| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Prys-Davies: I thank the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, for their support.
However, I confess that the response of my noble friend was disappointing. He has spoken once again of tensions within the current government, but we are legislating for the future. My noble friend has failed to explain why a duty to promote the language is deemed to be unnecessary.
Sadly, the Government intend to take over most of the functions of the statutory Welsh Language Board. I am bound to accept that one of the functions of the board is to promote and facilitate the use of Welsh, but the amendment is not in conflict with that function. It would reinforce the function and convert it into a duty.
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1153
I do not propose to press my arguments any further this evening, but clearly this is an issue to which we will have to return at a later stage in the history of the Bill.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for the words that he has just uttered; namely, that we shall return to this subject in later proceedings.
The Minister must be aware of the profound concern that exists on all sides of the Committee. That concern arises from what we know has been happening in Wales and what is threatened to be the fate of the Welsh Language Board. We are fearful that the language will be left friendless, even in its home country of Wales. Noble Lords on all sides are most anxious to ensure that the language has the proper support and promotion that it has always deserved and, indeed, won from this Parliament. The impression that the language and the institutions serving it are under threat has been expressed this
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1154
evening. I am most grateful to those who have given expression to the foreboding that we all have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
HBOS Group Reorganisation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past ten o'clock.
19 Apr 2006 : Column 475
Wednesday, 19 April 2006.
Grand Committee
The Committee met at fifteen minutes to four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (BARONESS THOMAS OF WALLISWOOD) in the Chair.]
Childcare Bill
(First Day)
Links to other Grand Committee Sittings on the Bill
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood): I remind Members of the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung, and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 1 [General duties of local authority in relation to well-being of young children]:
Baroness Morris of Bolton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out "reduce inequalities between" and insert "show how they are raising the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1 and speaking to Amendment No. 4, I should like to say what a pleasure it is to be back in your Lordships' House and in Committee on the Childcare Bill. I wondered whether I might be a little bored after two and a half weeks of the Easter holidays, reading novels, entertaining friends, having quality time with my family and generally relaxing, but I need not have worried—the DfES was on hand. And oh what fun it is when you have just finished writing all your speaking notes and a bundle of papers arrives. So I thank the Minister for his voluminous correspondence over the Recess, which provided a wealth of reading on the Government's thinking behind certain aspects of the Bill. In all seriousness, however, I regret that more of the detail is not included in the Bill itself. That would have removed the need for much of the additional material, but I am sure it will help to inform our debates throughout the Committee's proceedings and raise a few questions as well as answers.
The two amendments would remove the phrases "reduce inequalities between" and "reduction of inequalities between" in subsections 1(b) and 3(b) of Clause 1, which outlines the duty placed on local authorities. The amendments provide substitute wording, with emphasis placed on raising and improving the quality of outcomes for the most disadvantaged children. This key argument was raised by my honourable friends in another place; it goes to the heart of the thinking behind the Bill and raises fundamental questions about what reducing inequalities means, how it will be measured and how it will be delivered.
19 Apr 2006 : Column GC476
On Second Reading, Members on all sides of your Lordships' House agreed that we would like to enable all children to have the very best start in life, an aim that I wholeheartedly endorse. A good start in life will produce a better result for the child, their family and society as a whole and, as the Government point out, it will, one hopes, lessen the chances of needing later intervention. We believe that we must support and improve the well-being of children in the broadest sense but that it is vital to place the most vulnerable—the most disadvantaged—at the heart of our discussions and to focus resources to meet their needs.
Our concern is that the terminology in the Bill—"reduce inequalities"—lacks clarity and could lead to a levelling down rather than a pulling up to close the gap in provision and access to childcare services. The wording proposed in our amendments not only focuses on the quality of outcomes for the most disadvantaged but will require improvement in these outcomes and thus, we hope, a narrowing of the gap.
This issue stirred much spirited debate in the Commons. Out of curiosity, I took the time to look at the explanation in the Oxford English Dictionary of "reducing inequalities". "Reduce" is defined as "to bring down", or "to diminish", and "inequality" is defined as the,
"want of equality between persons or things; disparity: in respect of magnitude, quantity, number, intensity, or other physical quality; a want of uniformity in a thing, persons or process; unevenness, irregularity, variableness".
While we want all children to have the best possible options, surely we do not want uniformity. Each child does not develop at a uniform pace in line with other children. We are concerned with each child's experience and opportunities, particularly those most in need. As I think we agreed at Second Reading, one size does not fit all.
In another place, the Minister disagreed with the terminology that we had chosen, yet in line 3 of paragraph 11 on page 3 of the government paper, Childcare Bill: Duty to improve well-being and reduce inequalities in outcomes for children up to 5—kindly provided by the Minister—the very first point states that the Bill "focuses on improving outcomes". I believe that my amendments go not only to the heart of this point, but one step further, in that we would specify on the face of the Bill the need for,
and not simply the number of outcomes.
Childcare should not become part of the tick-box mentality. More places do not necessarily mean better quality childcare and, thus, outcomes. Indeed, in the document that I just mentioned, paragraph 9 on page 2 says:
"High quality early years provision has the potential to improve standards of health, education, economic potential and social interaction".
Yet the word "quality" is notably absent from the Bill.
Clauses 1 to 5 provide the statutory underpinning for integrated services, primarily delivered through Sure Start children's centres, with the aim that there should be a children's centre for every community
19 Apr 2006 : Column GC477
by 2010—a total of 3,500 nationwide. While I admit that it is still early days for Sure Start, these early days have not been without concerns, as highlighted by the Birkbeck study on the structure of Sure Start programmes. If certain aspects of Sure Start are not working, the scheme needs to be adapted if it is going to deliver the desired results. Can the Minister give us details of any modifications that have been made or are planned to be made to the Sure Start scheme? We are told that Sure Start centres are to play a central role in improving outcomes for all young children, so can the Minister say whether by that he means the quality of outcomes for the most disadvantaged children?
The test required by the words "reduce inequalities" could be met, grotesquely, with no improvement at all in the opportunity for the least advantaged if the opportunities for the more fortunate were reduced. That is not what we are about. Let us be plain in what we are about. We are about raising standards for all and, if we can, closing the gap between the least fortunate in their accidents of birth, culture and family prosperity. Let us be plain in our language with the plain and clear demand of this amendment. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |