Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
BEVERLEY HUGHES
MP AND MR
TOM JEFFERY
20 NOVEMBER 2006
Q1 Chairman: Welcome to the Select Committee
this afternoon. Welcome to Beverley Hughes, Minister of State
for Children and Families, and Tom Jeffery, who is head of Children's
Section at the DfES.
Mr Jeffery: That
is right.
Q2 Chairman: We are very pleased
to see you this afternoon. Minister, do you want to make a brief
opening statement before we begin?
Beverley Hughes: The first thing
to say is that I am very glad to be here. I very much welcome
the Committee's interest in what we are doing because this is
a radical and long-term programme of change to children's services;
and I believe that evaluation and scrutiny along the way are very
important if we are to maximise the potential that it really has
for children and young people. I thought it might be useful if
I started by setting out how I see the range of policies sitting
together, and where we are. The first thing to say is that it
is important to say that Every Child Matters is crucial
to the whole Department's aims, and indeed to wider Government
strategy. We have recently refreshed our own departmental strategic
objectives around closing attainment gaps, raising outcomes for
all children, increasing staying-on rates to 16 and reducing the
number of people on the path to failure. I believe that Every
Child Matters is absolutely fundamental to each of those four
objectives. It is also critical to wider Government policies.
I have just come from a meeting with the Chancellor and other
stakeholders around ending child poverty, and I and others made
the point there that Every Child Matters is very important
for that, as well as wider social objectives, a more cohesive
society, and equipping ourselves economically for the challenges
in the international arena. The purpose of Every Child Matters
is very simple: it is about really high-quality children's services,
underpinned by very strong partnerships between the existing agencies,
integrated working that will improve the outcomes for all children,
and narrow the gap between those who already do well and those
that do not. It is fundamentally about achieving outcomes. We
are moving on from a statement of the vision to delivery. As we
do so we have to think not just about what we want to deliver
but how we do it. Firstly, universal services play a crucial part
in meeting the needs of all of those children, and that is where
universal early years provision, as set out in the ten-year strategy
is important. Schools are playing a vital role through the extended
schools programme. Recently we have extended our thinking in terms
of young people with youth matters and thinking about integrated
youth services. Secondly, those children and young people with
additional needs are increasingly supported by multi-agency teams
sharing skills and knowledge across education, social care, health,
youth justice, and the private and voluntary sectors are very
important. I see children's services becoming increasingly skilled
at sharing data to identify need, using common shared processes
across different professionals and agencies, such as lead professionals
or the common assessment framework. We are trying to make progress
for specific vulnerable groups through the Respect Task Force,
increasing support for families and for parents. We have recently
set out action we need to take to address most disadvantaged families
in the social exclusion action plan and the recent Care Matters
Green Paper, which looks specifically at children in care. Thirdly,
the importance of parents is being increasingly recognised, not
only in academic research, but also at local level in the children's
trusts. It is not necessarily easy territory for government, and
we are absolutely clear that it is parents who bring up children,
not governments; we are not here to tell parents what to do; it
must remain their responsibility. We do know, however, that for
better or worse parents are the single most important factor in
determining where that child ends up. A key part of Every Child
Matters, again at local level is enabling parents to support
their parents in the best possible way. Many local areas are doing
some very good work and developing a much more strategic approach
using evidence-based programmes, specifically to provide support
for parents. We should not forget that this is a long-term programme.
There are already early signs of progress in outcomes for children
and young people improving. We have 98% of three and four-year
olds in the free early years education; there are decreasing rates
of teenage pregnancies, the first time for some decades; more
children involved in positive activities, and rising standards
in education. It is easy to trot those things out but they are
not just statistics; they make a qualitative difference to the
lives and chances of some children and young people. My sense
is that there is a strong consensus out there that the policy
is good. There is a great deal of support across the services.
Much of the architecture, the structural change, is more or less
in place; but I have always said that whilst structural change
is a necessary condition of these reforms, it is not of itself
sufficient. Cultural change is also fundamental, the willingness
and ability of different managers and practitioners to work together
across organisational boundaries. As we move forward I see three
key priorities for me: the delivery on the scale of our commitments;
forging that cultural change from the bottom up; and focusing
on helping agencies work in a completely new way around personalising
those services, because it is only in that way that we will reduce
inequalities and tackle child poverty as well as raising standards
across the board.
Q3 Chairman: Minister, can I start
by asking you to look at the organisational changes? We have had
authorities drawing up their children and young people's plans;
what evidence do you have that that is leading to the kind of
cultural change you are talking about? Is there any evidence that
that is happening on the ground, and is there any evidence of
where it is not happening and where you need further intervention?
Beverley Hughes: The first thing
to say is that we have a number of ways of evidencing the progress
that is being made. The top line one is the outcomes framework,
which was drawn together from widespread consultation, not least
with children and young people themselves but also stakeholders
right throughout the children's sector. Therefore it is a very
powerful framework against which to judge progress. There is progress
against some of those outcomes. Secondly, underneath that there
are the output measures that we are also looking at; how many
children's centres are in place, and how many schools are offering
extended services. We are meeting all of our informal interim
targets on those kinds of measures. We have looked specifically
at the children and young persons' plans that most local authorities
have done; and all of those required to do those plans have done
them. Many that were not required to do them because they are
exempted because of their JAR rating, for example, have done them
anyway. Those plans are proving themselves to be a very powerful
lever for the partnerships that need to develop inside the children's
trust in order to get this real change you are talking about,
not just in structure but in culture. Fourthly, we have now a
much more developed apparatus at Government office level, with
priority conversations with local authorities and partners on
a regular basis. Then we have inspections, the APAs and the JARs,
and last but not least we have inside the Department a qualitative
process that we developed for ourselves that we are calling Knowledge
for Improvement, through which we are able to look at the softer
intelligence about what is happening in different local authorities,
and compare that to their outputs in terms of inspection results,
and look in a detailed way at local authorities that are either
doing very, very well and learning from them, or those that are
causing us some concern. There is a great deal of evidence, mostly
from strength of partnerships, about the changes taking place
on the ground. There is alignment between local authorities and
health in particular, where there are some really innovative models
emerging, for example, Brighton and Hove and Kent. They are demonstrating
that local authorities and their partners are making big steps
forward in terms of setting in place the arrangements that they
need to make.
Q4 Chairman: That is the organisation.
What would you expect in terms of outcomes? What would be your
measure of success?
Beverley Hughes: We would want
the local authorities, with their partners, in their children
and young persons plans, to identify the priorities for their
children and young people within the context of the framework
of the five outcomes, and to start to meet some of those objectives
so that they are reducing inequalities between children and young
people and they are improving outcomes for all. In translating
that into a locality-based perspective, we would want them to
be prioritising teenage pregnancy; we would want them to be looking
at the educational attainment across all ages, including early
years; and we would want them to be translating those issues for
their locality into priority targets with them, within the context
of their local area agreements, under the umbrella of the five
outcomes, and working with their partners annually and over time
to meet those targets and so make a qualitative difference to
the circumstances of children and young people in their area.
Q5 Chairman: What happens if they
do not?
Beverley Hughes: If they do not,
there is a series of interventions that we can take in order to
support them to do better. We have within the Department an interventions
unit which reports to the Secretary of State through me. We already
use that in a very detailed way to look at the results of annual
performance assessments and JARs. I also look at it to look at
the outcome of serious case reviews. I can recommend to the Secretary
of State that he takes action, on a kind of ladder of intervention,
from providing informal support through to a statutory arrangement
in which another organisation will have responsibility for organising
services for a period of time.
Q6 Chairman: Can I move on to the
roll-out of the programme of children's centres? We have this
year had about 700 and there will be 1,000 by next year; and the
aim is for there to be one in every community by 2010. Given
that rapid roll-out, what evidence can you give to the Committee
whether those children's centres are of sufficiently high quality
as they come on-stream to provide what the Committee and I am
sure you would want to see provided for children?
Beverley Hughes: Our informal
target was for 1,000 children's centres to be designated by this
September; and that has been achieved; there are now 1,050 children's
centres designated, or just over. You are absolutely right that
within those centres, particularly given that the first centres
are in the most disadvantaged areas and will have early years
provision, childcare and learning as part of the full offer, the
quality is critically important because the EPPE and other academic
research says very clearly that the quality of provision is what
can give young children, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds,
that premium for starting school and carrying on through their
primary years and potentially beyond. The quality is very important.
We issued guidance to local authorities last November to make
sure that the lessons from the national evaluation of Surestart
was included in the future development of children's centres;
and I am about to issue a revision of that guidance as well. What
goes on inside the centres is clearly important. In terms of making
the difference for the most disadvantaged children, we learnt
from that evaluation that the outreach work needs to be very sustained
and very high quality. By that I mean that the extent to which
either mainstream services, such as health visitors working through
children's centres, or children's centres themselves, can really
identify families in the community that are the most isolated—and
evaluation suggested they were mostly isolated teenage mothers
who were not finding their way to the centres. A strong outreach
service is therefore very important. We have a number of ways
in which the quality of what goes on inside and outreach work
will be set both by local authorities themselves in the first
instance in the sense of their work in developing children's centres,
and also by Ofsted.
Q7 Chairman: Is it rather risky that
you are issuing guidance, but children's centres are allowed to
develop pretty much along their own lines? The risk is, is it
not, that if they get it wrong, there is a whole group of the
most deprived children who have missed out on the best early years
provision? Why have you taken that view, given that there is clear
evidence of what does work in early years; why is the Government
not requiring centres to implement what we know works?
Beverley Hughes: I think to a
significant extent—and I obviously was not minister when
the Surestart local programmes were being developed—my understanding
of where I am now and what we are trying to do is that things
have moved on significantly. It seems to be the case, looking
back, that the Surestart local programmes, which were the test
beds, the pilot experimental stage of developing the idea of children's
centres, were explicitly allowed within certain parameters to
develop in relation to their own community and their own locality
and have a strong community involvement. That still needs to be
maintained but the emphasis was there to some extent on "let
a thousand flowers bloom" and "let us learn the lessons
from the best of provision". Given the decision to mainstream
children's centres and make that part of what every family can
expect to be in their area for children and young people, then
the provisions in the Childcare Act have brought together a set
of expectations that will apply to every children's centre, not
least the early years foundation stage, which that act of parliament
gives statutory force to—a new definition of the learning
development milestones for children from birth to five, but every
setting, whether it is a childminder, private nursery or a children's
centre, will have to conform to, together with a framework for
how they are going to enable young children to progress as best
they are capable of through those developmental milestones. The
early years foundation stage is quite a robust template for defining
the quality of standards both of early learning and of care that
goes on in children's centres; and it is the template against
which every centre will be assessed by Ofsted.
Q8 Chairman: It may be a good template,
but are you confident that that can be delivered with an increasingly
non-teaching workforce? Are you confident that the quality of
the workforce and the training will be sufficient to deliver that
kind of standard?
Beverley Hughes: We are committed
to making sure that every early years setting will have a graduate
leader; and by that I mean not just a manager but the person responsible
for the leadership around early learning development; but they
will have a graduate leader in children's centres by 2010 and
every full daycare setting by 2015. You are right; there are
enormous workforce implications for this, and that is why we have
established a Children's Workforce Development Council. They at
the moment are taking forward the way in which we will meet that
commitment, which is through people with qualified teaching status,
but also graduate early years professionals. We expect there to
be about 600 graduate early years professionals coming through
by early next year, the first tranche of people. As we grow the
capacity in that workforce both at graduate level and focusing
on moving people from level 2 to level 3, which is the minimum
requirement for supervisory levels of jobs, then we will gradually
improve the level of qualification in the workforce. I agree with
you that that is absolutely key. All the research shows that as
well. It is the quality of the workforce that will largely determine
the quality of the provision. That is why we have put so much
effort into increasing the cadre of graduates available, but also
raising people at level 2 into level 3.
Q9 Rob Wilson: I would like to get
some context for Government policy. Does the Government believe
that two-parent families, i.e., a father and a mother, is better
in most cases for a child than a one-parent family?
Beverley Hughes: We say that it
is not for us to prescribe family arrangements, but the evidence
does show—and I think it makes sense—that if you have
two people sharing the responsibility for bringing up children,
then that can make a difference to child outcomes. Our job, as
Government, is to support as best we can the family arrangements
in which children find themselves, because our focus is on children
wherever they are, and improving the outcomes for them.
Q10 Rob Wilson: So the answer is
"yes" but with some caveats?
Beverley Hughes: No, the answer
is not "yes with some caveats", Mr Wilson. The answer
is that we recognise the evidence, but in terms of Government
policy, if you are saying to me is it Government policy to try
and ensure or make provision for people to be in full relationships
and not have children until they are in couple relationships,
then that is not our policy. We are focused on children. We have
a job to support families, and that includes supporting two-parent
families as well as one-parent families; and certainly in terms
of some of the evidence we have looked at recently on child poverty
we know that a significant proportion, about 42% of the children
in poverty, are in couple households where at least one is working—so
there is a job to be done around disadvantaged children in couple
families as well as in single-parent families. The focus should
be on how we best support children and parents, in whatever arrangement
they are, to do the best by their children.
Q11 Rob Wilson: Let me put it another
way. Family breakdown is an increasing problem in this and other
countries. Is there anything a government can do to help sustain
two-parent families?
Beverley Hughes: I think there
is a range of things that government would do anyway that would
have an impact on the stability of family life: having a stable
economy, keeping more of your take-home pay so that you can give
your family a better quality of life; reducing economic pressures;
enabling children to meet their aspirations; providing childcare
for those parents who want and need to work, and making sure that
that is easily available. All of those things support directly
or indirectly the stability of family life and make it easier
for parents to do the difficult job of bringing up children as
well as balancing work and family life.
Q12 Rob Wilson: We have had 14 years
of a pretty stable economy but that does not seem to have done
much to assist with stopping families breaking down.
Beverley Hughes: As I understand
it, the most recent figure showed decline in the divorce rates.
I am not sure whether you are up to speed with that. I would not
accept your premise that family breakdown is worse now than it
was ten years ago.
Q13 Rob Wilson: Do you believe that
mothers that wish to stay at home—and many do—can
be, as was once said, a bit of a problem?
Beverley Hughes: A bit of a problem
for who?
Q14 Rob Wilson: This was a previous
minister; that mothers who wished to stay at home and look after
their children rather than go out to work were "a bit of
a problem".
Beverley Hughes: I am sorry, I
am not aware. Who said that?
Q15 Rob Wilson: Margaret Hodge.
Beverley Hughes: I am not aware
that Margaret said that at all.
Q16 Rob Wilson: She did say it. What
is your view on that?
Beverley Hughes: I think it is
a matter for parents together to make their choices about how
they want to combine work and family life, and I feel very, very
comfortable myself that it is a matter for them.
Q17 Rob Wilson: What have you done,
as a government, to offer parents a choice either to stay at home
or to go out to work? How do you enable a mother within a family
to have a real choice about whether they stay at home or go to
work?
Beverley Hughes: That is obviously
going to be a more difficult choice for people on low incomes.
One of the main ways in which families can be supported in that
category is through Working Tax Credit to enable people on low
incomes to keep more of their take-home pay; the absolutely considerable
rise in child benefits, which again give people on low incomes
more options in terms of the income that they have, and so that
they have more choice. For other people who want to go out to
work or who want to work part-time, then there is a whole range
of policies around flexibility at work, around increasing paid
maternity leave, introducing paternal leave for the first time,
enabling—shortly—parents to share parental leave provision
so that they can make those decisions between themselves as to
how they want to share the care of their children and who goes
out to work.
Q18 Rob Wilson: Have you considered
at any point two-year maternity leave?
Beverley Hughes: We are working
towards one year's maternity leave at the moment. Who knows—we
want to progressively increase the options for parents so that
they can make the choices for themselves.
Q19 Rob Wilson: I presume you are
familiar with the EPPE report which suggested that pre-school
is most effective when it starts before a child is three, while
acknowledging that pre-school experience before two-year olds
could lead to increased behavioural problems. Are you aware of
that?
Beverley Hughes: I am aware of
the EPPE research.
|
