| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Tim Loughton: This really is rubbish. So far we have heard nothing but attacks on Conservatives for policy that we have never announced—policy that would never be ours. The Government have let it out of the bag that they have shifted funding up north to suit their own political ends.
Before the Minister starts berating us about fantasy figures that do not exist, she should tell us how she expects social services departments to cope with all the extra responsibilities she has given them on the very small increases that they received? Most of the money has gone to education. We are not suggesting slashing any provision; we are suggesting increasing provision.
The Minister has been decreasing the portion that goes to social services departments for children's services, particularly in the south of England, and she knows it.
Margaret Hodge: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the shadow Chancellor's speech on public spending cuts.
Jonathan Shaw : The Tory council in Kent, which is most certainly in the south-east of England—there is no disputing that—asked the Government for a 5 per cent. increase and received, I think, 5.4 per cent. The idea that all the money is going north is a fantasy.
Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend, who works very hard on behalf of his constituents, understands what we are doing much better than some Conservative Members.
Jim Knight : Is it not the case that next year Labour councils will receive a 5.9 per cent. increase overall, while Tory councils will receive 6.1 per cent? Meanwhile, council tax is going up by more in Tory areas than in Labour areas. The truth is that Tory councils, most of which are in the south, are receiving more from the Government than Labour councils. That is ridiculous.
Margaret Hodge: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point.
Central to this debate is the fact that the Government are committed to year-by-year investment so that—most important—we can abolish child poverty. The Conservatives, whether they talk of one area or another, are committed to year-by-year cuts. That will only increase poverty, and will only widen division. For me, it is the worst and most destructive feature of the Thatcher legacy.
Let no one forget that it was under the last Conservative Government that child poverty more than doubled, with a third of all children living in poverty when we took office. That was the largest increase in child poverty in any industrialised nation. Those are the facts; that is the Conservatives' record. They created more vulnerable children, and they never delivered for vulnerable children.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons (Rochdale) (Lab): My constituents, who suffered for 18 years under the Conservative party, will take the Conservatives' crocodile tears for what they are, given the criminal underfunding of child and adolescent mental health services in the north-west. Where was the money? The Conservatives took it away from the north to subsidise the south. They did not care about our children—the most vulnerable children in the country.
Margaret Hodge: I entirely agree. I can tell that my hon. Friend feels as strongly as I do.
The Children's Bill and the reform programme on which we are embarked build on our considerable achievements for vulnerable children since 1997. It is this Government who, through reforms to the tax and benefits system, have lifted more than 500,000 children
out of poverty—children who were condemned to a vulnerable start through no fault of their own. Would that investment survive the Tory public spending cuts?It is this Government who have increased maternity pay, introduced paid paternity leave, increased maternity leave and improved rights to flexible working, so that parents can balance their working lives with their child care responsibilities, thereby helping all children, particularly vulnerable children. Will the Conservatives now support those moves and work to improve them? It is this Government who have created and funded more than 500 Sure Start programmes in the most deprived communities in our country. They have to be long-term investments, but we are already getting evidence that Sure Start is creating massively better opportunities for our most vulnerable children. Through one programme in Leicester, referrals to emergency social services have been cut by 40 per cent. Through another programme in Corby, the number of children being assessed as having a special educational need when going to school has been cut by 10 per cent. Would the Conservatives not just applaud our Sure Start programme, but sustain and expand this initiative?
It is this Government who have delivered free nursery education for every three and four-year-old—six months sooner than we said we would. That investment supports every child, but in particular it supports opportunity for the most vulnerable in our community. Will the Conservatives now support an investment that they failed to make during the 18 long years in which they had the power to do so? And it is this Government who will increase spending for children's social services by nearly 9 per cent. in the next financial year. Would the Conservatives, who are committed to cuts in spending, keep our investment in children's social services going?
It is this Government who introduced the quality protects programme—a five-year investment of nearly £900 million to improve the life chances of some of the most vulnerable children in the country.
Mr. Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the quality protects programme did extend as far as Essex, and that the money was used very well? In fact, Essex social services developed a pioneering family group conferencing system. Opposition Members would do well to celebrate that fact, rather than constantly denigrate their local services.
Margaret Hodge: I should tell those Opposition Members who have constituencies in Essex that much very good, innovative and effective practice is being developed by—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) has a comment to make, perhaps he could make an intervention.
Margaret Hodge: If the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) had been listening, I was responding—in a way in which I would have thought he would
welcome—to all Members who represent the county of Essex. Essex county council is developing much excellent, innovative and effective practice, particularly in respect of children's social services. Those Members should be applauding and encouraging that practice, not denigrating it.
Mrs. Laing: I agree with the Minister unreservedly—the social services department of Essex county council is doing an excellent job. Putting everything in one department under one person was an excellent idea, and the newly appointed director of learning services and social services is doing an excellent job. I have spoken to her about it many times in great detail, but it must be recognised that she and her colleagues are doing that excellent work under the great constraint of the massive budget cuts that the Deputy Prime Minister imposed last year.
Margaret Hodge: I have to tell the hon. Lady that, when in government, her party cut spending year on year, while we are increasing spending year on year.
Mr. Francois: Will the Minister give way?
Margaret Hodge: One final time.
Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for her courtesy in giving way again. For the avoidance of doubt, Conservative-controlled Essex county council has an excellent social services department. I have been briefed on the value of family group conferencing, which can be extremely valuable. I have great praise for Essex county council social services department, which does a very good job, particularly given the financial pressures that it is under because of this rotten Government.
Margaret Hodge: Perhaps after that lengthy exchange we can now all agree on the good work being done by the county represented by a number of hon. Members.
I want to describe our record. The Government have enacted a raft of legislation better to safeguard vulnerable children, from the Care Standards Act 2000 to the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Protection of Children Act 1999. It is this Government who have increased investment in our schools year on year, so that all our children, but particularly the most vulnerable, can achieve more and realise their potential.
It is this Government who are developing the extended schools programme so that, by 2006, every authority will have at least one extended school, where all the services that vulnerable children in particular need—from study support to sporting facilities; from children's mental health services to advice about drugs—can be accessed in one place, where children are and where they feel safe.
It is this Government who have funded and created the first programme of preventive services for vulnerable children in every community through the children's fund. The Opposition sought to criticise the Government because, as a result of the programme proving so successful, we have had to identify new and extra money to keep projects funded. Far from cutting these preventive services for children, we have put an
additional £20 million into sustaining them. What hope would those programmes have under a Conservative Government ideologically fixated on cutting public spending?It is this Government who have invested in preventive and restorative youth justice programmes, which have cut reoffending rates by 20 per cent. It is this Government who have virtually eradicated youth unemployment and introduced educational maintenance allowances to support vulnerable young people to stay in education and training. It is this Government who have developed the modern apprenticeship programme, with a record 230,000 young people now taking part in a modern apprenticeship course.
That is the record on which we want to build; that is a record that only a Labour Government can achieve. That record gives us a sound basis on which to build a further programme of reform, which we heralded in our Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", and which we are putting into practice in part through the Bill we are introducing today.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |