---

Ann Coffey: That is the most unutterable rubbish that I have ever heard in this Chamber. The investment in children's centres is a recognition that we have to do something about disadvantage from an early age. Providing a general duty to address inequalities will lead to the development at a local level of policies that take particular account of helping the most disadvantaged because of the way in which that service provision will then be developed.

For example, extra cash for improving school meals may make a local authority consider giving a subsidy to parents who are just above the level for qualification for free school meals. That would encourage parents to let their children have school meals instead of lunchboxes.
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1012
 
As part of that initiative, parents might be encouraged to come in and talk about diet. That might help to reduce inequalities in outcomes in the long term. Without a duty to address inequalities, there will not be the same kind of pressure for innovative thinking at a local level to ensure that in every policy area thought is given to ensuring that outcomes for the most disadvantaged are improved.

Tim Loughton: That is what the amendment says.

Ann Coffey: Of course that is what it says—that is why I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's problem with the clause on inequality.

I have come to the conclusion that addressing inequalities, beyond warm words, is a step too far for the Conservatives. I believe that this duty, with a huge investment in early years, will mean that from an early age, when it matters most, parents will be supported and extra help will be given to those children, who without it will grow into another disaffected generation excluded from any real opportunity to change their lives.

Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): Before I begin my remarks on amendment No. 1, I want to say what a great privilege it was to serve on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Bill. Of course, all Standing Committees are riveting, but this one was in a league of its own, as Members from all parties vociferously debated their case. Several divisions arose, particularly on clause 1.

On Second Reading, some of my hon. Friends may not have given enough attention to the importance of clause 1, which does two remarkable things. First, it places a duty on local authorities to improve the well-being of all young children in their area. Secondly, local authorities must reduce inequalities between young children in their area—but not, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) suggested, by dumbing down. As subsection l(a) and (b) make clear, inequalities can be reduced only by improving outcomes for the least well-off more quickly and to a greater extent than for others, so that they catch up and the gap is reduced. We debated that at length in Committee. I am sorry that the hon. Lady was not there to hear that debate.

We had many vibrant exchanges in Committee. In the end, the Conservatives did not like the idea of reducing inequalities; instead, they wanted to raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged, and tabled a similar amendment to that end. The problem is that, if the outcomes for all children continue to improve, those at the bottom could be left even further behind. We know that inequality matters, especially in societies such as ours, where we deal largely with relativities—relative poverty and relative disadvantage—and where parents want to provide more than the basics for their children. At least the Tories made their stance on the issue clear in Committee; the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) was less clear.
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1013
 

Annette Brooke: If the hon. Lady would like to look back at the speech that I made on Second Reading, she would see that I welcomed the mention of the reduction of inequalities. As I have explained, my reason for being concerned about the expression used is the fact that inequality could be reduced simply by bringing the top down, and if subsection (1)(a) relates simply to an average, that is still quite compatible. Even now, an amendment to that subsection is needed—it is not foolproof. However, hon. Members will recall that I was horrified by the comments of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). No one could dispute the fact that I certainly believe in the reduction of inequalities, and we must talk about less-advantaged children gaining ground more rapidly than others.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) wanted to continue.

Dr. Blackman-Woods: I was referring, of course, to the fact that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole abstained in the vote on a similar amendment in Committee, and we all concluded that the Liberal Democrats were ambivalent about whether to reduce inequality.

To return to the importance of clause 1, the Child Poverty Action Group reminds us:

"Inequality is damaging because access to goods and services of those on the lowest incomes is intimately connected and affected by the spending power of the richest. Unless the gap between incomes of the richest and poorest is reduced we will continue to be divided by differential, income-related access to the opportunities in society".

So it is terribly important—if we want to reduce inequalities, which Labour Members certainly do—that clause 1 stays exactly how it is, and we celebrate it.

I was not going to make this point, but I am so incensed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) that I have decided that I need to say something about child poverty. Under the last Conservative Administration, childhood poverty in this country increased massively. At least this Government have started to take enormous numbers of children out of poverty. If you want, I will send you the figures, so that you know exactly how many children were put into poverty by the previous Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that when they use the word "you" they are referring to the occupant of the Chair, not to the hon. Member whom they have in mind.

Justine Greening: I hesitate to engage in such a debate again—the one in Committee was particularly heated—but I want to take this opportunity to reassure Labour Members of my own genuinely good intentions in supporting the amendment. All I want is the outcomes of the most disadvantaged children to improve, and stating that explicitly in the Bill would make it absolutely clear to local authorities. I fully understand the concerns, but there is a need to include that explicitly in the Bill, which is why I support the amendment.
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1014
 

3.30 pm

Edward Miliband: I shall make a brief contribution because Conservative Front Benchers have unwittingly revealed the problem with today's Conservative party. On the one hand, Conservative Members use rhetoric that makes it sound as though they are caring, sharing, modern and interested in a fairer society, but when it comes to reality, they oppose the concept. Since my earlier intervention, I have done further research and I have a copy of the interview with the new policy chief of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), in The Daily Telegraph on 23 December 2005. He said:

"Of course, inequality matters. Of course, it should be the aim to narrow the gap between rich and poor."

I do not know whether the Conservative party's policy chief scrutinises Front-Bench amendments but, on the basis of the interview, I cannot believe that he would approve of an amendment that would remove the aim of reducing the gap between the rich and the poor.

Mrs. Maria Miller: Of course we are talking about the gap between rich and poor and we take that seriously. Surely the hon. Gentleman should take seriously the Prime Minister's statement on the matter. In a "Newsnight" interview in 2001, he said:

"Surely the important thing is to level up those people that don't have opportunity in our society."

Perhaps the problem that we are revealing today is the gap between the hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister.

Edward Miliband: I think not. It is clear from the Bill that we both want to improve the well-being of young children and reduce inequalities between them. However, amendment No. 1 would remove the notion that the gap should be reduced. There is a simple explanation for that: in its heart, the Conservative party and its Front Benchers do not want to reduce the gap between rich and poor—they do not believe in that. That is a valid position, but it would be better to admit it. They are at odds with the remarks of the Conservative party's policy chief. Conservative Front Benchers may shake their heads but there is a blatant contradiction between the amendment and the words of the Conservative policy chief.

---