Clause 1 - General functions of local authority: England
Childcare Bill
12:30 pm
Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing and Shoreham, Conservative)
We are in danger of having interventions on interventions, such is the excitement of Labour Members.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us say that the gap widens, with whatever unintended consequences, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, because the better-off seem to be doing even better despite the local authority going hell for leather to concentrate its resources, time, effort and everything else on the most disadvantaged children and their welfare outcomes. Is it the fault of the local authority that, although it has done a tremendous job in improving the standards of the most disadvantaged, the measurements show that the gap has widened? What penalty will be brought against it if the gap has widened, but all standards have gone up considerably? At the end of the day, that is the question to which local authorities need and deserve an answer, and that is why it is most important that the authority does its job and concentrates on the most disadvantaged rather than on narrowing a gap, which may or may not produce a better outcome for everybody.
I am genuinely grateful for the Minister’s comments on amendment No. 66, as I think that we are arguing for the same thing. However, I do not think that she made a good case, or that she believed in the case that she was trying to make, as to why a qualitative element should not be inserted. As I said, quality does not feature in the Bill, although it features in the principles and aims that the Minister has agreed we need to try to achieve. Including a qualitative element but not excluding some quantitative valuations for obvious reasons—she cited some examples—would send out a helpful signal to local authorities when trying to implement the measure.
I was not as convinced by the Minister’s criticism of amendments Nos. 67 and 116, which would ensure that the targets were not, in effect, self-defeating. She claimed that they would leave it to local authorities to decide on the use of targets, but that would not be the case, as we have not suggested removing subsection (3), which relies on the Secretary of State to prescribe targets if that is what must happen to measure the outcomes. It would be a requirement of the Secretary of State, not a judgment of a local authority, to ensure that one target does not undermine another one. So the Minister’s case against the amendments does not stack up. She claimed that they would do something that, clearly, they could not do unless the first line of subsection (3) were removed.
Having said that, there is a clear division between the Opposition and the Government. Labour appear to be concentrating on gaps and we are concentrating on the quality and equality of opportunity for all children, regardless of artificial gaps.