of ‘sufficient’ childcare must cover the quality as well as the quantity of provision.”

On its experience in child care services, the LGA states that

“in key areas—sustainability, workforce, training and quality—we are still at a relatively early stage of development.”

It is essential that we refer in the Bill to what is expected in qualitative terms rather than just to headlines and quantity.

Quantity can be judged simply by the number of child care places. There has been an increase in the number of places, but some have disappeared. Are those new child care places better in quality than those that have gone by the way? I hope that with improved training, inspection techniques and requirements and improved information going to parents when choosing places for their children, the overall standard of new child care places will surpass that of previous child care places or places that have disappeared.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

My constituency has large council estates and many children do not have English as their first language, so quality is important. Plonking children who do not have English as their first language in a nursery with only English-speaking teachers who have no ability to communicate with them would disadvantage those children even more than staying at home and being taught by their parents.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend makes an exceedingly pertinent point, which is why I singled out a couple of particularly sensitive areas. For children with disabilities and children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, communication is vital, particularly during the very early years. If a child care worker cannot communicate orally with a child, that child’s chances of forming attachments and developing socially will be disadvantaged. It is right to create dozens or hundreds of extra child care places for people with young children in ethnic community areas. If we do not have properly trained child care providers, we might do damage and vice versa. That is one example of why the qualitative element is essential.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I hesitate to raise a discordant note on the Opposition Benches, but something that has always struck me is young children’s ability to communicate in any language. When they are very young they can absorb any language. They learn language by imitating people around them. Is it really such a big issue to provide child care provision in the same language?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am sure that the language of “gaggagoo” is truly multinational. We are at pains to get away from education in the early stages. We do not expect children at the age of two to be able to recite “War and Peace” in a multitude of languages. That is not the issue. It is about communication, often without speech but with eye contact, touch, play and everything that goes with that. Language becomes important for older children. That importance is not overriding, but is part of the whole development of children to become socially skilled and to form attachments with the people around them. At the appropriate time, the appropriate use of language becomes an important element as the child develops.

My hon. Friend and I are not arguing because we do not do that. The issue is the appropriateness at various ages.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

I do not wish to intrude in the argument on the Conservative Benches. We are discussing clause 1, but clauses 43 and 41 are relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The regulations that will be the basis of the inspection cover the welfare of children and the suitability of persons to care for children, as well as their qualifications and training. Learning and development includes personal, social and emotional development and communication. The matters that the hon. Gentleman is discussing are addressed elsewhere in the Bill.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

They are certainly addressed elsewhere in the Bill. We want to spend quite a lot of time on that at the appropriate point, which is not while we are discussing clause 1, as I am sure you will speedily point out, Mr. Amess. However, I thank the hon. Lady for providing a trailer to that part of the Bill.

The point is clear. Many of us will have seen the “Panorama” programme last year involving an undercover report about certain nurseries that, on the face of it, had received good or satisfactory inspection reports. The standard and quality of care that many children were getting left a lot to be desired. The boxes may have been ticked, but the quality of the care being provided to those children was woefully inadequate.

We must ensure that the inspection regime and the requirements placed on local authorities stress quality and not quantity and certain headline figures that can easily be produced without impacting on the quality of care that the child gets.

Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab) rose—

Edward Milibandrose—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We are going to be on clause 1 for a very long time. I shall give way for the first time to the hon. Lady.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improving quality and addressing inequality are not exclusive, and that one can and should do both? Interestingly, the hon. Member for Putney made an excellent point from her personal knowledge of the difficulties of disadvantaged children on council estates. She noted that if their language does not develop properly and appropriately, they cannot take advantage of nursery education offered at three years old.

We can and should have good quality nursery education and child care at three years old, but if we do not address the inherent inequality in access to language learning at an early age, we shall not achieve the desired outcome that the hon. Gentleman shares.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I completely agree with the hon. Lady, and I made it clear that I am not trying to achieve something that is not implicit in the phraseology used in the Bill. The two points are not mutually exclusive. However, I want to achieve a rise in quality by stressing that we must raise the least well-off to the standard of the best well-off and take everybody with us, and not try to narrow the gap just for the sake of it. The two points are completely complementary.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees. Further to that point, does he agree that sometimes one needs to include extra measures to address the problem of raising the most disadvantaged to the level of the lesser disadvantaged?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Again, I agree. I am getting worried about this complete agreement. I am also unused to being in a Committee in which so many Government Back Benchers have sought to contribute. It is good; I wish that it had happened in the Adoption and Children Bill. Clearly, the Whip in charge is rather more benign than usual.

What the hon. Lady is saying, with which I agree, is implicit in the terminology that I have used in the amendment, so I hope that she will support it. It says,

“raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.”

All of us should agree on that. Projects such as Sure Start are instances of it, and no doubt the hon. Lady was thinking of that.

Sure Start has concentrated on the most disadvantaged 15 per cent. of communities, which clearly need special help. That is why we supported Sure Start and its extension right from its early stages, and that is why we are just as keen as the hon. Lady that a qualitative report of the value-added that Sure Start can bring is made available, so that people can see how it is working.

There has been a lot of criticism, and we want Sure Start to work. If certain aspects of it do not work, we want it to be adapted so that it can work for even more disadvantaged children, and for those above the level of disadvantaged. Where there is the need, we want to extend Sure Start to as many people as possible.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is possible to raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged without reducing inequality? If the outcomes for the most advantaged are raised even further, inequality is increased at the same time as outcomes for the most disadvantaged are reduced. What the Bill is admirably trying to do is reduce inequality.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Lady is trying to achieve what we are all trying to achieve, but I do not accept that it is implicitly necessary to reduce the level of attainment of those who are better off in order to promote the achievement of the less well-off. That is the implication of her comments.

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

No, I will not. Let me carry on with this point. The important thing is the individual child’s experience, the quality of that experience, and the quality of the care and support provided to him or her, not the narrowing of the gap or where they happen to appear on a socio-economic turnout. It is crucial that every child is treated on his or her own merits and requirements, and that appropriate care and attention are applied to the child. It is entirely immaterial to the experiences of the most disadvantaged children that better-off children become slightly better off. I repeat that that is why amendment No. 64 singles out the most disadvantaged, not the gap. I hope that the hon. Members for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) and for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) would be able to support that, because what they are saying seems to suggest that they believe that as well.

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

The discussion following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has been illuminating. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not mind if the relative life chances of the poorest become worse over time, as long as the absolute standard of the most disadvantaged rises, and that it does not matter if the situation of the most advantaged rises much faster. However, it does matter, because relative life chances have a massive effect on people.

Let us consider the people in my constituency: how their situation compares with that of the most advantaged will completely shape the course of their lives. That is why the amendment is misplaced. Of course we are not in favour of levelling down, but it is important to ensure that we address the fact that there is such a wide gap between the life chances of the poorest and those of the better-off.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I think that we have some disagreement at this early stage of the Bill. Everything that we are trying to do to improve this part of the Bill is focused on one thing: individual children and improving their outcomes and experiences. That must take precedence over relativity, in which I am not really interested. I am interested in improving the standards of those who most need to have their standards and life chances improved. Amendment No. 64 encapsulates that.

The hon. Member for Doncaster, North can wax lyrical about making it fairer for everybody by levelling out relativity. I am not concerned with that if it means that we could hold back some children. I am most concerned with ensuring that everybody can be levelled upwards rather than trying to achieve a degree of mediocrity in the middle to which everybody should subscribe. I do not believe that that would help the most disadvantaged children.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that relativities do not matter in the real world. He is trying to present the case that the only focus should be on individual children and where they are and that therefore if all young children’s levels of achievement rise faster than those of, say, the 20 per cent. who are most disadvantaged, the increase in relativity does not matter. I would like him to confirm whether that is correct, because if that is the point that he is making, it is a profound one.

Does he agree that if overall standards rise for everybody but not as quickly for the most disadvantaged, what those children have to do to compete with other children is that much greater? It is not about levelling down. Gaps matter in the real world. That is why it is important to try to give children a fair opportunity to compete in terms of life chances.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

What I said, as the right hon. Lady knows perfectly well, is that individual children are paramount. Relativity is secondary. That is the key point. Let us take the example of neighbourhood nurseries, which have been a major contributor to the additional provision of nursery places in this country. Let us take a hypothetical situation. If a publicly funded neighbourhood nursery is set up on an initial three or five-year plan so that capital costs are paid up front, it can provide greater wages to attract child care workers—as has often been a criticism of part of the way that Sure Start works, for example. People are therefore attracted away from working for a local social services department or an independent or voluntary nursery. That would certainly help the new people being attracted to that neighbourhood nursery, at whom it is targeted, but it might be to the detriment of people who will no longer have the advantage of a skilled person working in social services—they may be working on child protection or other parts of child care—or another nursery, which has operated perfectly well, but which will have its sustainability brought into question.

That goes to the heart of some of the other amendments—in fact, it goes to the heart of the last amendment in this group. We should be mindful not to do things that undermine something that is already there. That is why I made the point earlier that, already, in increasing the number of child care places, we need to be convinced that the new places are of a better quality than those that they have replaced. We know that for every two child care places that have been produced over the past few years, one existing place has gone out of business. If that is because the place that was lost was of a lower quality, that is a perfectly fair achievement and one would not criticise it. However, if it is because some advantages have been given to the new places, which may not prove sustainable, and the existing places have been lost because there was an unfair playing field, that is entirely different. That is the point that the amendments are trying to get to.

In judging everything in the Bill, I return to the point that relativity is secondary to the outcomes and experience of the children. We want to take everybody up with us.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend is explaining the arguments behind our group of amendments extremely well so I am loth to intervene, but the Minister has prompted me to do so. She pointed out that there are different speeds of improvement in nurseries. If some nurseries are not raising the quality of child care as fast as some child care providers elsewhere in the country, that is a cause for concern and we need to look at what is happening in the nurseries that are underperforming to see how we can raise the absolute level of child care in them, and not to concern ourselves that the gap may be wider or narrower. To take the point about relative poverty generally—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. The hon. Gentleman was intervening on his colleague and should get to his question.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Amess. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was trying to argue the point about relative poverty, which is referred to in the 10-year strategy. We need to ask ourselves the following question: would we rather achieve a rise in living standards for everybody at the same time as seeing the gap between the rich and the poor widen, or would we rather have a lowering of living standards for the poorest while seeing the gap narrowing? As policy makers, we sometimes have to face those dilemmas.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend puts things very succinctly, as always. I would rather see a minimum quality threshold below which we should not allow child care places, or whatever form of child care we are talking about, to fall. We should weed out those that fall below it and then seek to concentrate, as the amendment would require, on the most disadvantaged to take that threshold higher and higher. If that also closes the gap, it would be to the greater benefit of the case that Labour Members are making. However, that is not primary to what we are trying to achieve.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we have more than a century of social research in this country showing just how damaging relativities, particularly relative poverty, are? The Government should be congratulated on trying to close the gap. It is not good enough to increase the outcomes for the most disadvantaged if they are falling further and further behind the lowest of the advantaged. That is what the Bill is trying to prevent and it is important that the clause stands as it is because it is about reducing inequality and improving the life chances of everyone. Of course that is what we want, but we do not want too big a gap between the children at the bottom and those at the top. We know that relativity matters.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Lady has set out her stall and there is a clear distinction between that and the way in which we are approaching the matter, but we are trying to achieve the same thing. She has not added anything new to what we have said.

Amendment No. 67 refers to something that is guaranteed to raise the hackles of Conservative Members. Subsection (3) refers to targets and subsection (4) states that they should be met. If we are to have the dreaded word “targets” and references to it in the Bill, simply meeting them is not an end in itself. We would like the safeguard that any targets

“do not act against securing long term quality outcomes in the provision of childcare.”

I have given various examples of going hell for leather to produce a quantity of places—that is important because we have a shortage of places—but we will do no one any favours if we compromise the quality of the new places and hon. Members have given all sorts of reasons for that. There should be a check and that goes to the heart of sustainability. We will come to the requirements on local authorities, if not to provide child care places, to ensure that sufficient—whatever that means—child care places are available, but they must be sustainable.

I gave an example of the concern that some new nursery providers have their up-front costs provided, often from public funds. They may have a less sustainable business plan so that, having taken on people by paying them better wages than existing nursery providers who are doing a perfectly good job and in many cases a very good job as many surveys show, some existing providers may be driven out of business. If it turns out after five years that their business model was unsustainable, we will not have achieved what we set out to achieve because we will not have a range of sustainable child care places still available for the long term. That is why it is important to add to the clause a provision that targets are not the all-important issue. If we must have targets, they should be qualitative and not undermine the long-term goal of increasing the number of quality child care places available from a multiplicity of providers—public, local authority, the Government directly, Sure Start, neighbourhood nursery, independent, voluntary, through schools or whatever it may be.

We have put belt and braces on amendment No. 116, the final amendment in the group. The option is either/or. If we must keep the “met” part of the clause, we want to define it differently, so that one target is not met to the detriment of any other. The amendment tries to achieve the same thing as amendment No. 67, but we are giving the Government the option to choose the wording with which they feel more comfortable, if they are minded to take on any of the amendments. From the tone of the response from the Labour Back Benchers, it is looking less likely than it was half an hour ago. To repeat, I am bemused as to why any of them would not want to go along with something that seeks, as its ultimate goal, to raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

I am slightly confused about the position of Opposition Members. The entire Bill is about raising the quality of early years provision. That is why a foundation stage is proposed as a basis against which any improvement in the quality of outcomes can be measured. Nobody would dream of saying that there should not be quality of outcomes, nor that outcomes should not be improved, but by focusing on that subject, which is not a point of contention, the hon. Gentleman is wriggling out of explaining why he is not prepared to accept that we must deal with inequalities. They will not be dealt with simply by setting quality standards.

I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example of why I feel strongly about that. Prior to being elected in 1992, I spent 20 years working as a social worker with some of the most disadvantaged and deprived families in Stockport. One reason why I went on to seek elected office was that it was not enough just to work one-to-one with individual families. It was clear to me that we must support them and have policies, locally and nationally, that help them.

Those families are the most difficult to help and support. If we consider all the evidence about what happens when we concentrate on providing better information and education to everybody, the least disadvantaged and better educated and informed people take advantage of that information and education. That leads to further exclusion for the most disadvantaged people and families.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

The hon. Lady makes a compelling argument for supporting the amendment. It inserts:

“raise quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.”

Surely, that is what she argues for.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

But the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham says that the matter will be addressed by asking local authorities not to create measures to address the inequalities, nor to prioritise it, but to concentrate on raising quality of standards, which in itself, he says, will raise the outcomes of the most disadvantaged families. My experience tells me that it will not.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I refer the hon. Lady to the wording of the amendment, which says:

“raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.”

It is not just about raising qualities, but about raising the quality of the outcomes of the most disadvantaged. What is wrong with that?

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

There is nothing wrong with that, so I do not see why the hon. Gentleman cannot support the Government’s proposal, which gives local authorities a particular responsibility to address inequalities. However, I suspect that that is not his priority, as he believes that the problem will be addressed simply by raising the quality of child care.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Does the hon. Lady not understand that reducing inequalities could also be addressed by somehow hindering or hampering the best quality provision in an area? This is legislation and the wording must be precise. We want to raise the quality of provision to the most disadvantaged and not give local authorities a duty somehow to reduce the level and quality of provision elsewhere in Stockport.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

I think that the hon. Gentleman encapsulates the Conservative position. Opposition Members believe that if we improve the situation for the better-off, a trickle-down effect will raise the standard for the least well-off. [Interruption.] He may not dare to say it, as it is clearly unacceptable, but that is the Conservative position.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

That is not what we are talking about. We are discussing improving the quality of provision for those most in need. That is what our amendment says. However, as the Bill is worded, there could be a perceived duty on local authorities in some areas, not necessarily the hon. Lady’s, to make it more difficult for the best nurseries because, by allowing them to flourish, inequalities are somehow increased. That is precisely what the Bill says. We want to tighten up the wording so that yet another Bill does not leave a Committee stage poorly worded, causing problems later.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

The hon. Gentleman’s priority is to address inequality, and he wants the most disadvantaged children to benefit from better standards of child care. It would be helpful if, instead of relating his remarks to the providers of child care, he looked at the situation from the point of view of the children and families. That is why I referred to my experience as a social worker in Stockport, seeing the situation through the eyes of the children and their families there.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

Once again, I have the impression that Opposition Members have not read the Bill. Subsection (1) does not simply say that local authorities must reduce inequalities, but that that they must

“improve the well-being of young children in their area”.

Therefore, a reduction in inequalities cannot be achieved by lowering standards or levelling down, but by raising standards, particularly for the most disadvantaged.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Again, I cannot see why Opposition Members are not prepared to support the clause, as it appears from what they are saying to achieve the outcomes that they say they want.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

Surely there could be a scenario where the well-being of the most disadvantaged children was improved while the well-being of children from advantaged families was reduced. Surely we should tighten the wording to ensure that the latter does not happen, but the former does.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

The hon. Lady is right. Theoretically that could happen, but all the evidence, particularly in public health, shows that unless a special effort is made with the most disadvantaged families, the gap widens. Addressing inequality must be a priority and not left to some other policy. I simply do not understand why Conservative Members have such a problem with reducing inequalities.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

On levelling down, it is important that Conservative Members read clause 1(1), which states:

“An English local authority must ... improve the well-being of young children in their area”.

Local authorities cannot reduce inequalities by lowering outcomes for the better-off. Outcomes must increase. We simply want to reduce inequalities by ensuring that the inequality of those at the bottom reduces faster.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North.

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

The most revealing intervention was by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. He said that it would be a problem if the standards of disadvantaged nurseries did not go up as fast as they did in other areas, but that is precisely what the amendment would allow. For example, if a local authority showed an improvement of 1 per cent. in the outcomes in the most deprived areas but 50 per cent. in the most affluent areas, that would be consistent with the amendment. We do not need a levelling down. We need to focus not simply on improving the well-being of children, but on reducing inequalities. I am afraid that the Conservatives have not learned anything from the past 15 years.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

I so much agree with all my hon. Friends. We have made the point and I shall sit down.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

This has certainly proved to be an interesting debate, to put it mildly. I shall start by going back to clause 1, which is important. I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments behind it and I believe that Conservative Members also agree with those. Some of our debate has been slightly odd. I did not see much wrong with the wording of the amendments, but I have been troubled by what I have heard.

When we discussed the Children Bill, I moved an amendment in Committee which would have required that

“Equality of opportunity must be considered in relation to subsection 2(a) to (e)”.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B,14 October 2004; c. 151.]

Those were the five outcomes. We had a quite long debate on whether equality of opportunity should be weighed up against those. An interesting representation was made to me at the time by the Disability Rights Commission, which suggested that

“the Government should impose a specific statutory duty on children’s services authorities ... to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity for the disabled and ... the children of asylum seekers, for example.”

It is interesting that we had that debate all those months ago. I did not achieve what I wanted, but the then Minister said that I could have further reassurance and that the Government

“will make clear statements on that issue in the guidance that accompanies the two clauses.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 October 2004; c. 154.]

I was pleased when I saw that the Bill contained exactly what I had argued for. It is so important to early years that we get things right from the beginning. I cannot understand why anyone objects to amendment No. 66.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and I added our names to amendment No. 116, and I would like to explain why. The clause states that an authority must improve the well-being of young children in its area and reduce the inequalities between them. In a sense, I agree with the Government—the clause seems to say everything. However, it becomes problematic the more one thinks about how progress will be measured. I need only to refer to the spat about whether child poverty had been reduced or increased. Clearly, it is not easy to say one way or the other, and the answer depends on the definitions one uses.

The more the debate progressed, the more I realised that it is not a question of whether the two are mutually exclusive, or whether one should be first order and the other second order, but of how they will be manifested through regulations, and of how targets, if there are any, will be set and whether one target should be given priority over another. In principle, many authorities could say that they have done very well on the target for A but not quite so well on B. There are tensions, however one looks at the issue. Therefore, when I saw the Opposition amendments, I decided that it would be sensible to take a belt-and-braces approach, as there are incompatibilities and there will be problems ahead unless we get the legislation right.

The issue is under what circumstances we could show improvements under paragraphs (a) and (b) but perhaps not achieve what the Bill is trying to achieve. The 1 per cent. and 50 per cent. figures that were just thrown out are an example. Suppose that we improved the well-being of young children overall by just 1 per cent. but reduced inequalities by 50 per cent., or the other way around. The issue is, in fact, difficult. I hope that the Minister will address this conundrum. Are we giving equal weighting to the two? I believe that everybody in the Committee genuinely wants to achieve both but fears that reducing inequalities may be achieved by pulling everybody down. We are all clear on that, and I hope that she can explain how the clause will work.

I applaud the principles behind the clause, but there are some difficulties about how it will be implemented in practice and about unintended consequences if targets are set. Our job today is to avoid unintended consequences. I believe that that is the thrust of the official Opposition’s argument, and that is how I interpret the amendment. However, I get wary when we start suggesting that there should be minimum standards across the country. Minimums often become maximums as far as local authorities are concerned. I cannot support all the words that have been expressed from the Opposition Benches, but we are right to question the wording in the clause. We must think about the consequences and outcomes of this important part of the Bill.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I wanted to ask the hon. Lady for some examples. If we manage to improve the well-being of all young children in an area and manage to reduce inequality, what unintended consequences would result that would not be beneficial?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

That would be an ideal, but do we really think that every child’s well-being will be improved? In that scenario, there is no incompatibility between the two, but I return to the example of child care provision being increased in one area but reduced in another, which can happen all the time with the sustainability of places. That starts skewing things. If the most unsustainable child care places are in disadvantaged areas but there is some growth in other areas, there might be an overall increase, but the other requirement would not have been met. The more we talk about the issue, the more things go on and on. The Minister might stand up and say, “Right, we’re going to aspire to increase the outcomes for every single child at the same time as reducing inequalities,” but, I suspect that, much as we might like that ideal, that is not going to happen in the next few years.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I did not think that such an interesting and lively debate would happen so quickly or that such a fundamental divide in values and philosophy between the two sides of the Committee would be exposed so soon. Let me start by clarifying for Members what this important clause, which has deliberately been placed at the forefront of the Bill, says. It says:

“An English local authority must—

(a) improve the well-being of young children in their area”—

that means all young children—and

“(b) reduce inequalities between young children in their area in relation to”

matters referred to elsewhere. The Bill deliberately starts with two equally important strands to the duty in relation to outcomes.

It is true that the Bill has a strong focus on improving the well-being of young children with the poorest outcomes, because Labour Members recognise that not all children get the best start in life and that future life chances still too often flow from a child’s background and wider social factors, such as income, ethnicity and social class. We want to increase social mobility. We want young children born into disadvantage to be able to progress through education and a good start. That is why we are putting a duty on local authorities to reduce inequalities between young children with the poorest outcomes and the rest.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Does the Minister agree that—to add to her list of the circumstances that affect the life chances of children—domestic stability in relation to the family background and parents is also an important factor?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Certainly. I gave some examples; I did not intend the list to be exhaustive. We all know that stability is an important factor in enabling children to make the most of the opportunities available to them.

The debate exposed a fundamental difference between what the Government and Labour Members intend in terms of policy outcomes and what Opposition Members would be satisfied with. That is interesting because the Bill has been written in the way that it has to try to address a point that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised at the outset and that was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. They are interested in how the measures will work in practice and in getting to some of the detail about how we see our outcomes being delivered.

That is why the clause has been written as it has and not in the way proposed in amendments Nos. 64, 1 and 65. Those three amendments would mean that local authorities could satisfy the duty in the amended clause in a way that enabled outcomes to improve for all children. However, the gap between the most disadvantaged and the rest could widen. I am afraid that that would be the outcome, because an authority would simply have to try to improve outcomes for everybody. If the outcomes for the most advantaged children increased faster and the gap widened, the local authority could still satisfy its duty. The way in which we want local authorities to fulfil that duty is to improve the outcomes for all children through excellent integrated education and child care, but to do so in a way that focuses on the most disadvantaged children and closes the gaps. That is how we want the duty to work.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This goes to the heart of our debate. The wording of amendment No. 64 is

“to raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged”,

and therefore concentrate resources or attention—whatever it may take—on the most disadvantaged. If that happens and it is done properly, the outcomes and the improvement of the most disadvantaged should be greater than any improvement of the already best advantaged. If the Minister is so obsessed with the gap, it will close. That is exactly what amendment No. 64 says.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. First, I do not believe for a moment that his wording would achieve that outcome. His amendment says nothing about giving greater emphasis to the most disadvantaged children.

Secondly, when we explained that the outcome in the amendment could be satisfied while widening the gap, some Opposition Members, notably the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and, I think, for Bromsgrove—who has now left her seat—indicated from a sedentary position that that did not matter. [Interruption.] He repeats it now.

There is confusion, disarray and disagreement. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham disagrees with the interpretation of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton about the amendment. How can we take seriously the charge that has been made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that what he intended with the amendment was precisely what the Government intended: to close the gap? His amendment will not do that, and it is clear that some of his hon. Friends do not want it to do that anyway.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Before the Minister completely confuses everybody, may I place on record that my hon. Friend and I have said exactly the same thing? There is not a fag paper between us on the matter.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

All I can say is that it must be a pretty thick fag paper when the hon. Gentleman can say that his intention is a greater focus on disadvantaged children to improve their outcomes faster, but his hon. Friend can accept that that would not be the outcome and does not care.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

We are concerned about raising the quality of outcomes for the most disadvantaged; the Government in office should ensure that the poor-performing child care centres and schools raise their standards. If, because of external factors, the better-performing child care centres improve even faster, regardless of what the Government do, because the institution appointed a head who happened to be very good, for example, it is not the duty of the local authority to somehow hinder the good performance of top-quality child care provision.

Will the Minister assure the Committee and put on record that what the Bill means by a duty to reduce inequality is a duty to improve the quality of child care where it performs below the levels of the best, and that it is in no way a duty to a local authority to penalise or otherwise hinder child care provision that performs exceptionally well? Will she assure the Committee and the public that that is not what she intends by the clause?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

To deal simply with that question, I shall assure the hon. Gentleman that the drive behind trying to improve the outcomes for children is to do that in part through driving up the quality of children’s early-years experiences if they are in a child care setting and cared for other than by their parents. That is the focus of the clause and, indeed, the Bill. Research shows a direct correlation between the quality of that care and the qualifications of those delivering it and the outcomes for children.

With respect, the hon. Gentleman is a little confused. While there is a link, the clause deals with outcomes for children. That will be the local authority’s focus. To show that it has satisfied its duty, it will have to demonstrate how children under five are developing and progressing in their early years environment. We want the local authority to focus on two aspects; that all children are progressing upwards as fast as possible and reaching their potential and that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are progressing faster. That relates in part to the quality of the setting that the children are in, but the focus of the clause is on the children’s progress.

If we consider the clause in that light, amendments Nos. 64, 1 and 65 will not have the right result, because they could increase outcomes for all children while widening the achievement gap between the most disadvantaged and the rest. The Government do not want to allow that to happen. We want the local authority to deliver its duty in a way that improves outcomes for all and at the same time narrows the gap. That is not levelling down; it is levelling up.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

What would the Minister say a high-performing local authority that manages to get an improvement of 10 per cent., however it is measured, in its most deprived areas should do? It has done really well. It has achieved a 10 per cent. increase—

Beverley Hughesrose—

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Hang on. It has achieved a 10 per cent. increase in the quality of the provision of that child care, it has done extremely well and it is receiving accolades from all over the place, but at the same time the better-performing child care facilities in the area have miraculously improved by 15 per cent. It has done really well in regard to the lowest-performing child care facilities, but, outside their control, there has been an even greater improvement in the better-performing ones. What should the local authority do in those circumstances? Should it be penalised, despite its great achievement at the bottom end of the scale?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Again, I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the issue; the outcomes for children. I think that he was assuming in his example that, in high-performing settings, it would only be advantaged children and, in low-performing settings, disadvantaged children. However, he should stop thinking about the settings and think about the children. If different settings are improving developmental progress at different rates, whether the local authority is fulfilling both aspects of its duty— improving outcomes for all and raising outcomes for disadvantaged children more rapidly—will depend on where the disadvantaged children are and on their progress.

There is no question of any settings being penalised. It will become apparent from the draft guidance that we shall publish that we want to give local authorities practical advice about the sort of mechanisms that they will need to put in place to do what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham wants; to focus on where each child is and, when assessing the impact of early years provision, to ensure that all children have made progress over a period, but that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have made more progress. We want to do that simply because we know that in real life, unless we start to close the gap, children from disadvantaged backgrounds always have a much bigger hurdle to overcome than other children. Trying to reduce the size of that hurdle for children from disadvantaged backgrounds is why there is a double lock in the clause. The way in which it is drafted is important not simply because of our own values but because we know from academic research that unless we try to reduce inequalities we will never give the most disadvantaged children the same opportunities to take advantage of education and to move on as other children can do.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

I am intrigued by the Minister’s words. The Government have been in power for eight years, presumably trying to reduce inequality, yet social mobility in this country has reduced during that time. My concern is that if the Minister wants to refer in the Bill to inequality, surely the outcome for which the Government should be looking is social mobility, not some blunt definition of inequality. Surely they should be looking for equality of opportunity.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

We must be clear about what it is feasible to measure in the Bill. We know that if we can reduce inequality we will give children from disadvantaged backgrounds a bigger opportunity to become socially mobile, to do better in their later education, to go on to higher education and to get better jobs. They will become socially mobile in the way that many of us in this House who were born after the last pioneering Labour Government did. That is what we want to achieve.

Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)

The notion of achieving social mobility for children under the age of five seems incredible. I do not understand how children aged between 13 and 36 months could be socially mobile. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

My hon. Friend explained more clearly than I did the point that I was trying to make. Social mobility is not something that can be measured in the time scale of a young child. It takes place over a much longer period. We want to ensure that local authorities can demonstrate that they are achieving change and improvement for the most disadvantaged children—[Interruption.] If I may finish my point; that means measuring and assessing with practitioners in children’s centres the developmental progress that individual children are making. In doing so, we can demonstrate that everyone is going upwards but that the most disadvantaged children are going upwards faster because the facility—the children’s centre or nursery—is focusing on all children but focusing on their individual starting points and needs, and trying to ensure that those starting from a point further back are helped to reach the same developmental position as their peers. It is as simple as that and it is important to keep the provision in the Bill. There is clear evidence that integrated childhood services, which the Bill also brings about, give children a head start in life. That is particularly the case for young children who would otherwise still have the poorest outcomes.

It is important to have measures to evaluate clearly how outcomes are being improved for young children. We have given the Secretary of State the power to set targets for the achievement of the duties to reduce inequalities and improve the well-being of all children. The Bill requires local authorities to act in a manner that is best calculated to meet any such targets that are set. Those statutory targets will ensure that new duties are appropriately represented through the local authority performance management systems of inspection and assessment.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham stressed the importance of the quality of provision in helping local authorities to meet the duty. As we come to discuss later parts of the Bill, I hope that Opposition Members will be assured that the quality of the provision that young children experience is fundamental to their progress, which is why it is such an important issue for us.

I have dealt fairly thoroughly with amendments Nos. 64, 1 and 65. I do not accept that the proposed wording would bring any greater focus on disadvantaged children and therefore, because our objective relates to reducing the gap by levelling up, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments.

Amendment No. 66 would require statutory targets for local authorities to reduce inequalities between young children to be based on qualitative outcomes; in other words, on judgments. The amendment would limit the power of the Secretary of State, in the areas where she might be minded to set necessary targets, to look only at those areas where a judgment would be required. That could result in the exclusion of important sets of data which have a direct link to children’s outcomes. For example, we could not use the quantitative measure of the number of children in workless households, a key indicator of child poverty.

Although it will be important for us to set quantitative targets, that does not mean that pre-school children will be tested or scored. I am not sure whether that was the concern behind the amendment. One of the best direct measures of child outcomes is the foundation stage profile, which assesses developmental progress and achievement across six areas of learning; for example, social, emotional and physical development, understanding the world and creative development, as listed in clause 41.

Achievement is measured against certain stepping stones that are given a number for reference—levels 1, 2, 3 and 4—but the assessment of each step is based on a qualitative judgment by a teacher or child care professional. Practitioners are able to record the achievement of scale points throughout the reception year, as it is purely based on their observations of a child’s achievements. We would not want to place any obstacle in the way of using that approach.

Clearly, the Government have an existing public sector agreement target to ensure that 50 per cent. of children are achieving a good level of communication, language and development by the end of the foundation stage and to reduce inequalities. This power would allow us to set specific targets for local authorities to raise the number of children achieving good levels to ensure high standards in all local authority areas.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

On the point that the Minister made about not being able to accept the amendment because it would mean that targets were based on judgments, surely all of the well-being provisions are based on judgments, starting with the one on physical and mental health and emotional well-being. They all involve judgments. The subjects do not sit a multiple-selection test in order to satisfy the requirements. So, we are not talking about something that is mutually exclusive in relation to the idea that some of her criteria about non-working members of families could not be taken into consideration. It is important that we get the figures, but the quality of what we are applying to the children is more important.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I did not say that I did not accept the amendment because it would require targets to be based on qualitative outcomes; quite the opposite. I said that the amendment would mean that we could only set targets that were based on qualitative outcomes. Clearly, we will want to set targets in relation to children’s outcomes that are qualitative and judgmental, but we will also want to set some targets that are related to children’s outcomes but which must be expressed numerically and quantitatively, such as in the example that I gave. According to advice I have received, the amendment as it is phrased would exclude the Secretary of State from being able to set targets that were expressed in such a form.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

But the amendment refers to outcomes, not inputs. There is nothing to bar the Minister from judging the eligibility of certain families because of non-working members, and that has nothing to do with outcomes. The amendment is purely about qualitative outcomes, not inputted figures.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but some outcomes from local authority activity—not children’s outcomes—will be directed at generally improving developmental progress; for example, the number of children from workless households or the percentage of mothers breastfeeding. Local authorities will work to achieve certain outcomes because they are directly related to children’s well-being, but they cannot express them in qualitative terms.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is referring only to children’s outcomes. I had interpreted the amendment as more generally about outcomes that are linked to the target-setting process. If he will clarify precisely what his point is, I will reconsider the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister is struggling to understand why she opposes the amendment. I do not think that quality and quantity are mutually exclusive, but if she is offering to reconsider the amendment and if the word “quantitative” as well as “qualitative” were inserted, that would deal with the matter. I have said time and again that I would not be satisfied if we were just to double the number of child care places. I will be satisfied if we double—or whatever it takes—the number of quality child care places. This is not solely a numbers game, and that is what is at the heart of the amendment.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Now I really am confused. I thought the hon. Gentleman’s point was that the amendment was about children’s outcomes, which will necessarily be qualitative.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is what I said.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The quality of child care is not necessarily wholly expressed in terms of qualitative outcomes, because one must link the definition of quality of child care to, for example, the number of staff with qualifications at a certain level, which becomes quantitative.

I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman is clear about what he means and what his intention is. At least I thought that he was when he said that he was just talking about children’s outcomes, but it is clear from his second intervention that he is not. If he explains his position with greater clarity, I will be happy to look at the amendment again. Let us leave the debate on that issue at this point.

The last two amendments, Nos. 67 and 116, seem to imply that local authorities should be able to decide for themselves whether statutory targets should be pursued. Clearly, when setting targets, central Government must take care that they are designed to improve outcomes and avoid creating perverse effects. We also accept that central targets must relate to local government circumstances and to local authorities’ views and experiences. In practice, we envisage setting targets through an existing process called priorities meetings, which take place between strategic advisers in Government offices, the local authority, health services and whichever other partners the authority wishes to invite. We will set out the process for setting statutory targets in regulations, but the process that already exists necessarily involves a discussion with the local authority and key partners about where they are and where they need to get to as part and parcel of target setting. It is not something that central Government simply land on a chief executive’s desk.

Statutory targets are an important lever to drive change in public services. Amendment No. 116 would place a duty on the local authorities to ensure that they do not achieve one set of targets at the expense of another. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, and I recognise that care is needed when setting targets to avoid unintended and perverse effects, but I do not feel that that extra duty on local authorities is necessary.

I do not think that it is necessary, nor appropriate in terms of the Government’s intentions, to accept any of the amendments, and certainly not amendments Nos. 64, 65, 1, 67 and 116. If the hon. Gentleman wants to re-present amendment No.66, I shall be happy to reconsider it.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We have had an interesting and lively discussion about the amendments, and I am glad that at this early stage we have brought the Committee and certain Members to life. We could call this clause the “mind the gap” clause, because everything that the Minister and her colleagues have spoken about has concentrated on the gap. The great enemy of children’s development is the gap. It is a point; I can see why they say so and where they are coming from.

As far as we are concerned, the biggest priority is the development, promotion and encouragement of children and their achievements, and the outcomes and the quality of those outcomes. That is absolutely essential. The reason why we phrased amendment No. 64 in terms of the outcomes of the most disadvantaged is because that is a target—in another sense of the word—that Labour Members should find hard to resist.

If I may return to the discussion about poverty, I have just found the report issued yesterday by Save the Children. It is entitled, “The Government’s Invisible Million: Britain’s Poorest Children”. It says that

“current policies appear to have made little impact on children in most need.”

It continues, saying that the Government

“does not have a strategy to help the most vulnerable children. Until it has a strategy for the poorest, the Government will fail to meet the target of ending child poverty by 2020.”

Those are not my words nor a judgment by anybody on the Opposition Benches, but a report yesterday from Save the Children.

There are serious problems with the most disadvantaged children in society. They should have the most attention, and the Bill should specify that those children should have the most attention. Hence the wording in our amendment, which refers to

“the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.”

That is what it is all about.

Let us take a hypothetical case: Johnny and Jimmy, probably not politically correct—[Interruption.] Johnny and Janey. There we are, although it is still not politically correct enough to satisfy everybody on the Government Benches. On the well-being scale, whatever that counts for, Johnny—alas—languishes at No. 1 and Janey flourishes at No. 10.

As a result of the measures placing obligations on local authorities to raise the well-being criteria, Johnny zooms up from one to nine, and Janey zooms up from to 10 to 20. Both have improved enormously. If Johnny goes from one to 13 and Janey goes from 10 to 20, I shall be delighted, because each will have improved. The gap is of secondary importance. We should concentrate on the fact that they have both made progress.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) misrepresented what Conservative Members seek by saying that it relies on the trickle-down approach. It does not do that. The trickle-down approach, whatever that constitutes, implicitly does not concentrate on the most disadvantaged. The amendment implicitly concentrates on the most disadvantaged.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Labour Members would also be delighted with the progress made by the hypothetical children in both those examples, one going from one to nine and the other from 10 to 20, and one going from one to 13 and the other from 10 to whatever it may be. The difference is that, while example one would be enough for Conservative Members, it would not be enough for us. That is the critical difference.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton rightly made: how do we achieve that outcome? There are only two ways to narrow the gap: we reduce the achievement of the best achievers or cap it. [Hon. Members: “How?”] Logically, there are two ways of reducing the gap, which is why I am raising the question if Labour Members are so concerned about it. The first is to cap or reduce the upper achievers; the second is to concentrate on raising the standard of the bottom ones, but without having an impact on the better achievers.

How will the Minister physically do that? If the better achievers continue to achieve better physical and mental health and emotional well-being, how will she haul that achievement back in? If the Government are confident that concentrating on the most disadvantaged works, as we say it should, and they get it right, the most disadvantaged should whizz away: they have the greatest potential to do better, because they are nearer the bottom. That may then close the gap, which will please Labour Members, but, more importantly, it will improve outcomes for those children.

Yesterday I visited a school in the most deprived ward in my constituency. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I both represent West Sussex seats and, between us, have the highest number of most deprived wards of any of the West Sussex constituencies. They are coastal strips with high levels of deprivation. For example, some of those wards have the highest number of teenage pregnancies. By all the Government’s standards, they are not affluent, rural, leafy wards.

I went to visit a fantastic primary school, which had been voted school of the year by a local paper. The excellent head, who has been there for six years, had previously served in another very deprived ward in my hon. Friend’s constituency and had achieved great things there. She has done a great job with the school in a deprived area, and it is now well over-subscribed. She has not done that by saying that other schools in better-achieving parts of my constituency should be reined back or by taking children from the catchment areas of other schools.

Edward Milibandrose—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Let me finish the point, because the hon. Gentleman gets very excited by these matters. My example is of someone who is looking after children who would be expected to be nearer Johnny at No. 1 on the scale but achieved an enormous amount by bringing up the level of those disadvantaged children while entirely oblivious of, and unconcerned about, how well the better achievers happened to be doing in a more affluent part of my constituency. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive, which is why we want to concentrate on the most disadvantaged.

Edward Milibandrose—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman before he bursts.

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

I am in no danger of bursting, despite the hon. Gentleman’s strange example, which is utterly irrelevant to the clause or the amendment. We are discussing local authorities and whether they have a duty simply to worry about the standards of the disadvantaged—that is entirely consistent with the life chances of the disadvantaged—falling massively behind other groups in society, or whether they need to worry about the life chances of the disadvantaged relative to other groups. That has nothing to do with the head teacher and whether she is doing a good job—I am sure she is. It is about the priorities of local authorities. We know historically that local authorities, especially those with mixed communities, have not been concerned not just with the standards of the disadvantaged, but with the standards of the disadvantaged relative to others in society.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I do not know how to say this loud enough to the hon. Gentleman. My head teacher, who has achieved so much, is oblivious to what other schools are achieving. She has achieved so much because she has got the local authority to take seriously the problems of deprivation and so on in her area, and she has brought about an enormous improvement in co-operation between a wide body of parties that are interested in raising the standards of the most disadvantaged children. If a similar school a few miles away in a less deprived part of my constituency happens to be doing even better, that is of little consequence to what she is achieving for the pupils in her school.

We want to concentrate primarily on the quality of outcomes for the most disadvantaged, and if that reduces the gaps which have such paramount importance for Labour Members that would be a bonus. The primary responsibility should be to ensure that the most disadvantaged get help. That is why amendment No. 64 is so important. I shall press it to a vote because it is essential.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Is it not the case that the key consideration is to improve the quality of child care, and is not that what paragraph 2.16 of the 10-year child care strategy says when it discusses the effective provision of pre-school education research? It states:

“Those who started in a good quality pre-school at two or younger were up to 10 months ahead of those without pre-school”.

It continued:

“However, the studies indicate that high levels of group care of poor quality below the age of three can have a ... negative effect on behaviour for some children.”

The key is to improve the quality of child care provision. That is what matters and that is how to improve the outcome for all. It does not matter if the quality of child care elsewhere in the borough is higher. The key is to improve in absolute terms—that is what the effective provision of pre-school curriculum study discussed—the quality of child care. Then there will be improvement in the outcomes, which is what we all want.

Several hon. Membersrose—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We are in danger of having interventions on interventions, such is the excitement of Labour Members.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us say that the gap widens, with whatever unintended consequences, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, because the better-off seem to be doing even better despite the local authority going hell for leather to concentrate its resources, time, effort and everything else on the most disadvantaged children and their welfare outcomes. Is it the fault of the local authority that, although it has done a tremendous job in improving the standards of the most disadvantaged, the measurements show that the gap has widened? What penalty will be brought against it if the gap has widened, but all standards have gone up considerably? At the end of the day, that is the question to which local authorities need and deserve an answer, and that is why it is most important that the authority does its job and concentrates on the most disadvantaged rather than on narrowing a gap, which may or may not produce a better outcome for everybody.

I am genuinely grateful for the Minister’s comments on amendment No. 66, as I think that we are arguing for the same thing. However, I do not think that she made a good case, or that she believed in the case that she was trying to make, as to why a qualitative element should not be inserted. As I said, quality does not feature in the Bill, although it features in the principles and aims that the Minister has agreed we need to try to achieve. Including a qualitative element but not excluding some quantitative valuations for obvious reasons—she cited some examples—would send out a helpful signal to local authorities when trying to implement the measure.

I was not as convinced by the Minister’s criticism of amendments Nos. 67 and 116, which would ensure that the targets were not, in effect, self-defeating. She claimed that they would leave it to local authorities to decide on the use of targets, but that would not be the case, as we have not suggested removing subsection (3), which relies on the Secretary of State to prescribe targets if that is what must happen to measure the outcomes. It would be a requirement of the Secretary of State, not a judgment of a local authority, to ensure that one target does not undermine another one. So the Minister’s case against the amendments does not stack up. She claimed that they would do something that, clearly, they could not do unless the first line of subsection (3) were removed.

Having said that, there is a clear division between the Opposition and the Government. Labour appear to be concentrating on gaps and we are concentrating on the quality and equality of opportunity for all children, regardless of artificial gaps.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I want to make it absolutely clear yet again that there are two strands to the duty. The first is to improve the well-being of all young children in the area. That reflects the wording in the 2004 Act, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar. The second strand is about reducing inequalities, and that is why we can argue that the clause is about levelling up, not levelling down.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We take no issue with improving well-being, but such improvement is contingent on the size of the gap between the well-being of the least well off and the well-being of the best off. That is what is at stake. The two are entirely contingent.

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We have had a full debate, but we are going around in circles.

Ed Miliband (Labour, Doncaster North)

It is a new point.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I very much doubt it.

It would be useful for the Committee to stake our ground at this stage on the basis that amendment No. 64 specifically, implicitly and unambiguously urges local authorities to concentrate and devote time, resources and the greatest effort to the most disadvantaged children, who most need the well-being outcomes of fiscal and mental health.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I do not usually like to abstain on anything, but mixed messages have arisen from the Conservative contributions and there have been contrary statements. I am happy with the clause, but I am not happy with the contributions. There is a problem because, whatever the hon. Gentleman says, there have been contrary contributions from other hon. Members in his team.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am devastated. At one stage, I thought that we might have the hon. Lady on side. She says that it is not in her nature to abstain, but it has been recent Liberal Democrat practice to vote one way in the House of Commons and another way in the House of Lords on identical issues in the Children and Adoption Bill. However, I shall not push that further.

On the basis that we are most concerned about the most disadvantaged and that we need to send a clear message to local authorities, I propose that we put the amendment to the vote.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 176, in clause 1, page 1, leave out line 16 and insert—

‘(3)The Secretary of State may require a local authority to work with relevant partners in co-operation with other local providers of childcare to submit proposed targets and supporting information before prescribing targets for:’.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 118, in clause 4, page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1)For the purposes of this section the relevant partners of a local authority in England are those specified in section 10(4) of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31).’.

No. 73, in clause 4, page 3, line 19, after ‘Trust’, insert ‘or other health trusts’.

No. 180, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, at end insert—

‘(c)a person providing services under section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) in any part of the area of the authority;

(d)the Learning and Skills Council for England.’.

No. 119, in clause 4, page 3, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2)Each local authority in England, in the performance by the authority of its duties under sections 1 and 3, must make arrangements to promote co-operation between—

(a)the authority;

(b)each of the authority’s relevant partners; and

(c)such other persons or bodies as the authority considers appropriate, being persons or bodies of any nature who exercise functions or are engaged in activities in relation to young children in the authority’s area.’.

No. 87, in clause 4, page 3, line 23, leave out ‘work with’ and insert ‘promote co-operation between’.

No. 120, in clause 4, page 3, line 41, at end add—

‘(7)In making arrangements under this section, a local authority in England must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of young children.’.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Amendment No. 176 has, in a sense, been pre-empted by Government amendments Nos. 128 and 129, but, nevertheless, I want to run through the intention behind it. When I saw that the clause stated:

“The Secretary of State may prescribe targets”

I thought of centralisation and everything coming from London. I immediately wanted to table an amendment, although it is probably not expressed in the best possible way. I wanted to say firmly that, particularly as far as child care is concerned, any target setting should be bottom up rather than top down. As the Bill stands, the target setting looks very top down. When we discuss Government amendments Nos. 128 and 129, we will see that that provision is being withdrawn. However, the matter is being dealt with under regulations. I do not know whether the Minister accepts my concern or whether it will just be less transparent that the Government are to prescribe targets from the centre.

The Local Government Association wants the removal of subsection (3). It argues that there are already well established local inspection processes—such as those carried out by Ofsted and CSCI, and the new joint area review processes—as well as extensive local performance data. It clearly says that there is no need for centrally imposed targets. Given the record and outcomes of some top-down targets that have been set throughout a number of services, it is essential that targets are worked out locally and submitted within a framework to the Secretary of State.

I accept that the Government might want to keep an overall eye on matters and pull up standards where local authorities might not have the same drive as others to achieve what the Government wish to see, which is a genuine reduction in inequalities. That must be monitored. Equally, I do not see how the Government can take on board from the centre particular local circumstances, without knowing what is on the ground and the particular problems in an area in the same way that the local providers do. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that.

Interestingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and I have signed up to amendment No. 118, although we have an alternative—amendment No. 180. Both amendments query how many partners there should be. I can see the logic in having the same list of partners as in the Children Act 2004. That is why I signed my name to amendment No. 118. However, I looked at the heading of the clause, and it talks about young children, who are defined as being under five years old.

I was not too sure whether we needed a reference to the youth offending team, so I rewrote amendment No. 180, incorporating from the Children Act, the Learning and Skills Council. I shall talk a great deal about the quality, training and qualifications of the children’s work force. It is imperative that we include everything related to training in the local area, which now, possibly at a regional level, may come from the Learning and Skills Council.

Amendment No. 118 is a better amendment if we are talking about children under 14 years old—in other words, we would not be talking about the extended schools when we were talking about all the partners. Amendment No. 180 is more appropriate and better than this part of the Bill if we confine ourselves to children under five. The number of partners is significant.

Conservatives have tabled amendment No. 73 to add other trusts to the partners. The Dorset Health Care NHS Trust is responsible for children’s mental illness services in most of Dorset. In parts of the west, the general hospital is responsible, and I can see the point of having other trusts. The Dorset Health Care Trust comes under the strategic health authority, so there is an argument there for the amendment. With mental illnesses, it is important to include all relevant bodies. The Dorset Health Care Trust also covers adults with mental illnesses. Again, that is appropriate in terms of looking at the child care of those adults.

I support amendment No. 73. It has a particular local significance to me. The other amendments hinge upon not only the number of partners, but the way in which they shall work together or co-operate. They are probing amendments to establish whether there is a difference between “working together” and “co-operating”. Co-operation is clearly in the Children Act, and there could be an argument for using the same terminology for the sake of consistency, or perhaps the Minister will say that there is a particular reason for the words “working together” to be in the Bill. It is a probing amendment, as I want the wording to be correct and compatible with existing legislation.

Amendment No. 120 again picks up what is in the 2004 Act and ensures that parents are firmly in the equation. I cannot see any objection to the amendment, as we surely all want to see a role for parents in carrying out a co-operative duty or indeed in working together.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This is another wide-ranging group of amendments, which also straddles clause 4.

When I introduced the first group of amendments, I said that they were probing amendments. In the end, they turned out to be more probing than we had expected and amendment No. 64 was pressed to a vote. These are supposed to be probing amendments, and we shall see how much progress we make with them. I do not believe that they are contentious and I am sure that the Minister will have good, practical reasons why, although what we are proposing may accord with what she is trying to achieve, they could give rise to practical difficulties if included in the Bill.

I fully take on board the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and believe that we are coming from the same direction. I shall perhaps elaborate on her comments about the list of partners taken from the Children Act 2004, because the amendments are very much based on that Act. If it were not called the Children Act, I would not have to say Children Act 2004, which is a very good reason why it should have been given a different title, as we suggested earlier in the year. However, that is just another consequence of something that we were right about.

Amendment No. 118 substitutes the relevant partners listed in section 10 of the 2004 Act. My concern and that of local authorities is that everything in the Bill seems to rest in their lap. We expect a lot of them, because they are clearly the major delivery mechanism, or the overseers of the proper functioning of the delivery mechanisms. However, they cannot do that in isolation. That was recognised in the 2004 Act, which brought together a range of partners. Part of the reason for that Act, which we fully supported, was that the protection of children cannot be delegated to a social worker, for example, on his or her own. It must be a social worker who is primarily responsible for a certain child, working in co-operation, sharing information and acting jointly with and, in the knowledge of, health partners, justice partners, family—I shall come to that amendment later—and a host of other bodies. That point, which we all accepted in the 2004 Act, needs to be reinforced here, so we are trying to elaborate on the partners by replicating section 10. Clause 4 limits the partners to the strategic health authority or the primary care trust and to the Learning and Skills Council, which I think is what is referred to in clause 4(1)(b).

The hon. Lady said that she did not agree with including all the bodies in the 2004 Act, because it refers, for example, to the Youth Justice Board.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Those were not exactly my words. I said that more of the other bodies would be relevant if we were talking about child care provision for under-14s than if we were talking only about children under five. A young child is defined as being under five. Therefore, I ask the Minister to say exactly what we are talking about. There is scope further on in the Bill, where it clearly refers to under-14s, for the whole range of partnerships.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I take the hon. Lady’s point, but I misunderstood her. I thought that she said that the Youth Justice Board, for example, was not relevant to children under five, although she just said that it is, perhaps, less relevant.

I entirely concur, however, with the hon. Lady’s point on mental health trusts, which are not explicitly mentioned in the clause. Our amendment No. 73 deals with the issue. Mental health trusts may apply to children under five—worrying figures were released recently about the incidence of mental illness in very young children—but they particularly can and do apply to parents or siblings of the child. Obviously, that will have an impact on well-being and the measures that will need to be taken to improve the well-being and welfare standards that we talked about earlier. The same principles should apply to the Youth Justice Board. A young parent or brothers and sisters of a child under five or eight, whichever category we are talking about, may be subject to the Youth Justice Board.

Therefore, it is reasonable that all the partners that we rightly included in the 2004 Act should apply in the Bill, albeit in different measure. I do not want to open up an argument about the gap between the different influences of those different partners, but I do not see any problem with including all those set out in the 2004 Act, as they all have a role to play. Section 10(4) lists the local authority, the police authority, the local probation board, youth offending teams, the strategic health authority and primary care trust and the Learning and Skills Council. I am simply trying to make the Bill consistent with what we already have in legislation. If the Minister can tell me why that is not necessary, or why it would be counter-productive, we would be happy to listen to her reasoning.

The next amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends is amendment No. 73. I have not looked it up, but I seem to recall having raised a similar question on the 2004 Act. Why does clause 4 refer only to strategic health authorities and PCTs? The hon. Lady raised the example that I had planned to raise of social care and mental health trusts, which are not specifically included in the list. We had this discussion with the Minister’s predecessor on the 2004 Act. Perhaps we could have some clarification as to why they are not included. If there is not a case for leaving them out, what damage would it do to the Bill to include them, particularly at a time when the various health services are being reconfigured anyway? There is much greater use of the private and independent sectors, which would not in the normal definition be included in strategic health authority or PCT. Including health partners generally would be much more useful and all-encompassing than referring to only those two bodies, whose lifespan is in question under the current reforms.

Amendment No. 119 also harks back to the 2004 Act and the whole business of co-operation. The Bill does not talk about co-operation but about working with. We had some interesting discussions on the 2004 Act about co-operation meaning that everybody has a part to play, rather than the buck ending up with the local authority, which has to work with the other bodies without any mutual payback. Again, I am trying to make the Bill consistent with the 2004 Act, and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me why its phrasing needs to be slightly different.

Our next amendment in the group is amendment No. 87, which would replace “work with” with the words “promote co-operation between”. That is repeated later.

Childcare Bill - Standing Committee D

Clause 1 - General functions of local authority: England

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments:

No. 118, in clause 4, page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1)For the purposes of this section the relevant partners of a local authority in England are those specified in section 10(4) of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31).’.

No. 73, in clause 4, page 3, line 19, after ‘Trust’, insert ‘or other health trusts’.

No. 180, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, at end insert—

‘(c)a person providing services under section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) in any part of the area of the authority;

(d)the Learning and Skills Council for England.’.

No. 119, in clause 4, page 3, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2)Each local authority in England, in the performance by the authority of its duties under sections 1 and 3, must make arrangements to promote co-operation between—

(a)the authority;

(b)each of the authority’s relevant partners; and

(c)such other persons or bodies as the authority considers appropriate, being persons or bodies of any nature who exercise functions or are engaged in activities in relation to young children in the authority’s area.’.

No. 87, in clause 4, page 3, line 23, leave out ‘work with’ and insert ‘promote co-operation between’.

No. 120, in clause 4, page 3, line 41, at end add—

‘(7)In making arrangements under this section, a local authority in England must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of young children.’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

May I take this opportunity to welcome you as Chairman, Mr. Benton? I served under your chairmanship on another piece of children’s legislation without too much mishap, so I hope that we can repeat that experience.

The intention of amendment No. 87 is to reflect the terminology of the Children Act 2004. It is a probing amendment that explores the language of co-operation between the local authority and its partners as set out in whichever of the lists the Minister wishes to use, be it the full list in the 2004 Act—as one of our amendments suggests—or the abridged version that appears in the Bill.

We are questioning how “work with” is better than “promote co-operation between”, given that so much falls on the shoulders of local authorities. Clearly, there must be joint responsibilities for the provisions to work That will require the co-operation of all partners. It bestows a greater obligation on the other parties—the police, the health authorities and so on—to play an integral part in the promotion of the well-being and welfare criteria that we discussed. Perhaps the Minister will give the Government’s impression of why “work with” should be included as opposed to the co-operation between partners that we agreed without any great discord during our deliberations on the 2004 Act.

Amendment No. 120 addresses something on which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) touched, and for which she and I pushed in the 2004 Act. This part of the Bill is aboutd¤the responsibilities of local authorities to disadvantaged children and the promotion of children’s welfare requirements generally. Surely it must be sensible for parents to be part of that equation. They do not necessarily have to be on the list of partners required to co-operate, but a local authority should take into account the wishes, circumstances, position and prospects of the parents of a child whom the Bill aims to help.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many of the children who I hope will be assisted by the Bill may well be part of lone-parent families in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Therefore, they may well be moved around a borough and face a conflict between where is best from a housing and accommodation perspective and where a nursery place or child care is provided. That is a difficult balance for councils and parents to strike. Any guidance that we can give will be valuable.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend makes a good point that goes back to our earlier discussion. We can provide all numbers and types of child care places, but if they are not in the right places, they will not be taken up by the people who most need to take advantage of them. If we are to improve accessibility for disadvantaged children from disadvantaged families, transport is often a key consideration. Those families do not have the flexibility of transport that other, less disadvantaged, families may have. Her point about including the geographical circumstances is right in that respect.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that it is vital to take on board the views of parents and carers if flexible child care is required, for example? I am talking about sessions for particular reasons, such as to access training. I do not understand how the planning can be carried out without reference to the needs of parents.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Lady is right. In relation to how we assessed the Bill, flexibility was a key consideration for many of us on Second Reading. Again, this is not a numbers game; it is about quality, accessibility and take-up. If we are trying to make it easier for parents to access good quality child care in order to access job markets, which they might not have been able to do before, obviously a local authority would be foolish not to take account of their circumstances when deciding how to implement the requirements. A local authority could say, “We’ve created 50 per cent. more child care places,” but find that the take-up of them was rather low because they were in the wrong part of that local authority’s area.

Flexibility must be a key consideration, which is why I phrased the amendment to include not just parents but “other persons caring”, who may be—again, this point is particularly applicable to disadvantaged families—extended family members or non-related carers. That also brings up the subject of looked-after children, where the local authority, either through placements in foster care or direct placements in children’s homes, plays the part of the parent with parental responsibility. I will not go into that in too much detail now because we have some later amendments that refer specifically to the role of looked-after children.

I have tried to phrase the amendment as helpfully as possible. I would be surprised if the Minister felt that she was not able to accept it for reasons of principle, but if there are some practical reasons why it is not appropriate, I would be pleased to reconsider the way in which it is phrased. Taking into account the considerations of the carers of a child must be vital.

The amendments are largely probing. They are aimed at teasing out some of the information that we talked about. Amendment No. 120, in particular, is aimed at strengthening the considerations in relation to local authorities to ensure that everybody appropriate has been consulted and that their circumstances have been taken on board before the legislation is implemented.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I apologise to you and the Committee for not being here at 4 o’clock, Mr. Benton. I am afraid that I have one or two other responsibilities that prevented me from being here at the start.

On amendment No. 120, I must admit that I am pretty surprised that parents have not been included as relevant partners under clause 4. If I may, I will return to the debate that we had on clause 1. I will be extremely brief because I know that you will rule me out of order if I spend too much time on it, Mr.d¤Benton.

Clause 1 starts by dealing with improving the well-being of all young children, as the Minister reminded us a number of times. It is surprising, at the very least, that parents are not mentioned explicitly in connection with that and specifically in relation to clause 4, to which amendment No. 120 refers. It must be obvious that even if children in school are in child care before or after they go to school, or if pre-school children are in child care for considerable periods, there is still time when they are with their parents or carers in the evenings and at weekends. We all know that the attitude of parents to the well-being and specifically to the education of their children varies enormously from family to family. Whatever the level of child care and however excellent the facilities provided, if children go back to a home where the parents are involved with them—perhaps by sitting down and helping them to do their homework, by working out what problems they have had at school that day, by concentrating on the child’s weakest subject, which they work through in detail, and by providing extra support with homework in the evenings and at weekends—that will make a major difference to children’s performance.

That is a key aspect of the Bill, but parents cannot do that all on their own. Conservative Members accept the intention that child care provides all children and specifically the most disadvantaged children with the very best possible start in life. However, we must convince many more parents of the most disadvantaged children of the importance of hands-on involvement. It should not just be a middle-class preoccupation. It is a task for all of us who care about such matters to persuade parents of the concept of being key partners with the school and child care providers in boosting the life chances of children. Without that, we will be bitterly disappointed in the Bill’s results.

I may have misunderstood the place of parents in the Bill because I saw the Minister shake her head, so I will listen with interest to what she says, but I, for one, am alarmed that parents are not specifically mentioned in clause 4.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

May I add similar sentiments, Mr. Benton, to those expressed by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)? It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in the Committee for the first time.

To improve the well-being of young children and reduce inequalities, the intention is that local authorities and their key partners must work closely together. We are not simply repeating section 10 of the 2004 Act. We are trying to build on the partnership as defined in that Act in a way that best suits the developmental progress of young children and the provision of early childhood services for the youngest children under five. As we discussed, it is important for the integration that we want to achieve—we know that that is important for outcomes—that those partners work together with a shared vision and with an integrated provision of services. We know that that can have a dramatic effect on outcomes for young children.

Clause 4 places a duty on local authorities and their partners in health care and in Jobcentre Plus to work together to improve the outcomes for young children. That will continue to develop the approach that was first set out in section 10 of the 2004 Act, under which local authorities must make arrangements to promote co-operation with relevant partners, with the aim of improving outcomes. Therefore, the 2004 Act aims to promote co-operation at all levels—governance, strategy, structures, implementation—and section 10 is the provision under which the arrangements for children’s trusts are being developed.

The Bill takes that duty for young children further in three ways. First, it includes Jobcentre Plus, which we believe is important to improve the life chances of young children; secondly, it sets out how partners must work together to deliver services at the front line in ways that improve outcomes and reduce inequalities; and, thirdly, it focuses on young children in a way that ensures that services for them have the same importance and status as the statutory school system.

This group of amendments proposes replacing significant parts of clause 4 with the relevant subsections of section 10 of the 2004 Act. Although I fully endorse the approach taken by that Act, we want to develop it further in a way that is relevant for very young children. Instead of putting the onus on the local authority to promote co-operation between each partner and itself, the Bill puts the emphasis on the three partners vital to the well-being of the youngest children working together pro-actively to deliver those services at the front line. It is a stronger duty in the sense that each of the three has a duty to work actively with the other two. I hope that hon. Members can see that the Bill therefore takes the duty contained in the 2004 Act to another level.

The partners must deliver services in the ways set out in clause 3 and that must be integrated to maximise access and benefits to service users. The partners must also reach out actively to the most needy families and must involve parents in the planning and delivery of those services. I shall return to that point later in response to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).

It is vital that strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and Jobcentre Plus take the initiative to deliver effective early childhood services to improve outcomes for young children. The emphasis in the Bill on “working together” rather than on “the promotion of co-operation” achieves that. I hope that members of the Committee will accept that, for those reasons, the Bill follows the drift of what they want to achieve and imposes on the three partners a stronger duty to work actively with one another. Therefore, I hope that members of the Committee will accept that the amendments are not only unnecessary, but would take us back to a weaker and less specific duty on those three partners.

While others apart from those three may have a role to play from time to time, the Bill places a specific focus on the organisations that, in practice, are essential to improving the outcomes of young children up to compulsory school age—health and employment services and local authorities.

The primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are essential to the success of Sure Start children’s centres, as they are the universal services provided for babies and young children. We recognise, however, that other NHS services such as foundation trusts or mental health trusts, which were mentioned this morning, are key providers of relevant services. However, they retain a responsibility to provide those services as agreed under contracts with the primary care trusts that are the service commissioners, so it is unnecessary to add “other health trusts” as proposed by amendment No. 73.

We have deliberately not named all the relevant partners identified in section 10 of the 2004 Act because, as hon. Members began to recognise this morning, a number of those partners—for example, those in the criminal justice system—are not essential to the delivery of early childhood services. The same applies for local Connexions partnerships, which focus on supporting teenagers and young people, and for the Learning and Skills Council. It would not be appropriate to compel them to work with local authorities to deliver through children’s centres serving children under school age in the way outlined and required under clause 3.

As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, the Learning and Skills Council has an important role to play in effective training of the work force in delivering services for children. I agree that training of the work force is one important factor in driving up quality. The local learning and skills councils provide training for the children’s work force through contracts with training providers. However, the children’s trust arrangements under the Children Act 2004 already identify the LSC as a relevant partner in improving the well-being of children of all ages. It works closely with the linked local authorities to ensure that training provision meets the needs of the work force.

As I have explained, the partners identified in clause 4 are those that directly deliver integrated early childhood services. The LSC has an important role to play in equipping the early-years work force to deliver high-quality provision, but it does not actively deliver those services to young children itself, so it would not be appropriate to refer to the LSC in that clause.

I recognise, however, that local authorities must have flexibility to involve all, and any, organisations that could contribute to improving the life chances of young children. That is why clause 3 places a duty on local authorities to encourage and facilitate the involvement of

“other persons engaged in activities which may improve the well-being of young children in their area.”

Hon. Members will find that in subsection (4)(c). It will ensure that any organisation that contributes, including other children’s trust partners, is not excluded from involvement where appropriate—quite the opposite. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members are satisfied that amendments Nos. 118 and 180 are unnecessary.

On amendment No. 120, I agree completely about the importance of involving parents and other persons caring for children. The speeches made by Opposition Members were well taken and they are absolutely right. The research tells us that the single most important factor, over and above child characteristics, home characteristics and school characteristics, for children’s outcomes is parents, who can be a protective positive factor or a negative factor. There is no question about that, and I agree completely about the importance of involving them. That is why clause 3 stipulates that local authorities

“must take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate the involvement ... of ... parents and prospective parents in their area”

in the planning and delivery of services.

The definition of parents, specifically in clause 2(2) is, as hon. Members will see, wide, covering parents and carers. In addition, the requirement to involve early-years providers ensures that professional carers are involved. I hope that hon. Members agree that we have already provided in clause 3 for parents to be fully involved by local authorities, not only in planning but in delivering on their duties to improve the well-being of young children and reduce inequalities. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members agree that amendment No. 120 is also unnecessary.

Amendment No. 176 would require authorities, their relevant partners in social, health and employment services and other child care providers to work together to suggest targets for improving the well-being of children. That additional duty is not the best way to produce targets that are agreed at local level. Statutory targets have a place, which is why we intend to set out in regulations the process for setting them. I have already explained that, in practice, that will operate through the existing process for priorities meetings and will involve local authorities, health providers, health services and any other partners at local level that local authorities wish to invite. They will have a meeting with their strategic adviser from the Government Office and there will be a discussion and an agreement about appropriate targets, including statutory targets.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am already receiving some reassurance from the Minister, but would she be prepared to place on record that, under normal circumstances, those targets will not be dictated from Whitehall down to local authorities?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am happy to put that on the record. Let me give the hon. Lady further reassurance. The next two Government amendments—the point she raised this morning—are precisely designed to ensure that what we set out in the regulations and guidance will be the process for setting targets, not the targets themselves. They will be mutually agreed at a local level with strategic advisers. They can feed into the children’s plan and will provide indicators for local area agreements with local authorities or local public service agreements if the authority so wishes. I hope that I have shown in summary how the approach we adopted in the Bill works best for young children.

I hope that I have assured Members on the points that they have raised and that they agree that their amendments are not necessary.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

May I also say, Mr. Benton, that it will be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for part of the Bill? You chaired the proceedings on the Children Bill and so there will be some continuity, which is always good.

I thank the Minister for her detailed response. Some useful points have been placed on the record, which was the purpose of several of the amendments. As an initial response to try to decipher the meaning of working in co-operation and working together it was a helpful start, although we may want to revisit it.

We will continue the debate on amendment No. 146 later, if we may. I am pleased to have some reassurance there. On amendments Nos. 118 and 180, again, I listened carefully to the Minister. I may need to revisit the matter of the Learning and Skills Council. An exceptional work force are effectively starting from a low qualifications base. We have lots of potentially very talented people but the qualifications and the professional development are really lacking in what is, as was said on Second Reading, the most crucial time of interaction with children. It is important that the Learning and Skills Council must be fully on board in terms of the allocation of resources for training. I am prepared to accept what the Minister says at this point.

I am not altogether reassured on amendment No.d¤120. The Minister invited us to have a look at clause 3. I see the word “parents”, but I do not pick up that they are listened to. It seems to me that we are possibly telling parents what they might want, and indeed we are seeking them out. Those are all useful things in terms of providing information, but I do not specifically see provision for listening to parents and looking at the whole situation from their perspective. I am happy to be corrected.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to clause 3(4) to see whether that satisfies her. It states:

“An English local authority must take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate the involvement in the making and implementation of arrangements under this section of—

(a) parents and prospective parents in their area”.

That includes listening as well as talking and possibly telling. It involves them in the making and implementation of all those arrangements.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am grateful to the Minister for her intervention, and I accept, on the record, that the making and implementation of arrangements involves listening. She will take my point that that is not on the face of the Bill in the way that was implied by the earlier reference. I thank her for her response and, although there are one or two areas that we need to revisit at a later stage in the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I beg to move amendment No.d¤128, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out ‘prescribe’ and insert

‘, in accordance with regulations, set’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 129.

Amendment No. 192, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

‘(4A)In exercising their functions, an English local authority must ensure that—

(a)the improvement of well-being of young children in its area is monitored and evaluated;

(b)the reduction of inequalities between young children in its area is monitored and evaluated;

(c)young children’s views and experiences are included in any monitoring and evaluation undertaken under this section; and

(d)a report on improvements in young children’s well-being and the reduction of inequalities between young children in its area is made annually to the Secretary of State.’.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

The two Government amendments make a minor change to the wording but an important, substantive change to the Secretary of State’s power to set targets for local authorities in improving outcomes for young children and narrowing the gaps in their achievement. Subsection (3) requires the targets for improving well-being and reducing inequality to be set out in the regulations. As we intend targets to be set for each local authority after discussion, the subsection is clearly not practical or correct. Amendment No. 128 clarifies that the regulations mentioned in subsection (3) would prescribe the procedures by which targets would be set, and amendment No. 129 makes a minor consequential change to subsection (4).

Although we cannot provide precise draft regulations to the Committee today, I can give an indication of their content. We envisage that regulations would set out the broad areas that statutory targets must address, which may vary from time to time, and we also require the Secretary of State to take account of local authorities’ representations about their individual targets. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that targets will genuinely be set, as I have said on the record, with local authorities and their partners, rather than being imposed by central Government without discussion.

Although I hesitate to re-open the debate with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham over whether targets should be qualitative or quantitative, we will need to be able to measure outcomes. Perhaps an example would be helpful. Deciding whether a young child is healthy is a matter for a doctor’s professional judgment. Assessing a local authority’s contribution through children’s centres to the health of young children would be very burdensome, unless we use some proxy indicators. For example, with the health of young children, we might consider child obesity levels or the numbers of children attending accident and emergency as a proxy for their health and safety. In the current climate of reducing central control and increasing local autonomy, it is important as a way of directing local resources to achieve the aim of improving well-being of young children. Statutory targets have an important role in that. However, I appreciate that in setting targets, we must take care that they are proportionate and avoid creating perverse incentives, but that they need to push forward the continued development of early childhood services.

Because of the serious nature of the power to set targets, it is right that the process by which they are set should be set out in regulations that are both transparent and subject to parliamentary process. I envisage that regulations would set out the broad areas that mandatory targets must address. As currently worded, the individual targets would, as I have said, need to be set out in regulations, but that is clearly not the way to go. The regulations must set out the process and I hope that I have explained that clearly. I recommend that the two amendments be adopted by the Committee.

Amendment No. 192 is designed to compel local authorities to evaluate and report on the measures that they take to improve the well-being of young children. I appreciate that evaluation and monitoring are an essential part of the process, but it is not necessary to put them in statute. Members of the Committee who are familiar with “Every Child Matters” will know about the improvement cycle for children’s services, which is a process of continuous assessment, planning and evaluation that includes a local assessment of needs, discussion of priorities with local partners and central Government, and local development of the children and young people’s plan. The evaluation of all local services is conducted through the joint area review, which includes a survey of the views of children and young people, and Ofsted monitors local authority children’s services through the data-based annual performance assessment. The final children and young people’s plan, the annual performance assessment and the joint area review are all submitted to the Secretary of State. There are, therefore, robust apparatus for inspection and monitoring in place, which ensure that evaluation is carried out at a local level by the local authority and its key partners, and by independent inspectorates.

Our approach, which is consistent with the general direction of travel of government, has been to create a legal framework with only as much prescription as is absolutely necessary, so that local authorities and their partners can develop services that best suit the needs of children and the circumstances of their area. Clause 16 brings the duties in part 1 of the Bill into the remit of the processes of the children and young people’s plan and the joint area review. I hope that hon. Members will accept that those robust apparatus mean that the amendment is not necessary.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the Minister for her elaboration regarding the regulations. I have a few points to make on amendment No. 192. I am a little saddened that the Minister dismissed it quite so quickly, and there are a few questions to which I would like to tease out answers.

The amendment was tabled because, as was shown by our discussion this morning, there needs to be clarity about how on earth reducing inequalities will work in practice. There is an outcomes framework, which came in this September. I understand that the targets that specifically cover the early years are a little patchy. I think that the framework concerns such things as infant mortality rates and the level of development reached at the end of foundation stage. Will an outcomes framework be developed for children under five? We could have a great deal of partnership working in developing the framework for younger children.

The Minister mentioned existing joint area review inspection processes. It is important to appreciate how they will fit in with the new duties on local authorities.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Can the hon. Lady help me to understand her point. This morning she abstained on amendment No.d¤64, demonstrating, I think, that she is indifferent as to whether reducing inequalities is in the Bill, yet she is now asking for additional monitoring to be put in place to reduce inequalities. I am not sure that that is a consistent approach.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am clear that I am approaching matters consistently, and I am not really interested in getting into political crossfire. I explained exactly why I took that stance this morning, and any justification that needed to be made was made then. Throughout my contributions, certainly, I have made the point that how the provision is implemented is all important. I am talking about the practical implementation rather than the theoretical interpretation. What I am saying is particularly relevant at this time and, given the later recommendations in the Bill, I was disappointed to be intervened on during something as important as asking whether there will be an outcomes framework for children from birth to five years.

There are processes through which children’s views are obtained, as the Minister explained. With this amendment, I have in mind the views of young children. I shall expand on that in some depth when we debate a later amendment. The work that has been done to gather young children’s views is interesting, and some of it has been funded by the Government. The booklets and pamphlets produced by the National Children’s Bureau are absolutely fascinating. They show that it is not a one-way system, but an interactive system. The introduction of the idea that young children’s views should be taken on board would be a big step forward.

I am really taken by the NCB pamphlets. We read young children’s views on food and, as anybody who has helped to feed a child knows, they can express those views in all sorts of ways. One pamphlet is about determining the viewpoints of young disabled children. That is so interesting and so pertinent to the Bill. I should like the Minister to respond to that point. I listened carefully to what she said about the provision being too prescriptive. There are processes in place, but I want to be assured that the processes are tailored to work with the Bill and the new duty on local authorities.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I thank the Minister as it is useful to have some illustrative examples of forthcoming regulations, although I was disappointed when she started by talking about broad areas that may be varied by the Secretary of State, taking into account local authority representations. It did not give us much more detail than the Bill, although she mentioned a couple of useful and obvious health outcomes. If she continues to give us examples, they will help our deliberations in the absence even of draft regulations, let alone regulations themselves. I have no great argument with what she is attempting with the Government amendment.

I have some sympathy with the Liberal Democrat amendment. We have been consistent, because amendment No. 65 to this clause sought to change the reduction on inequalities to raising the quality of outcomes for the most disadvantaged. We have been entirely consistent, even though we have been defeated by the greater numbers if not the strength of argument of the Government Members.

As I mentioned in my opening comments, if the Bill is to mean anything, the improvement in well-being and the welfare criteria must be properly monitored and evaluated. I have a deal of sympathy with taking account of young children’s views. It is particularly hard—much harder than in the Children Bill, when many of us argued for and succeeded in reinforcing the need to consult children. I know that it is something that the new Children’s Commissioner for England is keen to do and has actively done during his few months in the position.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) commented on children’s eating habits and food labelling, and how it is essential to take into account how young people react to certain food products and the way in which those products are packaged. I have recounted the experiment that I carried out with two of my children when they were aged about eight and 10. I took them to Tesco, gave them each £10 and instructed them to buy food for the following day’s meals, which they thought very exciting. They came back having spent within a few pennies of their £10. They had lots of things that contained 49 per cent. sugar but were in packages with nice cartoon characters on the front. They had crisps that were endorsed by certain celebrities, and various things that were not terribly good for them. In many cases, they had been attracted by the way the products were presented.

I admit that my children were exceedingly good at getting great value for money on two-for-one offers and so on. I was therefore proud of them in one respect but disappointed that, predictably, they had responded to things that were not best for them. We are all concerned about achieving better responses from children. Obviously, if that goes for slightly older children, it goes all the more for younger children, who would just throw a hissy fit and refuse to eat their greens or whatever it may be. We must explore ways of taking children’s views on board, and I hope that there will be reference to that in some of the accompanying regulations or guidance to local authorities when they are published.

My final point on amendment No. 192 is about reporting to the Secretary of State. If such reports are to be meaningful, it is important that they be made to Parliament rather than to the Secretary of State—I shall not go into detail about that at the moment—so that we can find out how the proposals are working or not working, in which case they may need to be adjusted. If that is to be done by affirmative resolution, we will know how to adjust them at some future stage.

We sought assurances in the 2004 Act that annual reporting by, for example, the Children’s Commissioner would go to Parliament primarily, rather than to the Secretary of State who may choose not to publish all the information that is provided to him. Some of us would be very much in favour of a mechanism whereby the Education and Skills Committee or a Sub-Committee would have an annual sitting for the Children’s Commissioner or for reports on the well-being of children and how that has improved or not in the year. Such reports could be scrutinised by the Select Committee or Sub-Committee in much the same way as the Governor of the Bank of England, by tradition, appears before the Treasury Committee once a year. If we are putting all these new mechanisms in place, it is important that there is a way for us in this place to monitor them in a clear, transparent and meaningful way.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is happy with some of the responses on the amendment that she received from the Minister and, in principle, I have a good deal of sympathy with some of the things that it is trying to achieve.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I am grateful for those comments from Opposition Members. I shall try to deal with their further queries. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked about defining and then assessing outcomes. In fact, we will develop a new outcome framework and review the early-years and child care components of the annual performance assessment and the comprehensive performance assessment. Obviously, they will have to relate to the early-years foundation stage that we shall discuss later in the Bill.

We will also develop a performance management framework with performance indicators for children’s centres. They will be based on the five outcomes in “Every Child Matters” so that, at the level of setting as well as at the local authority level, an apparatus will be in place to require the local authority and the children’s centre staff to monitor how they are doing and evaluate their performance against indicators.

Both Opposition Members raised the importance of the views of children. I agree that the views of children, even those under five, should be sought and deployed when delivering services. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, valuable work is being undertaken by partners, particularly in the voluntary sector, to produce good practice guidance on how we can consult children, including those with a range of disabilities, in individual settings. Through the children’s centre guidance, we are encouraging local authorities to use their resources to consult young children who use the services.

On the final point made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I said earlier that the measures of performance—the annual performance assessment, the comprehensive performance assessment and the joint area review—were submitted to the Secretary of State. They are submitted to the Secretary of State, but, of course, they are all published by the various organisations that undertake them, whether we are talking about Ofsted or the Audit Commission. Those documents are in the public domain and anybody can get hold of them.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I apologise because I am going back to an earlier point. Will the Minister assure me that working up the new outcomes will be done in conjunction with relevant partners in the voluntary sector?

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I certainly will. As I said at the beginning—this is the case throughout the guidance on the Bill—we will consult widely and extensively on all the matters that we have yet to define in detail, including the outcomes framework and the foundation stage itself.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I understand that the figures that Ofsted produces are published when a copy is given to the Secretary of State. That happens simultaneously, so there is no problem about the figures being transparent. The problem with the Children’s Commissioner’s report is that it is not published until the Secretary of State has scrutinised it and the Secretary of State may seek to change it. We are concerned because the figures should be published in full for Parliament to see, rather than having a situation in which a Secretary of State could choose to—that is not to say that he or she would—censor them in some way by removing parts of the information.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I have not specifically discussed the Children’s Commissioner’s report with the commissioner, but I have had several meetings with him and I would be astonished if he allowed anybody—the Secretary of State or otherwise—to change his report. He quite rightly guards his independence and his reputation very jealously. With regard to the other measures of assessment that the hon. Gentleman was referring to, the outcomes of those assessments, as I think that he acknowledged, are owned by other bodies, not by the Department for Education and Skills. We receive them, but they are published and are in the public domain.

I hope that, with those assurances, Members will be happy to accept the Government amendment and that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will not press her amendment.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am happy not to press my amendment, but we may wish to revisit the idea of an annual report to Parliament.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert

‘and explained as clearly and transparently as possible to parents.’.

This is a probing amendment and it would be useful to have the Minister’s response. It still relates to the exercising of the functions of local authorities in order to secure the targets—that horrible word—that have been laid down by the Secretary of State. There should be a clear steer for local authorities to make the information as user-friendly as possible. Most parents, whether they come from an advantaged or disadvantaged background, will have little knowledge of the well-being criteria and precious little knowledge of what it means in terms of the impact on their child. That is not to undermine the interest and concern of parents, but the information will not register.

Talking in broad terms, mental health and emotional well-being may mean many different things to many different people. It should be inherent in the advice given to local authorities enacting the legislation to secure those targets that they should go out of their way, particularly as this is pioneering legislation and parents have not been used to this level of support being marshalled by local authorities, to ensure that the information provided is as clear, user-friendly and transparent as possible.

The criteria may mean anything to anybody. For example, subsection (2)(d) refers to

“the contribution made by them to society”.

Does that mean their contribution if they have been successful enough to play football for the England football team or to win the Eurovision song contest? The criteria need to be explained in terms that parents can relate to, so that they know what to expect. If we are to empower parents more and give them greater control over the way they can access child care, they need to know what to expect when it goes right or if they fear that it is going wrong and what should have happened to provide them with the quality child care that they were led to expect.

This is a probing amendment that suggests that if the targets are to be meaningful, there should be a clear directive such as a local authority producing simple, straightforward pamphlets saying “This is what you can expect for your child in this borough.” That would be helpful and I am sure that that is the Government’s intention if the proposals are to mean anything. It is worth bringing the matter up in Committee to allow the Minister to signal her agreement and to explain in what practical way that will be achieved.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

I agree with the spirit of the amendment in that parents should be given as much information as possible and that that should be done in a way that is meaningful and transparent to them.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill already places several duties on local authorities in this regard. Clause 12 places a specific duty on them to establish and maintain a service that provides information, advice and assistance to parents not just about the provision of child care but about any services or facilities that they need to support themselves and their young children. That duty is the most effective way of ensuring that parents and prospective parents receive the information they need about services.

The hon. Gentleman proposes to require local authorities to explain to parents any targets that might have been set by the Secretary of State. There are already two ways under the Bill in which that can and will be done. Under the 2004 Act, local authorities must produce and publish a children and young person’s plan setting out their strategy for delivering services. Hon. Members who are involved with their local authorities will be aware that most of them have made a great deal of progress in making those high-level plans accessible and meaningful.

The children and young people’s plan covers all children and young people in the authority’s area, including their early childhood services, and clearly will have to contain all the relevant information in an accessible way, along with anything relating to targets. However, what is more important for children’s centres—the main vehicle for delivering early childhood services—is that in spring next year, as I have just said in reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, we will publish a new performance management framework that will ask all children’s centres to publish annually a detailed account and self-evaluation of their services. It will include their contribution towards progress in the “Every Child Matters” outcomes and any national targets that we have set for the local authority involved.

The framework will have a clear focus on the quality of provision and how it improves outcomes for children, what parents can expect, what sense they can make of it and how it all hangs together. That is what parents want to know about—the quality of services and how their children can benefit from the integrated front-line services. As I say, that document, too, will contain details of national targets and the way in which the children’s centres are working towards them. I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will recognise that, at the local authority level and the children’s centre level, we intend to ensure that parents have full, accessible, transparent and meaningful information. I therefore hope that he will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to the Minister, who did what I hoped she would and gave some weight to the considerations that she was putting forward. Even if she does not consider it appropriate to put them in the Bill, she clearly outlined the mechanisms by which such information will be made available, and must be made available if parents are to play an active and meaningful role. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 2 - Meaning of “early childhood services” for purposes of section 3

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 68, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, after ‘services’, insert ‘or children’s services’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 69, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert

‘ “children’s services”, in relation to a local authority, has the same meaning as in Section 23(3) of the Children Act 2004 (c.31).’.

No. 212, in clause 16, page 9, line 6, at end insert—

‘(4)In section 19 (Lead member of children’s services), after paragraph (a) insert

“(aa)the functions conferred on or exercisable by the authority specified in Part 1 of the Childcare Act 2006,”.’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We are making rapid progress: we are on clause 2—and it is dark.

Again, these are probing amendments that set out some of the differences, or similarities, between the Bill and the 2004 Act. The Act talks of children’s services departments. I know that there have been big changes in local authority social services departments, which are now split into adult services departments and children’s services departments. As part of the 2004 Act, local authorities are required specifically to establish directors of children’s services, a function that we agree with, as the buck with whom responsibility should stop for problems relating to the abuse of children or indeed welfare criteria. That was a new provision in the Act that we very much supported.

In probing with amendments Nos. 68 and 69, I am therefore asking the Minister why we still refer to the local authority’s social services functions, when, to mirror the terminology of the 2004 Act, we could refer to children’s services. Clearly adult services will not have a direct role in this matter, which is limited to children’s services. Amendment No. 68 would make that change in clause 2(1)(b). The addition of children’s services, again as per the 2004 Act, is relevant in subsection (2). Either there has been a mistake or there is a good reason for the drafting, on which the Minister will enlighten us.

I deal now with the third of the trio of amendments, although I think I know the answer to this point, which was raised by the National Union of Teachers. Another element of the reorganisation of social services into children’s services departments is the fact that there should be a lead elected member of the local authority who will have responsibility over various children’s services matters. I think that that responsibility is automatically transferred, as part of the legislation. Is that the case? I am referring specifically to clause 16. If that is not the case, why is the lead member for children’s services not being given responsibility over this child care legislation, considering that he or she has been given responsibility for the other activities of children’s services through the 2004 Act?

These probing amendments were tabled to try to get some continuity with the 2004 Act. I see that in-flight refuelling is now arriving to give us a reason for the difference.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

It is a great pleasure to get to my feet at last, not least because it gives my back a bit of a rest. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham says that it is dark, which it is, but it is also early yet, so I do not feel I have done too badly to have waited this long.

The hon. Gentleman moved the lead amendment and spoke to the others in the group with great precision and admirable brevity. He said that they are probing amendments, but their purpose seems to be to expand the services listed in clause 2 to include all of the children’s services in the 2004 Act and to widen the remit of the director of children’s services to cover all the functions in part 1 of the Bill.

The amendments deals with the legal foundation for early childhood services. The duty on local authorities to improve the well-being of young children, set out in clause 1, is one of the key tenets of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 4 set out the broad legal framework of minimum requirements, within which local service providers have maximum autonomy to plan the delivery of services for young children in ways that best suit local circumstances. The new duties will operate with the arrangements for children’s trusts, and the director of children’s services and the lead member for children’s services already being established under 2004 Act.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about why there is a reference in the clause to social services rather than children’s services is that social services functions are set out in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, and that the children’s services in the 2004 Act include only those services that relate to children. I do not think that the fact the clause refers to social services and not children’s services will cause any confusion or difficulty.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I follow what the Minister says, but the 1970 Act is quite old. Obviously, there has been a fairly major transformation of social services departments since then. Would it not be sensible to use this legislation to recognise the differentiation that is happening as we speak within social services and the clear definition of children’s services departments and what they are now responsible for?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes. My understanding is that the way this is set out in the clause will deal unequivocally with children’s services as they are defined in the Children Act. It is not necessary for us to use the wording that he suggested. I am not saying that it would not be possible to use that wording. Parliamentary counsel can do many things, but I am advised that it is not necessary to make any such changes. I hope that that reassures him.

There is certainly no difference between what we are trying to say and what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. Were we to use the phrase “children’s services” as in the 2004 Act rather than “social services”, it would include all children’s services, not just those that relate specifically to young children. We have had a debate about what should be included and we will talk about that again. The hon. Gentleman will see from clause 2 that we are dealing with services that pertain to improving the outcomes for children under the age of five. We do not believe that the present wording leads to any defects or confusions. I do not claim that the wording could not be different, but there is no confusion as far as we are aware.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am confused. If the Minister is saying that changing to a children’s services department would in some way bring in all the activities of the children’s services department which are not relevant to the Bill, surely the use of the existing phrase—social services—brings in not only all the children’s services departments, but all the adult service activities that come under the umbrella of social services. The Minister is making the situation worse if that is the criterion, which is why I am rather confused.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

Clause 2(1)(b) refers to

“the social services functions of the local authority, so far as relating to young children, parents or prospective parents”.

It makes it clear that we are not trying to make the clause cover all social services, including adult social services and their activities. It is always possible for drafting to be different and still to do the job that we all want it to do. I think that this wording is fine. If we used the phrase about children’s services that relates to the 2004 Act we would bring in more services than we are seeking to do.

The intention is that clause 2 should define very precisely early childhood services for the purposes of clause 3 and later bits of the Bill. It defines them in respect of early years provision, health services, employment services and information services for the sake of clarity. We do not want to do anything that would undermine that clarity.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

As the Minister was speaking, it became clear that we need adult social services for parents with disabilities, parents with mental health problems and so on. I think I am beginning to share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about whether children’s social services are clearly identifiable now, given that we have integrated children’s services. Adult social services are clearly distinct still, but I am now unconvinced about what the Minister is saying. I am not sure that I could go to my local authority and say, “I want to go to children’s social services”, or find somebody who specifically works for children’s social services. I am not sure, as we are progressing towards full integration of children’s services, that that is the case.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I am sorry to have unconvinced the hon. Lady; that was not my intention. The Bill includes social services functions in relation to young children, parents or prospective parents. The hon. Lady and others will know that children’s centres have a focus on prevention, so the functions include family support services, which might, for example, deal with parenting classes, fathers’ groups, debt counselling and other help and support at key stages. All that kind of thing is included. That reflects the importance of providing early support to prevent things from going wrong, and to ensure that we can meet our overall obligation under the legislation, which is trying to improve outcomes generally and improve those of the most disadvantaged most. We will not go back into that at present—we had that debate this morning—but we believe that the phrasing is right. We do not have a concern that the way in which clause 2 is worded will cause confusion or exclude services that ought to be important in ensuring those objectives. It is certainly true that there are other adult social services out there, as my right hon. Friend the Minister made clear during the debate on amendment No. 176.

We are not being prescriptive and saying that no other services or other elements of what the local authority does can be included in that work. However, we are setting out the minimum that we want to be included in clause 2 where we are defining early childhood services. We are not trying to say that it must be this and no other, and in the context of the children’s trusts and the children and young people’s plans it is specific to local authorities that have different situations and different circumstances and populations. Locally, they may decide that they want to include various other agencies and other bits of the local authorities, the public sector and the state generally. The clause sets out—I thought, quite clearly, but obviously, I have not been able to convince hon. Members opposite that it is as clear as we thought—what we mean by early childhood services. I hope that provides some reassurance to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, but no doubt he will let me know whether it does when he replies.

On amendment No. 212, the hon. Gentleman expressed a concern that locally elected members should have responsibility for the duties set out in the Bill. However, I have some good news for him: I can tell him that his amendment is not necessary, not because I disagree with what he is trying to achieve with it but because the relevant statutory provision, which would achieve what he is seeking to achieve, has already been made. Clause 16(2), which amends the responsibilities of the director of children’s services, as set out in the 2004 Act, to include the new duties on authorities under part 1 of the Bill does the job. In the Children Act, the responsibility of the lead member for children’s services simply refers to the duties of the director of children’s services, so no further amendment is required to bring the new duties within the lead member’s remit. As they are brought within the remit of the director of children’s services, so they are brought within the remit of the lead member.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister referred to clause 16(2) of the Children Act 2004.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

No, of this Bill.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Right, because clause 16(2) of the Children Act is to do with safeguarding children’s boards.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

In respect of this group of amendments, we are leaping around between different clauses. I was referring to clause 16(2) of this Bill. The job that the hon. Gentleman seeks to do with amendment No. 212 is already done by that clause, which we keep reaching in various different ways, and no doubt will continue to do, depending on the grouping of amendments. He can withdraw his amendment, secure in the knowledge that we have accepted that what he is trying to achieve should be achieved and we have achieved it in clause 16(2).

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

As I said, I suspected that that was the case for that amendment; I just wanted it to be made clear. However, I am rather less clear than I was when I started, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is, on why the terminology “social services” is still being used. Amendment No. 68 would take nothing away; it would add the phrase “children’s services”. Children’s services would simply also be covered by the phrase

“so far as relating to young children, parents or prospective parents”.

The amendment does not encompass all the functions of the children’s services department; it merely hones it to the children’s services part of the social services department, which is in effect becoming defunct because it has been split into two main activities.

I am concerned because the whole point of establishing children’s services departments was to create a line of accountability and somewhere that the buck would stop. That is the recommendation in Herbert Laming’s report on the Victoria Climbié affair. There were many different lines of responsibility, none of which resulted in the buck stopping somewhere meaningful. We were keen to support the establishment of children’s services departments because it set up departments that concentrated on the welfare of children and that brought various agencies—health, police and justice agencies—together with social workers so that all the relevant information could be dealt with and all the relevant observation carried out, and that information could be passed up the responsibility chain. Key decisions that needed to be made were to be made ultimately by the director of children’s services. When things went wrong, the accountability chain and the buck stopped firmly at the desk of the director of children’s services. That is a very important part of the Children Act 2004, with which we all agreed.

It is important that authorities that are in the process of recruiting directors of children’s services do so as quickly as possible to join up all those different strands of information, support and services. My concern is that that line of accountability and the protection that it affords children under the 2004 Act should be just as relevant when applied to younger children under this Bill.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I shall try to assist the hon. Gentleman and to be as clear as I can about why the amendment would be more rather than less confusing. Amendment No. 68 suggests that a reference to “or children’s services” be placed after what is already there, which is a reference to “social services functions”. The provision continues:

“so far as relating to young children, parents or prospective parents”.

The hon. Gentleman would bring into the remit of the clause all children’s services, not just those that relate to the young children for whom the clause is designed to improve outcomes. That might seem a minor point, but it is why I say that what is currently in the Bill does the job. I understand his point that referring to social services instead of children’s services appears to be a throwback to the past, but it is not intended to be and it will not be in practice.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I think that the hon. Lady is wrong. I cannot see how adding “or children’s services” would bring in all the children’s services departments’ responsibilities and activities if we retained the

“so far as relating to young children, parents or prospective parents”,

which we propose to retain and never proposed to take out. It is just not possible that adding an extra qualification can open up the provision to all sorts of activities. Ideally, I would have the amendment take out the reference to social services and replace it with “children’s services”, subject still to the relevance considerations. I was not sure why social services were included, and that is why I added children’s services by way of a probing amendment.

The Minister has got into a bit of a tizz about the amendment. What was only a probing point has turned out to be something of a concern, for the reason I discussed. It is essential that the accountability chain ends with the director of children’s services, because my understanding is that in the Bill all considerations pertaining to the local authority are the responsibility of children’s services departments of local authorities and, ultimately within that department, the director of children’s services, who is either in place or will be required to be in place in short order under the Children Act 2004.

I am not sure that under the Minister’s wording children of a younger age who will be subject to the provisions of the Bill will be covered by the same level of protection that a director of children’s services, who is ultimately responsible for things going right, but more importantly, for things going wrong, affords them under the 2004 Act.

It is an omission, and I should be grateful if the Minister could provide any new assurances, because I fear that she has not done so up to now. If she cannot, I should ask either for her to reconsider the wording of the clause and, specifically, our amendment, or for the Committee to push the amendment to a vote. It is an important point, and the Minister has not properly addressed it. Indeed, her last statement was simply wrong.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I have done my best to convince the hon. Gentleman and I have clearly failed, which is a shame. I cannot say anything further other than repeat what I have said, and that would not be a good use of the Committee’s time. In that sense, I am unable to provide him with the further assurance that he seeks.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am disappointed, because I had hoped that the Minister would at least say that she would go away and consider the matter. The story seemed to be changing as we went through the explanation of the amendment. We are entitled to ensure that the same degree of protection is afforded to children under this Bill as we all agreed was needed by setting up children’s services department with a director of children’s services in the 2004 Act. On that basis, I ask the Committee to vote on amendment Nos. 68 and 69, but not on amendment No. 212, as we are happy to withdraw it.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

For the benefit of the Committee, the lead amendment is amendment No. 68, which I shall put to the Committee.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 213, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, after ‘child’, insert

‘, or an employee of an English local authority with responsibility for the care of a young child,’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 214, in clause 6, page 4, line 39, after ‘individual’, insert

‘, including an employee of an English local authority with responsibility for the care of a child,’.

No. 215, in clause 12, page 7, line 16, after ‘person’, insert

‘, or an employee of an English local authority with responsibility for the care of a young child or young person,’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The amendments are very much of the same character. They deal with the important subject of looked-after children, which we were keen to discuss in some depth in the 2004 Act. I know that the issue exercises the mind of the Minister and many colleagues in my party because of the appalling outcomes for looked-after children in this country. Those outcomes have been a scandal for many years and they continue to be a scandal.

By almost any measure, looked-after children—of which there are some 61,000 in England—get a raw deal. At every level, their educational achievement lags enormously behind that of children living with birth parents. Their health outcomes are appalling: for example, 30 per cent. have had no vaccinations at all, and almost one quarter of children in care have a major depressive illness, compared with some 4 per cent. of children in general. We all know that a much higher percentage of looked-after children end up with depression, as rough sleepers, homeless, involved in teenage pregnancies or lacking training. Only 1 per cent. go on to university. Therefore, it is important that we give them some consideration in the Bill.

The purpose of these virtually identical amendments is to add to the definition of “parent” in clauses 2, 6 and 12. It is not clear that looked-after children have been considered in the definition. In clause 2(2), a parent is defined as

“a parent of a young child, and includes any individual who—

(a) has parental responsibility for a young child, or

(b) has care of a young child”.

I hope that the Minister will tell us that that implicitly involves looked-after children, with the local authority acting as the corporate parent. I am keen to single out such children as requiring special mention in the Bill, and to address a potential anomaly in that the local authority may end up acting as a regulator, monitor, provider and consumer of child care services. That territory leads to conflict of interest.

Who determines if there is sufficient child care provision in a local authority’s area—we will be discussing this later—if there is a not insubstantial group of children who need access to such child care places or other provisions, and who are the responsibility of the local authority either through direct provision in children’s homes or, more commonly, through the use of short-term and long-term foster parents? Might a local authority claim that it has discharged its functions under the Bill by procuring sufficient child care places in its geographical area of responsibility either by procuring provision from the public sector and the private, voluntary and independent sectors, or, if it is deemed necessary, by providing the places itself? If certain looked-after children have difficulty in accessing those child care places, who will challenge the local authority’s ruling that it has made sufficient provision?

Such circumstances, which are not extreme, could arise. In such circumstances, looked-after children could again be at the bottom of the heap. It would be useful to have a debate on what will be expected of local authorities when dealing with children in their care. Are those children to be considered on an equal basis in relation to gaining child care places, or will they be an afterthought because they will not complain much if they do not get places because an employee of the local authority is ultimately responsible for them? If a foster parent complains about the lack of child care provision, the child could be passed on to another foster carer.

These are probing amendments; we need to debate this important area of child care. It would be useful to have the provisions set out in detail so that we can avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest later. The children about whom we are talking deserve and require special help, and need access to the sort of help that the Bill is all about. Obviously, many of them will not require child care places in the normal sense because they are under the full-time care of foster parents, but flexible arrangements will be required to help those foster parents as well.

Those are my reasons for specifically setting out looked-after children as being the responsibility of local authorities. I gather that the wording “looked-after children”, which I originally intended to use, is not acceptable in parliamentary procedure. Therefore, the amendment proposes that the definition of a parent should include

“an employee of an English local authority with responsibility for the care of a ... child.”

I believe that these probing amendments are worthy of a response from the Minister.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I hope that I can provide reassurance on the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I agree with him about the importance of looked-after children and the difficulties that they still face. When one looks at outcomes, it becomes clear that they are not doing as well as their peers who are not in care. I agree with him that when we come to evaluate the effectiveness of the legislation should it pass through its legislative stages in this House and the other place, the outcomes for looked-after children will be a key part in determining whether we look back on the Bill as a success and whether it does what we intend it to do.

Some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are absolutely right. In fact, in any one year, we are talking about some 90,000 rather than 61,000 children, because children come in and out of care, sometimes on a short-term basis. Although it is still a small minority, the figure is slightly larger than the one that he mentioned, which refers to children who are looked after from the beginning to the end of any one year.

The amendments would specifically include in the definition of “parent” in clause 2 individuals who are employed by local authorities to try to capture those who are looking after children in care. In the clause as it stands, a parent is defined as including any individual who

“has parental responsibility for a ... child, or ... care of a ... child.”

Therefore, any carer who is looking after a child on behalf of a local authority, regardless of who their employer is, is already included by virtue of being an individual with care of a child. I think that the hon. Gentleman suspected that that was the case, and he was right to do so. The intention is to ensure that when carrying out the new duties to improve outcomes, secure sufficient child care and provide information, local authorities do not lose sight of the looked-after children who are in their own care. That is the intention behind all the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman. That is, of course, not only laudable as an objective, but achieving it will be essential to the success of the Bill.

As the hon. Gentleman also said in his opening remarks, the consequences for looked-after children—the fact that they do so much worse than their peers who have not been in care—is reflected in the figures for homelessness and worklessness. He mentioned teenage pregnancy in that context, although he did not mention offending. A disproportionate number of those who have been in care engage in offending behaviour, and the consequences of that can be catastrophic, not only for the individual, but for others in society. Those are just the kind of children that the Bill should assist.

I think that there is agreement on both sides of the House about the importance of ensuring that the provisions of the Bill have an impact on looked-after children. We had a bit of a debate about gaps this morning and I think that the obligation to narrow the gap between those achieving the best and the worst outcomes will focus the minds of local authorities, and those on whom the obligations are placed in practice, on how to improve the outcomes for those who are doing worst, which, in many instances, will be looked-after children. The overall aim and intention of the Bill, if its provisions are implemented properly, is to focus its good effects particularly on looked-after children.

Looked-after children who are under five are entitled to their free early-years provision in the same way as other children. The local authority is under a duty to secure that provision under clause 7.

I shall clarify the point that the hon. Gentleman made about children’s homes. Clause 18(5) means that a place in a children’s home is not defined as child care in the Bill. The duty of the local authority to secure sufficient child care remains unchanged.

All hon. Members can agree on the need to bear in mind especially the impact of measures on looked-after children who, as the hon. Gentleman said, have higher levels of ill-health—often mental ill-health—and much higher levels of special educational needs. If the Bill, when it is enacted, is to make the difference that we all wish to see, it must have a positive impact on looked-after children.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am encouraged by the Minister’s words, and there is a great deal of agreement between us on this matter.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I was about to start a really ace intervention, but I have forgotten the train of it. I think the question I was going to ask the Minister related to the possible conflict of interests. What mechanisms are there for ensuring, as we both hope will happen, that looked-after children at least get equal access to nursery place provision or whatever it may be? The local authority will not blow the whistle on itself if those children have been disadvantaged in some way.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

It is amazing how all the best interventions disappear on the way down to the Lobby. That was what the hon. Gentleman was starting to say, so he seemed to have remembered it pretty well. The outcomes from the Bill and the obligations that it imposes upon local authorities to improve outcomes will be tested by joint area reviews and by our comprehensive performance assessment. We will look for signs of improvement.

In this new world, partly signalled by children’s trusts, we are moving away from precisely establishing detailed targets from Whitehall for specific ways of doing things. However, the corollary is that we will test local authorities in respect of the new obligations that they are being placed under, specifically here to increase the well-being of all children and to narrow the gap between those doing better and those doing worse. We will do that with a panoply of assessments and inspections.

The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that various inspection regimes—we will come to the effect that the Bill has on those in due course—will also look specifically at the outcomes for looked-after children. He might also be aware, because he will have read the schools White Paper, that we said that we were looking at new policy interventions to try to give a further boost—we all accept that it is needed—in policy terms to ensure improved and better outcomes for looked-after children.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The purpose of these probing amendments was to get a discussion on looked-after children. There may be opportunities later in the Bill to return to that subject. It is useful that the Minister and I have both put on the record the absolute imperative that looked-after children are in no way disadvantaged in gaining access to some of the child care provisions that are available to other children who happen to live with their birth families or some other form of extended family or carers. I am grateful to the Minister for her elaboration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 3 - Specific duties of local authority in relation to early childhood services

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in clause 3, page 2, line 39, after ‘services’, insert ‘as widely as possible’.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 2, at end insert—

‘(3A)The authority shall publish the criteria used to identify such parents and prospective parents under subsection (3).’.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

One of the issues that we have already covered is the importance of ensuring that the new places and services are as accessible as possible, not least to those disadvantaged people who tend not to come forward as easily as the others who are more conversant with the system and who are able to take advantage of it. Clause 3(2) lays an obligation on the authority to

“make arrangements to secure that early childhood services in their area are provided in an integrated manner”.

I am sure that we all applaud the sentiment behind the reference to “an integrated manner”. It is important that all the considerations that we are discussing—geographical access, the appropriateness of access, the quality of the care and the appropriateness of the care that parents seek to access—are joined-up.

The obligation on the local authority is to

“facilitate access to those services”.

That is fine in as far as it goes. It is important that access is facilitated—that is, that there is a perfectly usable form, poster or leaflet, or information on the internet, so that if someone is so minded and able to find that information, they can seek to gain access to the service. However, it is surely more important that access is facilitated as widely as possible, so that as many people as possible for whom the child care services are appropriate can find out about and gain access to them.

By elaborating slightly on the phraseology in the clause, my hon. Friends and I are trying to achieve what I am sure the Minister intends. It is a helpfully intended probing amendment that would address the disadvantage that we spoke about at length this morning. It would ensure that people were provided not only with access but were encouraged to gain access if they would benefit from the service.

Amendment No. 2 is contingent on that. We suggest including after subsection (3) an additional consideration:

“The authority shall publish the criteria used to identify such parents and prospective parents under subsection (3)”.

That means the parents who are being encouraged to use the child care services that will now be provided. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the local authority has not just gone through the motions and made limited access available, but has gone the extra mile to ensure that access is advertised and explained as widely as possible and that disadvantaged parents in particular take advantage of that. If, in the Bill, we explicitly encouraged local authorities to facilitate access to the services “as widely as possible”, it would be fair that they should publish as part of their reporting mechanisms, which we have already spoken about, the basis or criteria on which they identified the parents who will need the child care services that the Bill is all about.

Again, these are probing amendments, but they would strengthen the intention behind the legislation by giving a little more detail to the phrases used in clause 3.

Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very important to ensure that those who are most disadvantaged take advantage of the services offered. In my constituency, there is a local Sure Start programme that is health led, as are some other Sure Start programmes. That gives a huge advantage locally, in that it is easy to identify the children and families who need the services because they are already known to the local health services. They know when a child has been born and the birth is followed up anyway by a visit from a health visitor or a community nurse, who is in a good position to encourage the parent to take advantage of some of the local services.

I understand that, unfortunately, that may not be the position elsewhere. Some Sure Start programmes have had difficulty in sharing health information because it is held in a database by the local primary care trust and is, therefore, subject to data protection. In responding, I want the Minister to explain how we can ensure that, in areas where disadvantaged families are in contact with health services, identification is passed to other agencies so that we can encourage and give information to parents. It is not enough to publish information; we have to go a step further for some families. Moreover, disadvantaged families are often happier to take information and advice from a health visitor, but someone new who knocks on the door is, perhaps, not received with similar good will.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Amendment No. 71 seeks to ensure that local authorities facilitate access to early childhood services as widely as possible. In discussing these matters, it is important to be clear about the intention of clause 3. The best way to pursue better outcomes for young children is by integrating services through children’s centres. Clause 3 represents the legal underpinning for the continuity of children’s centres as the way in which those services will be integrated. Under the clauses, local authorities will have to provide a wide range of services to all families and children living in their areas. Clause 3 places a duty on local authorities to ensure that they secure early childhood services in an integrated manner that facilitates access and maximises benefits to parents, prospective parents and young children. As stated in the Bill, that covers all parents, prospective parents and young children in the local authority area. The population covered by that duty is as wide as possible.

The children’s centre practice guidance that we have issued gives very detailed direction on what provision of information and access should involve, which will certainly not just be the production of posters or leaflets. There is detailed guidance to ensure that all parents are made aware of the services that are available to them. More importantly—certainly for excluded families and hard-to-engage families—the centres will have to provide outreach services so that people go out to identify at-risk children, hard-to-reach families and disadvantaged families to build relationships and to try to get them to the centre where integrated services are more readily available. Outreach work is a very important part of the children’s centre model.

I point hon. Members to clause 3(4)(a), (b) and (c), which state that the local authority must take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate the involvement of parents and prospective parents. We have yet to debate it, but clause 12 imposes a duty on the local authority to provide parents and prospective parents with not just information, but advice and assistance in accessing the services that they need—not just child care but children’s services more generally.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that if he puts those different parts of the Bill together, it shows a strong story of our commitment to engaging parents, to facilitating access and to providing them not just with information but with advice and assistance on how to use those services and get the best out of them. That will be one-to-one advice for certain families, which is the duty in clause 12.

Amendment No. 2 would place an additional duty on every local authority to publish the criteria that they use to identify and target the families that are perhaps most in need and certainly most likely to benefit from integrated childhood services. Local authorities will obviously need to identify and then try to reach out to those people in the groups that are often excluded from services. That is why we have put a duty on local authorities, both to improve outcomes and to reduce inequalities. It is also why in the detailed children’s centre practice guidance that we published last week, we gave examples of the groups that research shows need to be targeted by children’s centres. Those include teenage parents, those in workless households, lone parents, parents of disabled children, and black and ethnic minority families. That is not intended to be an exhaustive list, and I would expect every local authority to take that approach but look also at the local population and local needs.

We are going to issue further guidance for the full set of early childhood services, so we will ensure that those key messages about targeted groups are incorporated. Although I agree with the principle of transparency, which I think is intended in the amendment, and the publishing of criteria, I am concerned about what that would mean. First, putting a duty on local authorities would be overly prescriptive. Secondly, and more importantly, if local authorities start to publish criteria for identifying the kind of disadvantaged families that they want to get into children’s centres, that risks stigmatising not just people in those groups but the concept of using the children’s centre as a whole by families from all groups. Some parents would not then wish to be associated with people in the identified groups and the children’s centre. That could mean that they avoid getting the support that they need. I do not think that amendment No. 71 is needed, because there are strong arrangements in the Bill that speak loudly about our commitment to information, advice and assistance. I am concerned that amendment No. 2 would not only not help local authorities, but could be a hindrance to encouraging people to use children’s centres.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) raised an important point about the integration of health services and the importance of the use of health data, and the need to go further than normal measures to engage hard-to-reach families. Those issues are very important. The existing Sure Start local programmes where health is securely integrated—in a minority of such programmes, the PCTs have been in the lead of the delivery and management of the centres—have delivered some good outcomes for children. It is absolutely imperative that we get their involvement and the ability to share the largely excellent data that health services have about children and families in their communities.

I hope that I have answered my hon. Friend’s second point by stressing, as I did a few minutes ago, the importance of the outreach services in all the models of children’s centres. She rightly identifies that we must ensure that staff go out to families who would not otherwise come into the centres of their own volition, for reasons that we all understand.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Again, I am grateful to the Minister. They were probing amendments, and the hon. Member for Stockport made some useful comments, particularly about the experience in some areas with Sure Start projects that work well in disseminating information about what is available in them. However, some of us do not have Sure Start projects in our areas; we do not have one in my constituency.

Beverley Hughes (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)

Yet.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Indeed. The more I mention that, the more likely it is. I hope, that we will get one in the not-too-distant future.

Where such a framework does not exist already, it is that much more difficult to disseminate such information and ensure that one reaches disadvantaged parents, who are, in many cases, off the radar, but who still count towards the well-being figures that are not being achieved. It is therefore essential that they are included to help the local authority to ensure that figures such as the well-being criteria reflect the improvements in the quality of the services being offered.

Justine Greening (Conservative, Putney)

My hon. Friend says that many hard-to-reach families are off the radar. A more appropriate phrase might be “off the electoral register”. In cities with a high level of population churn, it is vital to ensure that local authorities are properly funded in the sorts of areas in which they need a regular outreach process that might be more intensive than those in areas with a slower population churn. That would ensure that people are not falling through the cracks simply because they are in different places from one day to the next.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a serious question to be asked about how thoroughly local authorities will track down some of the more anonymous and transient people, particularly in the London boroughs and constituencies such as hers.

There is also the whole subject of private fostering to consider; many of us have serious concerns about how the Bill will offer better child care facilities for children whose carers are determined to keep them hidden from public view. Hence my concern about ensuring that local authorities go the extra mile to ensure that they try to reach all such people. Actually, it is not technically in the interests of local authorities to reach some of those people if they are anonymous from the qualitative assessment figures. Therefore, the legislation that made it more incumbent on local authorities to try to track down private fostering arrangements is a double-edged sword.

I do not accept that there is a risk of stigmatising with amendment No. 2. We are not saying that it should be published that the local authority is doing great things to get down-and-out families involved in all this—that is not the way in which it is going to be put—but information will have to be published in relation to improvement figures anyway. All that I am asking is that local authorities should have to ensure that they range their nets as far and wide as possible, that they are seen to do so and that they are accountable. That should not be seen as stigmatising, because the services will be available to all parents. It is simply that such services are particularly appropriate for disadvantaged children. There should therefore be encouragement to ensure that such children take advantage of such services, to which they are perfectly entitled, when, for a host of reasons, they have not come forward to do so.

I shall not press the amendments. We have had a useful exchange, and local authorities will have heard the Minister’s comments about the various mechanisms in place, such as the outreach facilities that are being encouraged, which are vital to facilitate the plans. The message is clear that they will be expected to do not the minimum, but the maximum to range their nets far and wide. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.