Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
22 JANUARY 2007
DEPARTMENT FOR
EDUCATION AND
SKILLS AND
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
Q40 Mr Mitchell: I have to say that
the move to local authorities worries me a little, in that there
are party political differences on whether or not they should
spend the money. Local authorities are always subject to cuts,
sudden panics and political pressure about this, that or the other.
Will not the funding be less reliable and less consistent if it
is run by local authorities rather than nationally, as it has
been?
David Bell: Again, it is a difficult
balance to strike. You want a programme like this, which is locally
focused, to be under the control and direction of local authorities
because, arguably, they know their areas better. At the same time,
the Government have to give a clear direction about the sorts
of things they want to be achieved. The programme gets that balance
right by saying that there are certain non-negotiables about what
services it should provide, but it is for local areas to decide.
Q41 Mr Mitchell: But I want a programme
that is locally focused, particularly on those areas of greatest
need—those output areas that are most deprived. I wonder
whether the shift to children's centres has a wider purpose. The
fact that there are to be 3,500 might mean that the programme
is spread too thin on the ground, diluting the purposes and undermining
the success of the original ones, which were in super-poor output
areas.
Sheila Scales: In rolling the
programme out, we made it clear that the nature of the children's
centres would be different in different areas, and that the level
of investment and the number of services you would expect to see
in centres in the most advantaged areas would not be the same
as those that you would expect to see in the most disadvantaged
areas.
Q42 Mr Mitchell: But Sure Start told
you what it was all about. Mothers can go there and learn life
skills. The achievement has been wonderful—in Grimsby, it
has been brilliant. But children's centres are another thing—another
image—that makes it less attractive.
Sheila Scales: A universal offer
of children's centres, as part of universal provision and expectation,
is non-stigmatised. They are therefore not seen, as some Sure
Start local programmes were, as places that you went to because
you had problems, but as part of the mainstream.
Q43 Mr Mitchell: But they will have
less money, so their purposes will be diluted.
Sheila Scales: They may have slightly
less money than some of the more experimental programmes, but
it is a significant investment in additional services in the area
that will bring together the statutory services, rather like a
one-stop shop, so that there is much easier access to those services
that are available, and they are funded in a variety of ways.
Q44 Mr Mitchell: I have a question
for Hilary Samson-Barry, who has been sitting like a silent witness
throughout our proceedings. How good is the co-ordination? There
is evidence in the Report that co-ordination with primary care
trusts and even with Department for Work and Pensions agencies
is failing, but all those bodies need to be providing services
by the centres so that mothers can access them. Is there a failure
of co-ordination?
Hilary Samson-Barry: I do not
think there is a failure of co-ordination with the health sector.
Certainly, the report was undertaken at the time when there was
not only the transition to Sure Start children's centres, to,
but change in the health service with the new primary care trust
structures, which provide a far firmer base going forward in terms
of the partnership between the local authority and the PCT because
of the far greater coterminosity that we now have.
We have some evidence of the level of desire
and commitment on health. We have recently asked for expressions
of interest in doing health-led parenting demonstration sites,
which are referred to in the NAO Report. We had 63 expressions
of interest, from more than 40%. of the PCTs in England. They
demonstrated very strong joint working, at the practitioner level
in terms of health visitors and midwives in the centres, in the
management groups of children's centres and at the planning level
through the local authorities and the PCTs. I have every reason
to believe that that is really strengthening.
Q45 Mr Mitchell: I am delighted at
that answer and grateful for the information. Co-ordination is
certainly working well in Grimsby with the primary care trust
involved. Can you give us some figures on the kind of areas in
which that co-ordination is working well and any areas where there
are problems? Can you give us some national indication of how
successful it is?
Hilary Samson-Barry: Certainly
the vast majority of the 63 bids that I referred to show very
strong co-ordination. There is very strong co-ordination where
health has been involved in Sure Start—
Q46 Mr Mitchell: Just give us some
figures on where you are satisfied with the co-ordination and
where you are worried about it.
Hilary Samson-Barry: I could
not give you precise figures on each local area.
Q47 Mr Mitchell: You could tell us
about areas where things are working okay and areas that you are
worried about.
Hilary Samson-Barry: Rather than
areas where things are working well, I would say that there are
areas at different stages of development.
Q48 Mr Mitchell: If that is your
way of putting it, give us that. Give us something that allows
us to make the comparison.
Hilary Samson-Barry: In areas
where there has not been a history of strong partnership—
Q49 Mr Mitchell: Right. Which areas
are those?
Hilary Samson-Barry: I am better
able—
Mr Mitchell: That is all we want to know.
Hilary Samson-Barry: I will have
to come back to you.[2]
Mr Mitchell: Do not start covering up,
just give us the information. Okay? Thanks.
Q50 Chairman: Perhaps you could write
to us on that.
Hilary Samson-Barry: Yes, I shall
do that—we can send you a note.
Chairman: Mr Mitchell is quite persistent.
Q51 Mr Khan: He is a lot more persistent
in private.
Mr Bell, we see from the Report that this Government
will spend £3.2 billion between 2004 and 2008 on children's
centres. What figure was spent before 2004 on Sure Start and all
the rest of it?
David Bell: I can give you the
numbers; we certainly have them to hand.[3]
Q52 Mr Khan: You can round up to
the nearest million.
David Bell: I am sorry; I have
the numbers here somewhere. I think that they are even in the
Report itself—in the key facts at the beginning.
Mr Khan: I may have missed that.
David Bell: I am sorry; I
should have the figure here, but perhaps I can let you know. The
figure is substantial.
Q53 Mr Khan: Is it more or less than
£3.2 billion?
David Bell: I do not actually
have the figure from all the way back to 1997, but I have the
figures from 2004 and projected figures. We can let you have those
earlier figures.
Q54 Mr Khan: Could you let the Committee
have the figures on the money spent from 1997 until 2004? The
figures from 2004-08 are in the NAO Report.
Let us assume that in 2008, 2009 or 2010 there
is a new Secretary of State—maybe, dare I say it, even a
new Government. They say to you, "Listen, Permanent Secretary,
we don't like spending all this money and are going to make some
cuts." How would you justify the sums that you have spent
in the past few years?
David Bell: In making the case
for maintaining expenditure?
Mr Khan: Yes.
David Bell: Well, to some extent,
I would echo some of the comments that we have made until now.
We have access to families that previously we were not able to
access. We have parental satisfaction in relation to the services
on offer. We have been able to provide services in a way that
meets people's needs and does not just follow institutional boundaries.
I hope, by the time that we are carrying on with the evaluation,
we will see even more evidence of success—in other words,
children improving their performance at the age of five and the
benefits being accrued into the medium term. I therefore think
there is a strong case to be made now and I hope a strong case
will continue to be made in the future. Of course, I cannot make
a prediction; it is a hypothetical question as to what decisions
I might be asked to consider in the future.
Q55 Mr Khan: How soon could you do
a cost-benefit analysis of the project?
David Bell: That is partly related
to how you measure the performance. International evaluation suggests
that you can look for short-term benefits in relation to the sorts
of groups that you are reaching. There is some evidence of that
already. I think you cannot really judge how effective such a
programme has been unless you are looking over, say, a five-year-plus
period. In fact, the Sure Start evaluation assumes that we are
trying to track children from the age of zero through to five
to see whether there are benefits.
Q56 Mr Khan: How soon can you do
that?
David Bell: We will probably be
able to do it by 2008-09, when the first five-year evaluation
of the programme is due.
Q57 Mr Khan: So when criticism is
made that you cannot tell of the value added between those who
use the services and those who do not, the answer is that it is
too soon to tell; wait until 2009.
David Bell: Benefits are already
accruing to those who use the services. We know that from a variety
of measures. We know from this report and other evidence that
parents value the services on offer to them, so we have some measures
of success to date. I think, however, we would focus in the medium
and long term on improvements in children's educational attainment,
health and so on. I do not think you can measure those just in
the short term.
Q58 Mr Khan: Have you heard concern
expressed by colleagues and experts in this area that Ministers
and others are not articulating the benefits that you have referred
to—that you already have evidence of so far?
David Bell: I have not heard that
criticism—in fact, perhaps the opposite. Ministers will
often refer to the positive benefits of Sure Start and children's
centres and will see those themselves when they visit local areas,
so I do not think I have heard the criticism that you have identified.
Q59 Mr Khan: So you think that the
general public have bought in to the idea of the massive investment
in products and services from which benefits will not be seen
for many, many years to come.
David Bell: It is very difficult
to know what the general public think. In some ways, we are largely
going on the benefits as seen by those who are using the services.
2 Ev 18-19 Back
3
Ev 17 Back
| 
