| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Tim Loughton: I have sat silently listening to that complete twaddle, although it is reassuring to find that a few subjects remain on which the old class war mentality of the Labour party leaps to the fore. If we suggested that we should favour the best off, the hon. Gentleman would have a good case. If we suggested that the gap should remain, he would have a good case. However, the wording of the amendment would replace "reduce inequalities" with
That does not mean doing nothing; it means actively raising the quality of outcomes of the least advantaged. That is our intention.
Edward Miliband:
If class war is being waged, it is being waged, rather uncharacteristically, by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, who appears to have converted to what the hon. Member for East Worthing
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1015
and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) describes as "class war"—reducing the gap between rich and poor. However much the hon. Gentleman wriggles or squirms, the policy chief of the Conservative party said that he wants to reduce the gap between rich and poor but the amendment would remove that wording from the Bill. Increasing the outcomes of the most disadvantaged is perfectly consistent with widening the gap between rich and poor. That is at odds with what the Conservative party claims to be its policy.
Annette Brooke: It is almost as if crumbs were enough for one group and a feast for another.
Edward Miliband: I agree with the hon. Lady. The Bill should be passed as it stands. Conservative Members need to do some more homework, and especially to read what their policy chief said.
Beverley Hughes: Many of my hon. Friends have stolen my thunder in terms of replying to the debate, but I am grateful to them for doing so. Perhaps I can be briefer as a result.
We have had a short rehearsal today of the debate that we had on this matter in Committee. It is clear that the Conservatives still have not fundamentally understood what we are trying to do. Either they do not understand our intentions or they still feel uncomfortable with them, as they are again trying to take the words "reduce inequalities" out of the Bill. As hon. Members have pointed out, the two paragraphs of clause 1(1) have to be read together. The first provides that an English local authority must
and I am advised by parliamentary counsel that that means all young children in their area. The second paragraph provides that the local authorities must "reduce inequalities". It is clear, if the two provisions are read together, that it is possible to achieve those outcomes only by taking all children upwards in terms of achievements, and by doing so at a faster rate for disadvantaged children. That is how we will close the gap.
The Conservatives are talking the talk, but they cannot yet walk the walk. They have not yet internalised a genuine commitment to the protestations of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and of their own leader, who has said that the test of Conservative policies will be to show
The Conservatives' amendment is inconsistent with the policies that their own leaders are putting forward. To echo the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) and for Stockport (Ann Coffey), I just wonder whether the Conservative leadership is aware of the amendments that have been tabled. We hear their protestations in the media, but their default position, which we have seen in Committee and again today, is to be against reducing inequalities and not to be prepared to see our provision written into the Bill.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) and her party now think that child poverty is something that we should be reducing, rather than
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1016
increasing, as happened under the previous Conservative Government to a massive extent. If we had continued in the direction in which they were going, the number of children in poverty would have increased by more than 800,000. This Government are going in the right direction.
Amendments Nos. 40, 36 and 52 deal with the definition of well-being. There is considerable misunderstanding about the intention of these amendments, because they attempt to rewrite the Children Act 2004, the "Every Child Matters" policies, and the five outcomes enshrined in those provisions. The Childcare Bill is using those five outcomes as the basis for the outcomes duty and other provisions, which is why we have incorporated them as they are. They are the outcomes that children and families identified, and they were endorsed in the 2004 Act. We are really not in the business of rewriting them now. I agree that relationships with parents are important, certainly in helping to achieve those outcomes, but local authorities should not be responsible for the quality of relationships between children and their parents. However, we want to help parents to support their children. We are sticking with the five outcomes, and that is why I am unable to accept those three amendments.
I am quite puzzled by amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 61, which deal with target setting. We have just had a big debate about the importance of improving outcomes for children and the duty on local authorities to achieve that. The amendments would replace the targets for local authorities to achieve those outcomes with "procedures for assessing". I am at a loss to understand how the Conservatives feel that criteria for judging whether a local authority has achieved those outcomes for children can instead be defined as "procedures for assessing". They seem to want to replace an outcome criterion with a process criterion. That is not what we are about. We are interested in outcomes. That is the bottom line, and that is the basis on which the targets for local authorities will have to be decided. They will be decided in conjunction with local authorities, but they will relate to outcomes, not to how well authorities are dealing with the process.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): Will the Minister give way?
Beverley Hughes: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but I will not. He has only recently come into the Chamber, which I think is discourteous.
Beverley Hughes: He may be very good, but he has not listened to the debate, and on that basis I will not give way to him. Had he listened more, I should have been happy to do so.
Amendment No. 47 proposes to remove the ability to amend the definition of early childhood services. Had the hon. Member for Basingstoke either been in the Committee or read the report of this part of its proceedings, she would know that I granted what she is asking at that stage. I said that I envisaged the power being used only in the event of, say, structural changes in individual Departments such as the Department of
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1017
Health or the Department for Work and Pensions that necessitated technical amendments, or if the experience of practitioners and local authorities made clear that young children would benefit from the inclusion of other services or other relevant partners. I have now put on record twice the circumstances in which we envisage the possibility of that power being used.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 56 concern access to services. I believe that amendment No. 43 risks creating a perverse incentive. If authorities need to "maximise access" to early childhood services, there may be a danger of their encouraging groups of parents to take up services that they do not need. That would prevent resources from being devoted to the most disadvantaged, which is what the hon. Member for Basingstoke said she wanted. Changing "identify" to "target", which is proposed in amendment No. 56, is unnecessary, because clause 3(3)(b) requires local authorities to encourage parents who have been identified to take up services. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that the amendment is not necessary.
Amendment No. 55 would remove any local authority flexibility in the sharing of resources with relevant partners. I think that we should leave the position as it is. Local flexibility is important. Resources are already being pooled, and I think that the judgment on when that is beneficial should also be made at local level.
Amendment No. 11 deals with information for families. I have some sympathy with it. Our intention is to focus resources on information for parents and carers, because they will be the most responsible and will have the most influence. I appreciate that in many cases other family members will act on behalf of parents. I shall make clear in guidance that, in the right circumstances—obviously not when it is against parents' wishes—they too will be able to have relevant information.
As for amendment No. 48, we know that funding and sustainability are key issues for local authorities planning child care. In Committee, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) confirmed that he did not expect authorities to look into the future to determine whether a provider was likely to last. Regulations under clause 12 will require local authorities to provide detailed information about providers, including their registration status, how many places they have, and how many funded places they offer. Authorities will also be required to tell parents how to gain access to Ofsted inspection reports that may include information. It is not clear to me what further information authorities would be expected to give other than their own assessments of sustainability, which could be misleading. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
There are issues that I have not mentioned, including the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) about Investors in Children. I can tell the hon. Lady that I am not convinced of the need for continuation of a kitemark scheme. However, I said to her in Committee that we are working closely with the National Children's Bureau to see what other arrangements we can put in place,
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1018
supported by the sector—that is appropriate—to enable the funding that goes to local authorities to be used to ensure that there are local schemes. That will ensure that there is continuing development and improvement through those quality assurance schemes, which is the right way to go.
I hope that the hon. Member for Basingstoke will think that I have replied sufficiently for her to withdraw her amendment. Certainly, there is still a considerable political divide on amendment No. 1 and I make no apologies for not accepting it.
3.45 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |