---

Mr. Michael Wills (North Swindon) (Lab): Briefly, in the light of the comments by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) about local autonomy, I would welcome reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister that levers will be in place in future so that her Department can ensure that the money given to local authorities will not be diverted from the poorest children in the poorest areas of each local authority. I would also welcome an assurance that the Department will continue to monitor local authority spending so that it remains focused on the children who need it most.

Annette Brooke: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) because, as many of us recall, the subject matter of amendment No. 1 generated a great deal of debate in Committee. I
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1009
 
explained at the time that I had intended to support it—until I heard the arguments for it. Despite the fine words that we have just heard, amendment No. 1 would rip the heart out of the Bill. It is essential that "reduce inequalities" be left in.

I was interested in the Conservative amendment because it had been pointed out to me that inequalities could be reduced by pulling the more advantaged down. Despite clause 1(1)(a), I still have a concern that that could happen, so I tabled amendment No. 34, with which I tried to achieve the best of all worlds. I stole the Conservatives' words, left in "inequalities" and added paragraph (c) to make the same point.

As a belt and braces measure I tabled another amendment, which was not selected but might be even better. If paragraph (a) read

"improve the well-being of every young child in their area"

that sounds like quite an undertaking, but the phrase "every young child" is used elsewhere, so there is a precedent. I could not support amendment No. 1 which, by removing "reduce inequalities", would undermine everything in the Bill.

Several amendments refer to targets. We discussed that in Committee and we are all concerned about targets being centrally set and possibly having unintended consequences. There is an argument for requiring the monitoring of performance, rather than the setting of targets.

Our amendment No. 11 relates to the duty to provide information, advice and assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) proposes that clause 12(1) should state:

"An English local authority must establish and maintain a service providing information, advice and assistance for families in accordance with this section."

I have previously expressed great concern about the fact that in the entire Bill there is no mention of families. This, if anywhere, is where such a reference should be. We want advice for parents and support for children, but the relationships and dynamics within the family are greater than the sum of its parts, whatever form the family unit takes. If clause 12(1) included a reference to families, we would ensure that information about a raft of family support measures was available. That small amendment would greatly enhance the Bill.

We have had a useful debate on this large group of amendments and tackled the underlying philosophy of the Bill. The wording of clause 1(1) and (3) could be improved to make doubly sure that we do not reduce inequalities by pulling the more advantaged down.

Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab): I shall speak briefly on amendment No. 1, which seeks to remove the general duty on a local authority to

"reduce inequalities between young children in their area"

and replace that with

"show how it is raising the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged".

After we debated the matter in Committee, it was still unclear why the Conservative Opposition want to remove the provision, and their position remains unclear.
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1010
 

In Committee, Conservative Members argued that each child should be treated individually and not in relation to another child. The Bill includes a general duty to improve the well-being of young children in an area, and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) suggested in Committee that there could be a perceived duty in some areas to make it more difficult for the best nurseries, because by allowing them to flourish inequalities are somehow increased, although I am not sure how that would happen.

3.15 pm

Mr. Paul Goodman: My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) was making this point: when one attempts to reduce inequalities, one first attempts to bring up the standard of those who have fallen behind, but if one cannot do that, there is only one other option—bringing down the standard of those who are ahead.

Ann Coffey: I am not sure how that could possibly happen. The hon. Gentleman's comment reflects the Conservative party's general paranoia about levelling down. Conservative Members seem to think that there will be a huge move up and down the country to lower outcomes for the better-off in order to achieve a reduction in inequalities. I do not know how they think that will happen or the mechanism that they think we will use.

Mr. Goodman: It is simple: the law depends on the words in the Bill, which are "reduce inequalities". If it proves impossible to bring up the standard of those who are being left behind to those who have gone ahead, there is only one option, which is to bring down the standard of those who have gone ahead to those who have been left behind.

Ann Coffey: The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated the paranoia to which I have referred. I do not understand what mechanism will be used to achieve that levelling down.

Edward Miliband (Doncaster, North) (Lab): Since the Bill was in Committee, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Oliver Letwin), who is policy chief of the Conservative party, has given an interview to The Daily Telegraph, in which he said that it is a priority to reduce the gap between rich and poor—in other words, to reduce inequalities. Conservative Front Benchers may be out of step with their party on this issue.

Ann Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that policy development with Conservative Front Benchers, who are clearly unaware of it. A concentrated effort would be required from all public agencies on levelling down, because all the evidence suggests that better educated and better informed people are, for example, changing their diets, taking more exercise and attending preventive health checks, with the result that their life chances and those of their children are improving at a better rate than those of less well informed people. I imagine that the only way to lower outcomes for the more advantaged would be to stop them getting information in the hope that they will stop doing the things that are improving their health.
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1011
 

All the evidence suggests that more effort is required to find ways to improve outcomes for the most disadvantaged. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) has argued that outcomes will improve for the most disadvantaged if effort is concentrated on them, so it does not matter that outcomes for the advantaged are rising. However, if the gap widens and less advantaged people perceive that their life opportunities are much less than those of more privileged people, then they will think that the situation is unjust, and it will become more difficult to sustain a multicultural, diverse community.

Mrs. Maria Miller: My argument is focused on raising standards for the most disadvantaged, and I have tabled amendments to focus more of our resources on that group. I feel that we are running the risk of not focusing enough of our energy on those who need help most, and perhaps by inference we are focusing some of our energy on those who do not need help as much.

Ann Coffey: But focusing on inequalities means that resources are focused on those who have least. That is what a target to reduce inequality does. I do not understand the problem that Conservative Front Benchers have with this.

Returning to relativities and the importance of ensuring that the gap between rich and poor does not increase, I do not want to hark back to the past, but there is a generation of young people in my community who are difficult to help, to train and to employ. They grew up under a Government who believed that relativities did not matter and therefore ignored widening inequalities. I am glad that Conservative Front Benchers are addressing that offending behaviour, but I feel that they still have not quite got it.

Justine Greening: Action is more important than rhetoric. Under this Government, social mobility has dropped rather than increased. I am pleased that I am in my mid-30s, not my mid-teens, because the prospects for me now would be far bleaker than they were when I was 16.

---