| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Tim Loughton: I echo the Minister in saying that we had well-mannered, good-humoured and well-informed debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I thank the Committee Chairmen, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton). As has happened today, we conducted our deliberations in Committee without guillotines or knives, and the lesson is that we can have a rational debate without being constrained by artificial timings, which the Government Whips too often seek to impose.
I thank my hon. Friends who have contributed. Our Whip in Committee was my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who was here earlier today. We witnessed bravura performances by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who mentioned "The Very Hungry
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1034
Caterpillar". My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) is very well-informed, but, alas, she is abroad today and cannot join us. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) made a cameo appearance on the Front Bench this afternoon, when he was the target of so much vitriol from Labour Members—he has now scarpered, as have some of his attackers.
Many additional amendments have been tabled. It assists debate if we can have as much notice and as detailed an up-front explanation of those as possible. If the Government intend to table further amendments, I hope that they give colleagues in the upper House a little more breathing space by supplying them as far in advance of the debate as possible.
We welcome the additional measures to safeguard children. As the Minister knows, over the past few years we have fully concurred and co-operated with the Government in their various Bills to try to make the protection of our children, particularly vulnerable children, a genuine priority and to achieve some genuine change from the poor outcomes that they have experienced for far too long. It is absolutely right that this Bill, like the other legislation that is yet to come before us, should be proof against those who would abuse and undermine our children.
There are other good things in the Bill. The Minister called it a landmark Bill and said that it is part of the redrawing of the lines of the welfare state. That suggests that the Government set rather more store by the great dogma of their programme than we do. As far as we are concerned, the Bill is about affording more people the chance to access quality child care to improve the start that their children get in life, whether they come from disadvantaged or advantaged backgrounds. That is why we have wanted to concentrate on those from a disadvantaged background getting those opportunities as well.
It is interesting, amusing and reassuring that we can occasionally rattle the great class warriors who still exist on Labour Benches, albeit in a rather confused way that contradicts their own Prime Minister. They set great store by phrases about reducing inequalities instead of concentrating on improving outcomes for those who need and deserve our support most of all. I do not think that those two things are mutually exclusive. It is interesting that there have been so many attempts to put divisions between what Members say. All that we are trying to achieve is better outcomes for the most disadvantaged, but for many, the argument about reducing inequalities is more important.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) rightly said that one of the most important parts of the Bill concerns the word "taught"—just six little letters and one little word. We had a great debate about that. The Minister was at pains to say that although there was little between us, that one little word was so fundamental that it had to stay in the Bill. That is a shame, and I hope that the Government will reflect on it. My noble colleagues in the upper House will certainly return to the subject as the Bill proceeds.
It was encouraging that we almost had a rebellion from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who has also scarpered. She threatened to vote with the Opposition at one stage and abstained in
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1035
one vote. Given her great expertise on early years child care and the whole subject of play for children, the Government would do well to listen to her comments.
The Government accepted many of our arguments and sympathised with many of our intentions, but in the end they did not accept any of our amendments. That is disappointing.
It is worth pointing out that the success of the Bill will rely enormously on the way in which local authorities embrace, interpret and enact its provisions, which of course bring no additional moneys with them.
All our discussions in the House will amount to nothing unless local authorities are able to do their job of ensuring that there is sufficient child care and that it is provided in a balanced way, because many of the private and voluntary independent providers, who have provided so much child care in the past, are threatened by unfair competition. The child care places that are lost must be set aside the creation of new ones. We admit that the net figure has increased, but the sustainability of those places is important.
The Bill is not just about the numbers or the shiny new buildings that may house those child care places, whether in nurseries or whatever, but about the quality of provision and ensuring that we are giving those children the very best start in life. That is absolutely fundamental. We can write all the terms into the Bill that the Government wish and we can exhort local authorities to ensure that the numbers tally with what the Government want, but the most important thing is the quality of the outcome that the Bill achieves for those children and its impact on them, particularly in those crucial early years—years one, two, three and four.
We welcome the Bill. We have supported it throughout, but we want it to work in practice. I hope that the Government have taken on board the serious concerns that we have expressed throughout our good debates. I hope that they will reflect on them and that, when the Bill reaches the upper House, they will allow some of the amendments that our noble colleagues table to see the light of day and be included in the legislation. Ultimately, we support the Bill. We wish it well, and we will certainly support its Third Reading this evening.
4.51 pm
Annette Brooke: May I, too, thank the Chairmen, Deputy Speakers and all the hon. Members on both sides of the House who have participated in Committee and on Second and Third Reading? I certainly agree that we have had some very good debates—perhaps longer ones than I had anticipated, given the nature of the Bill—on some rather interesting issues. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) for picking up some rather important Welsh omissions and for emphasising the rural nature of some of the child care settings in Wales.
It has long been Liberal Democrat policy to invest in children's early years, and we are delighted that the Government have proceeded with a large commitment since 1997. I know what a difference that has made to my constituency. I am sure that many children will be much better prepared for life. I am pretty convinced that we will eventually see some very goods returns on a lot of the Sure Start schemes. Whenever we—I use the royal "we"—are rather punitive towards young people, I hope
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1036
that the early intervention that is taking place will make a real contribution to our local communities and society, and I mean that very sincerely.
I was going to count the number of times that Ministers have said "Oh, that's going to be in the regulations", but I found a better use for my time. They said that an incredible number of times in Committee, and that has been followed up at the same pace, if not an increasing pace, today. That makes scrutiny rather difficult. I am sorry that we could not have more information as we went through the Bill. I admit, of course, that we could not do so, because consultations were going on. I would not want to impede the consultations, but the lack of information seems a pity and it has made things difficult at times, because we have moved amendments to be immediately told, "That's all right: it's in the regulations"—but we have not seen them.
I also welcome the additional safeguarding measures. Although we mentioned safeguarding in our deliberations in Committee, experiences in school settings before Christmas heightened our awareness and made it important to table such amendments. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill will also deal with some of those issues.
We have discussed quality at great length and we can never lose sight of its importance. As has been shown, it makes all the difference to outcomes, especially in the very early years. I am not convinced that we have managed to include enough about quality in the Bill, but we had good debates about it.
I would like to believe that the Bill will make a difference. Clause 6 states:
"An English local authority must secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the provision of childcare . . . is sufficient".
Without the resources, "reasonably practicable" will mean minimal. I hope that the Government will monitor that to ensure that the Bill makes a difference. It may well be necessary to provide a top-up in resources. We must not make false promises to our constituents. The words in the Bill are generally good but, without the resources, they will not mean anything for our constituents. They will not make the genuine difference to the disadvantaged about which we all care, however we express that.
I sincerely hope that the word "taught" will be changed, but I have probably said enough about that for one day. I support Third Reading.
4.56 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |