Mrs.
Miller: I beg to move amendment 404, in clause 186,
page 104, leave out lines 14 to 39 and
insert— ‘5E Services
available through children’s
centres (1) The management of
children’s centres must determine with the local authority and
children’s trust boards which services are necessary to
strengthen families and improve outcomes for children in the local
community. (2) In meeting their
duties under subsection (1), priority must be given to providing
services to support the most disadvantaged
families. (3) Relevant partners
have a duty to work with children’s centres to assess how the
services are best
delivered. (4) Health visitor
services must be provided by children’s
centres. (5) The Secretary of
State may, by regulations, determine the services to be provided under
subsection
(4).’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 399, in clause 186, page 105,
line 13, at end
insert— ‘5H
Children’s centres: information on
costs The local authority must,
on an annual basis, publish in respect of each children’s centre
within its area information
on— (a) budgets
allocated to children’s
centres, (b) administration
costs incurred in the operation of children’s centres,
and (c) any other relevant
costs associated with the children’s
centres.’. Amendment
369, in
clause 189, page 109, line 7, leave
out ‘and
quality’. Amendment
527, in
clause 189, page 109, line 7, after
‘quality’, insert ‘and
sustainability’. Amendment
370, in
clause 189, page 109, line 9, at
end insert— ‘(aa) improving
the quality of early childhood services that are provided in their
area,
and’. Amendment
528, in
clause 189, page 109, line 11, at
end insert— ‘(c) the
desirability of maintaining a range of different types of providers of
services including those from the private and voluntary
sector.’. 9.30
pm
Mrs.
Miller: One of the most pressing problems that
children’s centres face is how to involve the local primary care
trust in their work. There is ample evidence to suggest that the most
effective way to reach out to the families most in need of support is
through medical professionals such as health visitors. Yet the
involvement of health in children’s centres is, at best, patchy.
More often than not, the involvement of health in a centre would have
been a result of the tenacity of individuals, not a corporate
commitment from PCTs. I am sure that the Minister is as aware as I am
that more precarious arrangements are at risk of breakdown if an
individual moves out of their job, and that has to change. I would be
interested to hear from the Minister whether the motivation for
including proposed new section 5E was an attempt to force that change
in terms of the involvement of health by placing a duty on all relevant
partners to consider whether early childhood services should be
provided through children’s
centres. I
understand the intention of the Bill, but amendment 404
seeks to probe further into the Minister’s thinking and achieve
the same outcome without children’s centres
effectively losing their ability to shape the services that they need in
order to meet the needs of their individual local community. As
proposed new section 5E is currently worded, any early years service
may find its way into a children’s centre, regardless of whether
it is a priority service for that community. How effective, and indeed
practical, will that be? The amendment would put children’s
centres back into the driving seat in managing the services that they
provide and put a duty on the relevant partners to work with the
children’s centre, rather than the other way round, which is the
way it appears in the Bill at the moment. However, I am sure that the
Minister will help us understand that
better. Amendment
404 also recognises the importance of giving priority to supporting
disadvantaged families. This is something that a number of interested
parties have raised an eyebrow about: there is no explicit mention in
the Bill of the need to do that. Despite the issues that we have
regarding not achieving the outreach to disadvantaged families, I know
that it is a priority for the Government, as much as it is for my
party. The
remaining part of the amendment serves to pinpoint the pivotal role of
health visitors in children’s centres. The Minister will be
aware of the Conservatives’ long-standing policy to reinstate
the universal health visitor service through Sure Start. I am pleased,
at long last, that as a result of the recommendations in Lord
Laming’s most recent report, the Secretary of State seems to be
coming round to our way of
thinking. Amendment
399 seeks clear information on the true cost of children’s
centres to ensure that there is transparency in expenditure, and also
to help the third sector organisations that want to bid for managing
Sure Start centres and providing services there. Too often, I hear the
phrase “there is not a level playing field” when the
third sector bids alongside local authorities to provide services.
Having information on the costs of children’s centres on an
individual basis will help third sector organisations when they come to
it.
Amendment 527
would put a duty on the local authority to consider sustainability as
well as quality of services in the childhood sector. That is important
because, when we start to look at funding streams for centres into the
future, considering the recession, we need to ensure that
sustainability is taken into account.
There has
been a lamentable decline of health visitor services that must be
reversed. We now know that 40 per cent. of health visitors are handling
case loads of more than 500 children. Indeed, 20 per cent. are handling
case loads of more than 1,000 children. The provisions that we would
put in the Bill would help to ensure that health visitors can provide
the support and have the effect that we need in our
communities.
Finally,
amendment 528 promotes the use of private, voluntary and independent
providers. There is useful provision in the Childcare Act 2006, to
which I believe I have referred before, that requires local authorities
not to provide child care services unless they have no alternative. The
provisions in the amendment would guard against the duplication of
services and help promote the PVI sector. I urge the Minister to
consider whether there is a place in the Bill for a similar approach to
that taken in the 2006 Act because, all too often, local authorities
have taken the view that they should be the managers of
centres and the providers of services. They have not really thought more
innovatively about how they could involve the third sector. Indeed,
only a handful of centres are run by third sector
organisations. I pay tribute
to the superb work done by Action for Children, Barnardo’s,
4Children and a number of other independent organisations, including
Lifeline. They run excellent examples of Sure Start children’s
centres. They are moving the agenda forward, and we should be doing
everything that we can to encourage their excellent
work.
Annette
Brooke: It is a pleasure to speak to amendments 369 and
370, which were tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West
and for Yeovil, and me.
Amendment 404
would replace one set of provisions with another. Although it is hinted
at, I still do not see the term “outreach work” in either
set. That point was made by the three people from Action for Children,
4Children and the Family and Parenting Institute who contributed to the
Committee. The Bill offers an opportunity to insert the importance of
outreach work, which could then be backed up with some guidance. For
example, nobody really knows what the qualifications are for an
outreach worker. A lot of work needs doing on that. That amendment
would be quite useful, because it would enable one to focus on that
difficult aspect.
I support the
proposal to add sustainability. We have a conundrum: we want to
increase the quantity and quality, and we want affordability and
sustainability. However, in the early days, a lot of settings were
created, probably in the wrong place, as local authorities were set
targets to provide so many pre-school places. They went at it in a
rush, and the number of places has fallen subsequently, because they
have not been located in the right place and perhaps the quality was
not there. We must be concerned that money is not wasted in this very
large investment
process. Amendments
369 and 370 are about quality. Although the word
“quality” would be left out of proposed new subsection
(4A)(a) to the Childcare Act 2006, a far more specific new subsection
would be added that is far more specific
about “improving
the quality of early childhood services that are provided in their
area”.
During our debates on
the 2006 Act, we spent much time talking about quality. We did not
decide on anything conclusive, yet it is an important matter:
poor-quality child care provision is damaging, particularly for younger
children. We spoke of the development of a kitemark, which was taken on
board, but I have not heard about the idea in recent years. We need to
have some confidence about the quality of provision yet not be totally
dependent on inspections.
We need to
discuss how local authorities can assess and measure quality, and
incorporate a system of continuous quality improvement in early
childhood services. The Government must take that on board. The word
quality is in the clause, but we need a clear definition of its
meaning, as it can mean many things to different people. Previously, we
have focused on quality. As we progress and expand provision, it is
important to ensure that all-important quality. I await the
Minister’s response with interest.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I shall speak first to amendment
404, which seeks to replace the duty on local authorities and relevant
partners to consider delivering services to a children’s centre
with a requirement that children’s centre managers work with the
local authority and children’s trust boards to determine which
services will be provided. I agree that the sort of conversation
implied by that amendment—one that involves centre
managers—should take place, but it is not sensible to remove the
requirement on local authorities and relevant partners to consider
delivering services through children’s centres. It would not be
the in the best interests of parents and children, who benefit from
joined-up services, or the centres themselves, which may otherwise be
overlooked in deliberations about service delivery. The duty in clause
186 on local authorities, primary care trusts and Jobcentre Plus will
not marginalise Sure Start children’s centres. I believe that it
will ensure that they remain centre stage.
Sure Start
children’s centres are already integrated into the operation of
the children’s trust, as many of those involved in delivering
services in children’s centres will be relevant partners in the
children’s trust and represented on the children’s trust
board. In regulations, backed by guidance, we will require the
children’s trust board to consult the advisory board of each
children’s centre in the local area when preparing their
children and young people’s plan, thus improving statutory
mechanisms; thereby, those providing services on the ground, parents
and local communities can contribute to local services planning and
provision.
Health
services already play and will continue to play an important part in
the services that many children’s centres provide. The recently
published strategy for children and young people’s health,
“Healthy lives, brighter futures”, made clear the
Government’s commitment to a strengthened role for health and
children’s centres, with a named health visitor linked to each
centre. However, we believe that it is right to provide local
flexibility, so that the best location of health services can be
determined locally, to facilitate access to and maximise the benefits
of those services to young children and their parents. Requiring all
children’s centres to provide a health visitor service would
reduce that.
Amendment 399
would require local authorities to publish details of children’s
centre budgets annually and centre by centre, but that would place an
enormous bureaucratic burden on local authorities, and it would not
achieve the transparency on the costs involved in delivering
children’s centre services. Resources for children’s
centre services come from several sources—the local authority,
the NHS and Jobcentre Plus.
If the local
authority were to publish only the budget details for which it is
accountable, we would see only part of the full expenditure picture.
The way in which the resources flow to centres varies should reflect
local choices, circumstances and preferences. Some authorities delegate
the majority of the children’s centres revenue to the centre
itself; others commission services centrally and deploy them across a
range of centres; and others tender for a third party to run the centre
and its services under
contract. We
recognise, however, that there is still much to be done to support
centres in achieving value for money and local authorities in putting
resources where they can make the most difference for children and
families.
We have been exploring the feasibility of designing a benchmarking
system for similar centres to compare their costs, and we will publish
the findings
shortly. 9.45
pm I
will use this opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset
and North Poole about outreach. It is not mentioned explicitly in the
legislation because it is already provided for in the Childcare Act
2006. Section 3 requires local authorities to identify parents who
would not access early childhood services of their own accord and
encourage them to use those
services.
Annette
Brooke: It is an interesting reflection that it is
specified in the 2006 Act. In all the evaluations of Sure Start
centres, outreach work is one of the weakest aspects. Perhaps we need
something on top of the existing
legislation.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Or maybe we just need to ensure that the
existing legislation is adhered to. That is the outreach activity that
we require all children’s centres to
undertake. Amendments
369, 527, 370 and 528 seek to amend the provision that we are building
into section 3 of the Childcare Act 2006 through clause 189 to require
local authorities to consider the quality, quantity and location of
existing services in the area as they make arrangements for integrated
early childhood services. On quality, I am sympathetic to the broad
thrust of amendments 369 and 370, which I believe are intended to embed
a culture of quality improvement in the delivery of early years
services.
We share that
commitment, but we believe that it is very much within the spirit of
the existing legislation. For example, the early years foundation stage
helps ensure that whatever setting parents choose, they can be
confident that their child will receive a quality experience that
supports their learning and development. Our graduate leader fund and
early years professional status are driving up work force
standards. We
also recognise the extra value and expertise brought to services for
children and families by organisations in the private, voluntary and
independent sectors. We want to ensure that Sure Start
children’s centre services include the best of those. We have
been clear all along that in making provision for integrated early
learning and child care within Sure Start children’s centres, we
do not expect local authorities to set up in competition with existing
good-quality provision.
We believe
that amendment 527, which requires local authorities to have regard to
the sustainability of early childhood services provided in the area, is
also unnecessary. Clause 189 makes it explicit that a local authority
must have regard to the services already available in the area when
deciding arrangements for integrating early childhood services, and it
follows that services should be
sustainable. Amendment
528, which would require local authorities to have regard to the
desirability of maintaining a range of different types of service,
including those from the private and voluntary sector, is also
unnecessary. I have explained that we have long recognised the extra
value and expertise brought to children’s services by
organisations in the private, voluntary and independent sectors.
Indeed, we have made it a condition of grant that authorities consider
and consult all local child care providers before
deciding how child care in children’s centres will be delivered.
With that, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her
amendment. | 
