Childcare Bill

Standing Committee D

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen:

Mr. Joe Benton, †Mr. David Amess

Thursday 15 December 2005
(Afternoon)

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Childcare Bill

Clause 41

The learning and development requirements

1.30 pm

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 114, in clause 41, page 20, line 19, after ‘children’, insert ‘, appropriately’.

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Amess. There are two amendments left on this clause: amendments Nos. 114 and 115 and they are being taken separately, although, for once, we would not have minded their being grouped together. That is the way things happen. If I may talk a little more laterally, we might not have to spend as much time on amendment No. 115. I tabled some more amendments on Tuesday, which appear as starred amendments Nos. 312 to 315, but, alas, slightly disappointingly they will not be called. The House adjourned while we were sitting on Tuesday and I thought that the amendments had already been tabled, but that was not the case. There we are; it is one of those things. Perhaps we can return to them on Report. In any case, there are themes that are common to the other amendments that we tabled.

I want to talk about what is behind the amendments. I have mentioned the subject several times before in Committee—to the point of tedium in the case of Labour Members, I am sure.

Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): And in the case of Members on this side.

Tim Loughton: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) for his great support.

I want to talk about the importance of attachment theory in babies and very young children. Conservative Members are great devotees of Sue Gerhardt’s book “Why Love Matters: How Affection Shapes a Baby’s Brain”, as is the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). I have a heavily thumbed copy if any Labour Members would like to borrow it later to be educated. They are old enough to be educated and taught one would hope. [Interruption.] And the Government Whip certainly hopes. It is calculated that about 40 per cent. of children in this country have an insecure attachment by the age of 12 months, as measured by various professionals. A lot research has shown that one can predict before the child is born—while the mother is pregnant—what their attachment classification will be at 12 months.

There are many studies and groups, such as OXPIP, the Oxford parent-infant project, which has done a lot of pioneering work, helped by Professor Bowlby’s theories on the issue and has been commissioned by Oxford social services to provide training in attachment; other similar projects are springing up around the country. They have identified that concentrating on babies between nought and two can make a lifelong impression on how the child and then adult will turn out, because of the nature of the way in which the child develops. That is why we want to separate the treatment of children below two and children over two and why amendment No. 114 would include a general reference to appropriateness in subsection (2) in the context of the way in which children are dealt with.

Children need sensitive, responsive care that allows them to express their distress as well as their contentment. The first two years are critical to a baby’s emotional development and, physically, to the development of their brain. Most toddlers have already learned their parents’ strategies for managing emotional arousal. If emotionally secure, they know that they are free to express their feelings and they are learning ways of managing them. If emotionally insecure, they will have learned to suppress or hide their feelings—perhaps to switch off from them if things are really bad—or they will have learned the strategy of making a big noise and fuss about everything that they feel. Those children are in danger of growing up unable to regulate their emotions well.

Parental behaviour and the behaviour of other carers—be that in a nursery environment—affects the development of the baby’s brain. Increasing positive arousal and decreasing negative arousal are both important and have effects on different areas of the brain. The most important kind of positive responsiveness initially is through physical touch, which is turning out to be extremely important for the development of children, but it also takes place through eye contact and pleasurable interaction such as playing games. The whole philosophy of play has come up before.

Social processes, by which the baby co-ordinates his system with the system of those around him, are what the early years in a nursery environment are all about. That is why the learning and development requirements in the clause must be deemed to be appropriate. We have moved away from this morning’s “taught” debate, but in this probing amendment we are attempting to insert the word “appropriately”.

In defining appropriateness, which will need to be defined more clearly in the guidance and regulations that will follow our deliberations, I am trying to lay down some of the ground work for what we consider is appropriate. It is all about the child’s physical and mental development. It is also about the parents. We know that babies of agitated mothers may stay over-aroused and live with the feeling that the expression of emotions explodes out of them, whereas well managed babies come to expect a world that is responsive to their feelings. A baby between the age of nought and
 
Column Number: 265
 
two is still physically a part of his mother, who may be breastfeeding, depending on her milk, and who may regulate his heartbeat and so on.

We all have neurons at birth, Mr. Amess. Even you and I had neurons at birth. We may not have as many as we started with, but that may be as a result of what happened to us between the ages of nought and two. I do not wish to delve into your colourful past, Mr. Amess, and what happened to you in those crucial developmental years, but clearly something went very wrong for both you and me to have ended up in this place. We were, of course, slightly salvaged by our adherence to the party that we adhere to, unlike Government Members, who clearly had some shocking experiences before they reached the age of two. However, we all have neurons at birth.

We do not need to grow any more, but we need to connect those neurons up and make them work better for us. With more connections at an early stage, there is a better performance and a greater ability to use the brain. Between six and 12 months, there is a massive burst of these synaptic connections—I am sorry if I blind the Committee with technical stuff, but it is necessary—in the pre-frontal cortex. They achieve their highest density just when the developing pleasurable relationship between parents and babies is at its most intense. The neurons will not be functional until the child is about 18-months-old. We see that, in children who have not had the right sort of attention at an early age, the neurons are in a state of semi-chaos and are not as well connected. That is why attention is so crucial, because the brain grows most rapidly in the first 18 months. A baby’s brain doubles in weight over the first year of life, and difficult babies are often difficult because their parents or carers are emotionally unavailable to them.

That is why it is so important that if a child is not with its parents, the person with whom it spends time—a carer in a nursery—must give him the right sort of attention. It is not about ticking boxes or inspecting the nursery to make sure that the taps are in the right place and the loos and radiators work, crucial though those may be to creating the right environment. The single most important factor in that child’s development will be the contact and attachment that it builds up with its parent, or its carer in the parent’s place in a nursery or other environment. If that does not occur and stresses result, all sorts of problems can arise.

I am also making the point that happy babies are made by happy parents. Therefore, whatever we do in the Bill to make the attainment of appropriate child care even easier must be good for removing stresses from the parent and, in turn, that is good for creating a better reaction with the child.

I am trying to tease out some of the Minister’s thoughts, because I believe that she and I have the same objectives. We both want to achieve the same sort of development in the very early years for those children and make sure that their neurons are tied up neatly rather than chaotically. However, we do not want prescriptive measures to be imposed on child care environments that miss the point that we should be
 
Column Number: 266
 
doing more to make sure that key workers in child care environments provide appropriate care to help those children develop. Nursery projects around the country have recognised that. The Sunderland infant programme aims to ascertain whether it is feasible, practical and economical to screen routinely for less than sensitive interaction and then to tailor interventions accordingly.

I do not disagree with most of what is in the clause, although we have concerns about how people may seek to define it. I am worried that the Government have missed a trick, because there is no mention of attachment in the Bill. I hope that it will feature in the guidance. That is why the amendments that we sought to table, but unfortunately were too late, specifically included secure attachment as one of the areas of learning and development listed in subsection (3), because we should be talking about personal and social development and about securing emotional development to positive attachments.

I would like the Government to respond to all this wonderful child psychology, which I am sure comes as second nature to you, Mr. Amess, by saying what importance they place on the appropriate treatment of very young children to ensure that they not only develop properly but, and most important, develop proper attachments with the people around them. If it is not the parents but an alternative child care environment, the key workers there must be primed, trained and alert to encouraging those appropriate attachments with the children. Nurseries should have a clear definition of a key person and clear evidence of the way in which those approaches are being implemented. Careful attention must be paid to any child expressing attachment relationships to the key person or others.

I am grateful for your sufferance here, Mr. Amess, but it is an important subject for many of us. I hope that the Minister can respond positively if not to the wording of the amendment, which is deliberately loose because it is a probing amendment, but to the principles behind it, that would send out helpful signals that the Government set great store on encouraging attachment. That is a key part of the way in which a child can develop more securely and positively in the first two years of his or her life in a child care environment away from the home. Therefore, I am keen to hear what the Minister says.

Annette Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): If I may comment on the actual amendments—[Interruption.] I am beginning to wonder whether I am on the right page. I hope that the Minister will agree with me. I want to say something quite different from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I believe that I am addressing his amendment No. 114.

I took the amendment to relate to assessment procedures rather than attachment theory and I intended to ask a question when we reached clause 42. If I may do that now, I will not need to speak on clause 42, which refers to

“A learning and development order specifying assessment arrangements.”

How much consultation will there be on appropriate assessment methods? “Appropriately” is a good insertion, and it ties in with my question on clause 42.

1.45 pm

We are all concerned about those unfortunate newspaper articles following the publication of the Childcare Bill, in which some commentators suggested that it meant league tables for babies. We can say more in Committee to clarify the matter for those people who do not interpret the Bill in the same way. Those issues have to be addressed.

Amendment No. 115 is important.

The Chairman: Order.

Annette Brooke: I am sorry, I am on the wrong amendment.

The Minister for Children and Families (Beverley Hughes): I shall speak briefly about the amendment and the points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. I should like to assure her and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about the specifics of the amendment.

The clause replicates the provision in the Education Act 2002, allowing for observation-based assessments of children. It is implicit in the wording of the Bill that the assessments will be appropriate and, as I have said repeatedly, that there will be full consultation on all aspects of the early years foundation stage. That will include arrangements for assessment.

The hon. Lady referred to some of the newspaper articles that inaccurately sensationalised the foundation stage when we announced it. She should have read the range of newspaper articles, because many people in more reputable newspapers sought to put the record straight. I have, and I am sure that she has, no intention of allowing the more lurid and sensationalised interpretations from some of the tabloid press to determine our actions on those matters.

The hon. Gentleman raised a fundamental point with which I agree. The importance of attachment for babies and young children is acknowledged as crucial. The feeling of security and safety, being valued and developing attachments to significant adults constitute the essential foundation without which the learning and development identified in clause 41 may be impaired. It is the bedrock, and it sets some of the essential conditions for maximising children’s development naturally, freely, safely and happily.

The hon. Gentleman referred to Bowlby and quoted other people. When I was teaching many years ago, Vera Falberg was for a long time the doyenne of attachment theory. Her ideas have been subsequently taken forward by more recent authors and eminent academic researchers. As a model for understanding the environment and personal relationships that a young child needs to develop, it has been well established that they need the safety and feeling of security from which they can experiment with the rest of the world and, through that, enhance their learning
 
Column Number: 268
 
and development. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that that model is already deeply embedded in the materials that we have provided. It will be replicated in the early years foundation stage.

I am happy to share with the hon. Gentleman an extract from something that appears on the “Birth to Three Matters” CD-ROM. We produce guidance, practice examples and a range of materials for practitioners. The extract is entitled “Attachment and the Key Person Role”. It summarises some of the main findings from modern researchers and translates them into practice for settings to consider. It states:

“The first few months of a baby’s life are important for the development of attachment. ‘Time spent together is crucial for a parent to tune into a baby’s non-verbal signals and to feel that a personal relationship is growing through smiles, gurgles, long stares and pre-verbal exchanges of sound.’ Lindon (1998) . . . Selleck (2001) points to a growing body of literature which emphasises the importance of a continuing attachment relationship which links between key persons/practitioners who care for, play with and educate children in settings outside their homes in close association with children’s significant attachment figures from home.”

The paper helpfully makes a point that the researchers did: for attachment, a key person is not the same as a key worker. Many settings adopt the concept and role of the key worker, which is about co-ordinating activities and communications. For a young child, a key person is a person who develops a relationship with the child on a consistent basis.

Similarly, “Birth to Three Matters” contains quotations from well-known academics. The section on developing self-assurance states that

“the child who has benefited from security in her relationships is likely to develop a sense of self-confidence and assurance, so that she will have better resources to cope with difficulties.”

That is exactly the principle of attachment theory. Right at the outset, there must be a foundation from which children can explore their environment and develop relationships, and so learn and develop.

There are other examples throughout the document. Under “A Healthy Child”, the guidance states:

“Young babies . . . crave close attachments with a special person within their setting”,

and “Effective Practice” states:

“Key person and parent handing the young baby directly to each other at the beginning and end of each day.

Establish shared understandings between home and setting about ways of responding to babies’ emotions.”

Those are just a few examples. I could go on, as there are many.

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the concept is not just included in the Bill but is its bedrock. It is embedded in all the materials that we produce. It is not included as an element of clause 41 because it is not part of learning and development. As I said, it is much more fundamental than that. It is the basis from which learning and development proceed. It is about the relationships through which children feel secure, safe, valued and loved. Without such relationships, they do not have sufficient stability, security and predictability in their environment to take the opportunities that learning, whether with parents or in a child care setting, offers to them.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that his amendment is not necessary to incorporate either appropriate assessment or the slightly wider point that he made about the importance of attachment theory. We already recognise and promote it, and that will continue as we bring “Birth to Three Matters” and the foundation stage into the early years foundation stage.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister. That short debate was useful. I am greatly heartened by what she says about attachment theory and the concepts that I have outlined. I think she used the term “bedrock”: the essential foundation without which learning and development in this part of the Bill could be impaired. She said that the concept was already deeply embedded in the Government’s thinking, which is helpful. It is not mentioned in the Bill, but I take on board why that would not be appropriate. We needed to be assured that it was at the heart of the Government’s thinking and what they are trying to encourage.

We have our disagreements with the Government on the way in which the clause is laid out, harking back to the use of the word “taught”, but we do not disagree with anything else that is there. It is a matter of how people interpret it and put it into practice. Given the Minister’s support for the idea, I hope that she will put her money where her mouth is and ensure that projects such as OXPIP, which does such sterling work in Oxfordshire and in trying to promote its good work in other similar projects throughout the country, receive closer attention from the Government. OXPIP has tried to obtain greater Government support, financially and verbally, in the past. Its has shown that it adds serious value through what it does. That value is not properly appreciated for many years because by concentrating on those first two years, they might be preventing a child from going off the rails aged seven, eight, nine or as a teenager.

I hope that the Minister will consider in a little more detail some of the work that is taking place and those projects that are living on a shoestring with little public funding. It would be a false economy not to give them more attention than they have received in the past. If she would like me to arrange a meeting for her to see OXPIP at first hand, I would be more than happy to do that. If she came to visit, everyone would benefit.

On the basis of the great accord that has broken out, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 115, in page 20, line 28, at end insert—

‘and

(g)   the baby’s sense of self.’.

Having had your sufferance before, Mr. Amess, I shall not go into great detail. I want to make a similar point about attachment theory, which is encapsulated in the phrase “the baby’s sense of self”. The amendment would add that to the areas of learning development by inserting paragraph (g) at the end of subsection (3).

It is difficult to define the baby’s sense of self, but the Minister touched on it when she talked about the self-confidence of a baby at that age—an assurance that flows from a good, secure attachment. It hangs on the definition of “baby”, which we have tried to change. Amendments that were starred and unable to be selected refined some of the criteria in subsection (3) by explicitly mentioning positive attachments.

It is worth noting that the sense of self to which the amendment refers comes from the success of the early relationships of babies, their response and what they feel. That is contingent on the well-being of the parent, which is why problems arise when the mother has post-natal depression and is unable to respond properly to the baby. Having heard some of the case studies and spoken to case workers in OXPIP, it is interesting how a mother cannot physically touch the baby, so that the baby is confused and turns away.

I have also watched some of the videos supplied by Professor Bowlby of babies left in crèches in playschools, which show that there is a way of introducing a baby to a carer—the key person who will be standing in for the parent during the day—that fosters a greater attachment with that person, rather than mum simply arriving, plonking down baby and departing, which instantly gets things off to a confused start. That is what the sense of self is all about.

2 pm

There were some alarming figures the other day in that scurrilous rag The Guardian—

Edward Miliband (Doncaster, North) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman read The Guardian?

Tim Loughton: I did not read it myself. Somebody physically took The Guardian and passed on the expurgated version to me. I did not have to handle it, I am glad to say.

According to a new study by Adrian Angold, who is a British professor of psychiatry at Duke university medical centre in North Carolina:

“One in 10 preschool children, aged as young as two to five, could be suffering from anxiety, depression or other mental illnesses”.

The research shows that

“children aged between two and five have the same rate of mental health disorders as teenagers, and not much less than adults.”

That is alarming. We know—as you know, Mr. Amess, as a member of the Health Committee—the problems with the increasingly high prevalence of mental illness among young people. If that is beginning to manifest itself at the age of two, it must be as a direct result of those crucial first two years when the attachments have not been properly formed, the neurons have gone haywire—I will not go back over that—and a baby has not started properly to establish its sense of self and what he or she is all about and does not have the confidence and assurance to which the Minister referred.

Again, this is a probing amendment and I am sure that the Minister will tell me that she does not disagree with the thrust of it and that it is included as part of what goes on automatically. However, given that, as we have said, this is pioneering legislation, it would be
 
Column Number: 271
 
useful for her to put on the record that there is something in the baby’s sense of self that goes much more broadly into the areas on which I have sought to engage the Committee. I could quote great learned tomes, as the Minister did, by Fonargy, Ainsworth and Bell, and Sue Gerhardt herself, but, in the interests of making progress, I will not. We have made our point and I hope that the Minister will respond in equally sympathetic and empathetic terms.