Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments:

No. 118, in clause 4, page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1)For the purposes of this section the relevant partners of a local authority in England are those specified in section 10(4) of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31).’.

No. 73, in clause 4, page 3, line 19, after ‘Trust’, insert ‘or other health trusts’.

No. 180, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, at end insert—

‘(c)a person providing services under section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) in any part of the area of the authority;

(d)the Learning and Skills Council for England.’.

No. 119, in clause 4, page 3, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2)Each local authority in England, in the performance by the authority of its duties under sections 1 and 3, must make arrangements to promote co-operation between—

(a)the authority;

(b)each of the authority’s relevant partners; and

(c)such other persons or bodies as the authority considers appropriate, being persons or bodies of any nature who exercise functions or are engaged in activities in relation to young children in the authority’s area.’.

No. 87, in clause 4, page 3, line 23, leave out ‘work with’ and insert ‘promote co-operation between’.

No. 120, in clause 4, page 3, line 41, at end add—

‘(7)In making arrangements under this section, a local authority in England must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of young children.’.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

May I take this opportunity to welcome you as Chairman, Mr. Benton? I served under your chairmanship on another piece of children’s legislation without too much mishap, so I hope that we can repeat that experience.

The intention of amendment No. 87 is to reflect the terminology of the Children Act 2004. It is a probing amendment that explores the language of co-operation   between the local authority and its partners as set out in whichever of the lists the Minister wishes to use, be it the full list in the 2004 Act—as one of our amendments suggests—or the abridged version that appears in the Bill.

We are questioning how “work with” is better than “promote co-operation between”, given that so much falls on the shoulders of local authorities. Clearly, there must be joint responsibilities for the provisions to work That will require the co-operation of all partners. It bestows a greater obligation on the other parties—the police, the health authorities and so on—to play an integral part in the promotion of the well-being and welfare criteria that we discussed. Perhaps the Minister will give the Government’s impression of why “work with” should be included as opposed to the co-operation between partners that we agreed without any great discord during our deliberations on the 2004 Act.

Amendment No. 120 addresses something on which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) touched, and for which she and I pushed in the 2004 Act. This part of the Bill is aboutd¤the responsibilities of local authorities to disadvantaged children and the promotion of children’s welfare requirements generally. Surely it must be sensible for parents to be part of that equation. They do not necessarily have to be on the list of partners required to co-operate, but a local authority should take into account the wishes, circumstances, position and prospects of the parents of a child whom the Bill aims to help.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many of the children who I hope will be assisted by the Bill may well be part of lone-parent families in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Therefore, they may well be moved around a borough and face a conflict between where is best from a housing and accommodation perspective and where a nursery place or child care is provided. That is a difficult balance for councils and parents to strike. Any guidance that we can give will be valuable.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a good point that goes back to our earlier discussion. We can provide all numbers and types of child care places, but if they are not in the right places, they will not be taken up by the people who most need to take advantage of them. If we are to improve accessibility for disadvantaged children from disadvantaged families, transport is often a key consideration. Those families do not have the flexibility of transport that other, less disadvantaged, families may have. Her point about including the geographical circumstances is right in that respect.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that it is vital to take on board the views of parents and carers if flexible child care is required, for example? I am talking about sessions for particular reasons, such as to access training. I do not understand how the planning can be carried out without reference to the needs of parents.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

The hon. Lady is right. In relation to how we assessed the Bill, flexibility was a key consideration for many of us on Second Reading. Again, this is not a numbers game; it is about quality, accessibility and take-up. If we are trying to make it easier for parents to access good quality child care in order to access job markets, which they might not have been able to do before, obviously a local authority would be foolish not to take account of their circumstances when deciding how to implement the requirements. A local authority could say, “We’ve created 50 per cent. more child care places,” but find that the take-up of them was rather low because they were in the wrong part of that local authority’s area.

Flexibility must be a key consideration, which is why I phrased the amendment to include not just parents but “other persons caring”, who may be—again, this point is particularly applicable to disadvantaged families—extended family members or non-related carers. That also brings up the subject of looked-after children, where the local authority, either through placements in foster care or direct placements in children’s homes, plays the part of the parent with parental responsibility. I will not go into that in too much detail now because we have some later amendments that refer specifically to the role of looked-after children.

I have tried to phrase the amendment as helpfully as possible. I would be surprised if the Minister felt that she was not able to accept it for reasons of principle, but if there are some practical reasons why it is not appropriate, I would be pleased to reconsider the way in which it is phrased. Taking into account the considerations of the carers of a child must be vital.

The amendments are largely probing. They are aimed at teasing out some of the information that we talked about. Amendment No. 120, in particular, is aimed at strengthening the considerations in relation to local authorities to ensure that everybody appropriate has been consulted and that their circumstances have been taken on board before the legislation is implemented.

Andrew Selous (Whip, Whips; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I apologise to you and the Committee for not being here at 4 o’clock, Mr. Benton. I am afraid that I have one or two other responsibilities that prevented me from being here at the start.

On amendment No. 120, I must admit that I am pretty surprised that parents have not been included as relevant partners under clause 4. If I may, I will return to the debate that we had on clause 1. I will be extremely brief because I know that you will rule me out of order if I spend too much time on it, Mr.d¤Benton.

Clause 1 starts by dealing with improving the well-being of all young children, as the Minister reminded us a number of times. It is surprising, at the very least, that parents are not mentioned explicitly in connection with that and specifically in relation to clause 4, to which amendment No. 120 refers. It must be obvious that even if children in school are in child care before or after they go to school, or if pre-school children are in child care for considerable periods, there is still time   when they are with their parents or carers in the evenings and at weekends. We all know that the attitude of parents to the well-being and specifically to the education of their children varies enormously from family to family. Whatever the level of child care and however excellent the facilities provided, if children go back to a home where the parents are involved with them—perhaps by sitting down and helping them to do their homework, by working out what problems they have had at school that day, by concentrating on the child’s weakest subject, which they work through in detail, and by providing extra support with homework in the evenings and at weekends—that will make a major difference to children’s performance.

That is a key aspect of the Bill, but parents cannot do that all on their own. Conservative Members accept the intention that child care provides all children and specifically the most disadvantaged children with the very best possible start in life. However, we must convince many more parents of the most disadvantaged children of the importance of hands-on involvement. It should not just be a middle-class preoccupation. It is a task for all of us who care about such matters to persuade parents of the concept of being key partners with the school and child care providers in boosting the life chances of children. Without that, we will be bitterly disappointed in the Bill’s results.

I may have misunderstood the place of parents in the Bill because I saw the Minister shake her head, so I will listen with interest to what she says, but I, for one, am alarmed that parents are not specifically mentioned in clause 4.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

May I add similar sentiments, Mr. Benton, to those expressed by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)? It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in the Committee for the first time.

To improve the well-being of young children and reduce inequalities, the intention is that local authorities and their key partners must work closely together. We are not simply repeating section 10 of the 2004 Act. We are trying to build on the partnership as defined in that Act in a way that best suits the developmental progress of young children and the provision of early childhood services for the youngest children under five. As we discussed, it is important for the integration that we want to achieve—we know that that is important for outcomes—that those partners work together with a shared vision and with an integrated provision of services. We know that that can have a dramatic effect on outcomes for young children.

Clause 4 places a duty on local authorities and their partners in health care and in Jobcentre Plus to work together to improve the outcomes for young children. That will continue to develop the approach that was first set out in section 10 of the 2004 Act, under which local authorities must make arrangements to promote co-operation with relevant partners, with the aim of improving outcomes. Therefore, the 2004 Act aims to promote co-operation at all levels—governance,   strategy, structures, implementation—and section 10 is the provision under which the arrangements for children’s trusts are being developed.

The Bill takes that duty for young children further in three ways. First, it includes Jobcentre Plus, which we believe is important to improve the life chances of young children; secondly, it sets out how partners must work together to deliver services at the front line in ways that improve outcomes and reduce inequalities; and, thirdly, it focuses on young children in a way that ensures that services for them have the same importance and status as the statutory school system.

This group of amendments proposes replacing significant parts of clause 4 with the relevant subsections of section 10 of the 2004 Act. Although I fully endorse the approach taken by that Act, we want to develop it further in a way that is relevant for very young children. Instead of putting the onus on the local authority to promote co-operation between each partner and itself, the Bill puts the emphasis on the three partners vital to the well-being of the youngest children working together pro-actively to deliver those services at the front line. It is a stronger duty in the sense that each of the three has a duty to work actively with the other two. I hope that hon. Members can see that the Bill therefore takes the duty contained in the 2004 Act to another level.

The partners must deliver services in the ways set out in clause 3 and that must be integrated to maximise access and benefits to service users. The partners must also reach out actively to the most needy families and must involve parents in the planning and delivery of those services. I shall return to that point later in response to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).

It is vital that strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and Jobcentre Plus take the initiative to deliver effective early childhood services to improve outcomes for young children. The emphasis in the Bill on “working together” rather than on “the promotion of co-operation” achieves that. I hope that members of the Committee will accept that, for those reasons, the Bill follows the drift of what they want to achieve and imposes on the three partners a stronger duty to work actively with one another. Therefore, I hope that members of the Committee will accept that the amendments are not only unnecessary, but would take us back to a weaker and less specific duty on those three partners.

While others apart from those three may have a role to play from time to time, the Bill places a specific focus on the organisations that, in practice, are essential to improving the outcomes of young children up to compulsory school age—health and employment services and local authorities.

The primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are essential to the success of Sure Start children’s centres, as they are the universal services provided for babies and young children. We recognise, however, that other NHS services such as foundation   trusts or mental health trusts, which were mentioned this morning, are key providers of relevant services. However, they retain a responsibility to provide those services as agreed under contracts with the primary care trusts that are the service commissioners, so it is unnecessary to add “other health trusts” as proposed by amendment No. 73.

We have deliberately not named all the relevant partners identified in section 10 of the 2004 Act because, as hon. Members began to recognise this morning, a number of those partners—for example, those in the criminal justice system—are not essential to the delivery of early childhood services. The same applies for local Connexions partnerships, which focus on supporting teenagers and young people, and for the Learning and Skills Council. It would not be appropriate to compel them to work with local authorities to deliver through children’s centres serving children under school age in the way outlined and required under clause 3.

As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, the Learning and Skills Council has an important role to play in effective training of the work force in delivering services for children. I agree that training of the work force is one important factor in driving up quality. The local learning and skills councils provide training for the children’s work force through contracts with training providers. However, the children’s trust arrangements under the Children Act 2004 already identify the LSC as a relevant partner in improving the well-being of children of all ages. It works closely with the linked local authorities to ensure that training provision meets the needs of the work force.

As I have explained, the partners identified in clause 4 are those that directly deliver integrated early childhood services. The LSC has an important role to play in equipping the early-years work force to deliver high-quality provision, but it does not actively deliver those services to young children itself, so it would not be appropriate to refer to the LSC in that clause.

I recognise, however, that local authorities must have flexibility to involve all, and any, organisations that could contribute to improving the life chances of young children. That is why clause 3 places a duty on local authorities to encourage and facilitate the involvement of

“other persons engaged in activities which may improve the well-being of young children in their area.”

Hon. Members will find that in subsection (4)(c). It will ensure that any organisation that contributes, including other children’s trust partners, is not excluded from involvement where appropriate—quite the opposite. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members are satisfied that amendments Nos. 118 and 180 are unnecessary.

On amendment No. 120, I agree completely about the importance of involving parents and other persons caring for children. The speeches made by Opposition Members were well taken and they are absolutely right. The research tells us that the single most important factor, over and above child characteristics, home characteristics and school characteristics, for   children’s outcomes is parents, who can be a protective positive factor or a negative factor. There is no question about that, and I agree completely about the importance of involving them. That is why clause 3 stipulates that local authorities

“must take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate the involvement ... of ... parents and prospective parents in their area”

in the planning and delivery of services.

The definition of parents, specifically in clause 2(2) is, as hon. Members will see, wide, covering parents and carers. In addition, the requirement to involve early-years providers ensures that professional carers are involved. I hope that hon. Members agree that we have already provided in clause 3 for parents to be fully involved by local authorities, not only in planning but in delivering on their duties to improve the well-being of young children and reduce inequalities. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members agree that amendment No. 120 is also unnecessary.

Amendment No. 176 would require authorities, their relevant partners in social, health and employment services and other child care providers to work together to suggest targets for improving the well-being of children. That additional duty is not the best way to produce targets that are agreed at local level. Statutory targets have a place, which is why we intend to set out in regulations the process for setting them. I have already explained that, in practice, that will operate through the existing process for priorities meetings and will involve local authorities, health providers, health services and any other partners at local level that local authorities wish to invite. They will have a meeting with their strategic adviser from the Government Office and there will be a discussion and an agreement about appropriate targets, including statutory targets.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I am already receiving some reassurance from the Minister, but would she be prepared to place on record that, under normal circumstances, those targets will not be dictated from Whitehall down to local authorities?

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I am happy to put that on the record. Let me give the hon. Lady further reassurance. The next two Government amendments—the point she raised this morning—are precisely designed to ensure that what we set out in the regulations and guidance will be the process for setting targets, not the targets themselves. They will be mutually agreed at a local level with strategic advisers. They can feed into the children’s plan and will provide indicators for local area agreements with local authorities or local public service agreements if the authority so wishes. I hope that I have shown in summary how the approach we adopted in the Bill works best for young children.

I hope that I have assured Members on the points that they have raised and that they agree that their amendments are not necessary.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

May I also say, Mr. Benton, that it will be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for part of the Bill? You chaired the proceedings on the Children Bill and so there will be some continuity, which is always good.

I thank the Minister for her detailed response. Some useful points have been placed on the record, which was the purpose of several of the amendments. As an initial response to try to decipher the meaning of working in co-operation and working together it was a helpful start, although we may want to revisit it.

We will continue the debate on amendment No. 146 later, if we may. I am pleased to have some reassurance there. On amendments Nos. 118 and 180, again, I listened carefully to the Minister. I may need to revisit the matter of the Learning and Skills Council. An exceptional work force are effectively starting from a low qualifications base. We have lots of potentially very talented people but the qualifications and the professional development are really lacking in what is, as was said on Second Reading, the most crucial time of interaction with children. It is important that the Learning and Skills Council must be fully on board in terms of the allocation of resources for training. I am prepared to accept what the Minister says at this point.

I am not altogether reassured on amendment No.d¤120. The Minister invited us to have a look at clause 3. I see the word “parents”, but I do not pick up that they are listened to. It seems to me that we are possibly telling parents what they might want, and indeed we are seeking them out. Those are all useful things in terms of providing information, but I do not specifically see provision for listening to parents and looking at the whole situation from their perspective. I am happy to be corrected.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to clause 3(4) to see whether that satisfies her. It states:

“An English local authority must take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate the involvement in the making and implementation of arrangements under this section of—

(a) parents and prospective parents in their area”.

That includes listening as well as talking and possibly telling. It involves them in the making and implementation of all those arrangements.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for her intervention, and I accept, on the record, that the making and implementation of arrangements involves listening. She will take my point that that is not on the face of the Bill in the way that was implied by the earlier reference. I thank her for her response and, although there are one or two areas that we need to revisit at a later stage in the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No.d¤128, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out ‘prescribe’ and insert

‘, in accordance with regulations, set’.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 129.

Amendment No. 192, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

‘(4A)In exercising their functions, an English local authority must ensure that—

(a)the improvement of well-being of young children in its area is monitored and evaluated;

(b)the reduction of inequalities between young children in its area is monitored and evaluated;

(c)young children’s views and experiences are included in any monitoring and evaluation undertaken under this section; and

(d)a report on improvements in young children’s well-being and the reduction of inequalities between young children in its area is made annually to the Secretary of State.’.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

The two Government amendments make a minor change to the wording but an important, substantive change to the Secretary of State’s power to set targets for local authorities in improving outcomes for young children and narrowing the gaps in their achievement. Subsection (3) requires the targets for improving well-being and reducing inequality to be set out in the regulations. As we intend targets to be set for each local authority after discussion, the subsection is clearly not practical or correct. Amendment No. 128 clarifies that the regulations mentioned in subsection (3) would prescribe the procedures by which targets would be set, and amendment No. 129 makes a minor consequential change to subsection (4).

Although we cannot provide precise draft regulations to the Committee today, I can give an indication of their content. We envisage that regulations would set out the broad areas that statutory targets must address, which may vary from time to time, and we also require the Secretary of State to take account of local authorities’ representations about their individual targets. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that targets will genuinely be set, as I have said on the record, with local authorities and their partners, rather than being imposed by central Government without discussion.

Although I hesitate to re-open the debate with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham over whether targets should be qualitative or quantitative, we will need to be able to measure outcomes. Perhaps an example would be helpful. Deciding whether a young child is healthy is a matter for a doctor’s professional judgment. Assessing a local authority’s contribution through children’s centres to the health of young children would be very burdensome, unless we use some proxy indicators. For example, with the health of young children, we might consider child obesity levels or the numbers of children attending accident and emergency as a proxy for their health and safety. In the current climate of reducing central control and increasing local autonomy, it is important as a way of directing local resources to achieve the aim of improving well-being of young children. Statutory targets have an important role in that. However, I appreciate that in setting targets, we must take care that they are proportionate and avoid creating   perverse incentives, but that they need to push forward the continued development of early childhood services.

Because of the serious nature of the power to set targets, it is right that the process by which they are set should be set out in regulations that are both transparent and subject to parliamentary process. I envisage that regulations would set out the broad areas that mandatory targets must address. As currently worded, the individual targets would, as I have said, need to be set out in regulations, but that is clearly not the way to go. The regulations must set out the process and I hope that I have explained that clearly. I recommend that the two amendments be adopted by the Committee.

Amendment No. 192 is designed to compel local authorities to evaluate and report on the measures that they take to improve the well-being of young children. I appreciate that evaluation and monitoring are an essential part of the process, but it is not necessary to put them in statute. Members of the Committee who are familiar with “Every Child Matters” will know about the improvement cycle for children’s services, which is a process of continuous assessment, planning and evaluation that includes a local assessment of needs, discussion of priorities with local partners and central Government, and local development of the children and young people’s plan. The evaluation of all local services is conducted through the joint area review, which includes a survey of the views of children and young people, and Ofsted monitors local authority children’s services through the data-based annual performance assessment. The final children and young people’s plan, the annual performance assessment and the joint area review are all submitted to the Secretary of State. There are, therefore, robust apparatus for inspection and monitoring in place, which ensure that evaluation is carried out at a local level by the local authority and its key partners, and by independent inspectorates.

Our approach, which is consistent with the general direction of travel of government, has been to create a legal framework with only as much prescription as is absolutely necessary, so that local authorities and their partners can develop services that best suit the needs of children and the circumstances of their area. Clause 16 brings the duties in part 1 of the Bill into the remit of the processes of the children and young people’s plan and the joint area review. I hope that hon. Members will accept that those robust apparatus mean that the amendment is not necessary.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for her elaboration regarding the regulations. I have a few points to make on amendment No. 192. I am a little saddened that the Minister dismissed it quite so quickly, and there are a few questions to which I would like to tease out answers.

The amendment was tabled because, as was shown by our discussion this morning, there needs to be clarity about how on earth reducing inequalities will work in practice. There is an outcomes framework, which came in this September. I understand that the targets that specifically cover the early years are a little   patchy. I think that the framework concerns such things as infant mortality rates and the level of development reached at the end of foundation stage. Will an outcomes framework be developed for children under five? We could have a great deal of partnership working in developing the framework for younger children.

The Minister mentioned existing joint area review inspection processes. It is important to appreciate how they will fit in with the new duties on local authorities.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Durham, City of, Labour)

Can the hon. Lady help me to understand her point. This morning she abstained on amendment No.d¤64, demonstrating, I think, that she is indifferent as to whether reducing inequalities is in the Bill, yet she is now asking for additional monitoring to be put in place to reduce inequalities. I am not sure that that is a consistent approach.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I am clear that I am approaching matters consistently, and I am not really interested in getting into political crossfire. I explained exactly why I took that stance this morning, and any justification that needed to be made was made then. Throughout my contributions, certainly, I have made the point that how the provision is implemented is all important. I am talking about the practical implementation rather than the theoretical interpretation. What I am saying is particularly relevant at this time and, given the later recommendations in the Bill, I was disappointed to be intervened on during something as important as asking whether there will be an outcomes framework for children from birth to five years.

There are processes through which children’s views are obtained, as the Minister explained. With this amendment, I have in mind the views of young children. I shall expand on that in some depth when we debate a later amendment. The work that has been done to gather young children’s views is interesting, and some of it has been funded by the Government. The booklets and pamphlets produced by the National Children’s Bureau are absolutely fascinating. They show that it is not a one-way system, but an interactive system. The introduction of the idea that young children’s views should be taken on board would be a big step forward.

I am really taken by the NCB pamphlets. We read young children’s views on food and, as anybody who has helped to feed a child knows, they can express those views in all sorts of ways. One pamphlet is about determining the viewpoints of young disabled children. That is so interesting and so pertinent to the Bill. I should like the Minister to respond to that point. I listened carefully to what she said about the provision being too prescriptive. There are processes in place, but I want to be assured that the processes are tailored to work with the Bill and the new duty on local authorities.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

I thank the Minister as it is useful to have some illustrative examples of forthcoming regulations, although I was disappointed when she started by talking about broad areas that may be varied by the Secretary of State, taking into account   local authority representations. It did not give us much more detail than the Bill, although she mentioned a couple of useful and obvious health outcomes. If she continues to give us examples, they will help our deliberations in the absence even of draft regulations, let alone regulations themselves. I have no great argument with what she is attempting with the Government amendment.

I have some sympathy with the Liberal Democrat amendment. We have been consistent, because amendment No. 65 to this clause sought to change the reduction on inequalities to raising the quality of outcomes for the most disadvantaged. We have been entirely consistent, even though we have been defeated by the greater numbers if not the strength of argument of the Government Members.

As I mentioned in my opening comments, if the Bill is to mean anything, the improvement in well-being and the welfare criteria must be properly monitored and evaluated. I have a deal of sympathy with taking account of young children’s views. It is particularly hard—much harder than in the Children Bill, when many of us argued for and succeeded in reinforcing the need to consult children. I know that it is something that the new Children’s Commissioner for England is keen to do and has actively done during his few months in the position.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) commented on children’s eating habits and food labelling, and how it is essential to take into account how young people react to certain food products and the way in which those products are packaged. I have recounted the experiment that I carried out with two of my children when they were aged about eight and 10. I took them to Tesco, gave them each £10 and instructed them to buy food for the following day’s meals, which they thought very exciting. They came back having spent within a few pennies of their £10. They had lots of things that contained 49 per cent. sugar but were in packages with nice cartoon characters on the front. They had crisps that were endorsed by certain celebrities, and various things that were not terribly good for them. In many cases, they had been attracted by the way the products were presented.

I admit that my children were exceedingly good at getting great value for money on two-for-one offers and so on. I was therefore proud of them in one respect but disappointed that, predictably, they had responded to things that were not best for them. We are all concerned about achieving better responses from children. Obviously, if that goes for slightly older children, it goes all the more for younger children, who would just throw a hissy fit and refuse to eat their greens or whatever it may be. We must explore ways of taking children’s views on board, and I hope that there will be reference to that in some of the accompanying regulations or guidance to local authorities when they are published.

My final point on amendment No. 192 is about reporting to the Secretary of State. If such reports are to be meaningful, it is important that they be made to Parliament rather than to the Secretary of State—I shall not go into detail about that at the moment—so that we can find out how the proposals are working or not working, in which case they may need to be adjusted. If that is to be done by affirmative resolution, we will know how to adjust them at some future stage.

We sought assurances in the 2004 Act that annual reporting by, for example, the Children’s Commissioner would go to Parliament primarily, rather than to the Secretary of State who may choose not to publish all the information that is provided to him. Some of us would be very much in favour of a mechanism whereby the Education and Skills Committee or a Sub-Committee would have an annual sitting for the Children’s Commissioner or for reports on the well-being of children and how that has improved or not in the year. Such reports could be scrutinised by the Select Committee or Sub-Committee in much the same way as the Governor of the Bank of England, by tradition, appears before the Treasury Committee once a year. If we are putting all these new mechanisms in place, it is important that there is a way for us in this place to monitor them in a clear, transparent and meaningful way.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is happy with some of the responses on the amendment that she received from the Minister and, in principle, I have a good deal of sympathy with some of the things that it is trying to achieve.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I am grateful for those comments from Opposition Members. I shall try to deal with their further queries. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked about defining and then assessing outcomes. In fact, we will develop a new outcome framework and review the early-years and child care components of the annual performance assessment and the comprehensive performance assessment. Obviously, they will have to relate to the early-years foundation stage that we shall discuss later in the Bill.

We will also develop a performance management framework with performance indicators for children’s centres. They will be based on the five outcomes in “Every Child Matters” so that, at the level of setting as well as at the local authority level, an apparatus will be in place to require the local authority and the children’s centre staff to monitor how they are doing and evaluate their performance against indicators.

Both Opposition Members raised the importance of the views of children. I agree that the views of children, even those under five, should be sought and deployed when delivering services. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, valuable work is being undertaken by partners, particularly in the voluntary sector, to produce good practice guidance on how we can consult children, including those with a range of disabilities, in individual settings. Through the   children’s centre guidance, we are encouraging local authorities to use their resources to consult young children who use the services.

On the final point made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I said earlier that the measures of performance—the annual performance assessment, the comprehensive performance assessment and the joint area review—were submitted to the Secretary of State. They are submitted to the Secretary of State, but, of course, they are all published by the various organisations that undertake them, whether we are talking about Ofsted or the Audit Commission. Those documents are in the public domain and anybody can get hold of them.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I apologise because I am going back to an earlier point. Will the Minister assure me that working up the new outcomes will be done in conjunction with relevant partners in the voluntary sector?

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I certainly will. As I said at the beginning—this is the case throughout the guidance on the Bill—we will consult widely and extensively on all the matters that we have yet to define in detail, including the outcomes framework and the foundation stage itself.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

I understand that the figures that Ofsted produces are published when a copy is given to the Secretary of State. That happens simultaneously, so there is no problem about the figures being transparent. The problem with the Children’s Commissioner’s report is that it is not published until the Secretary of State has scrutinised it and the Secretary of State may seek to change it. We are concerned because the figures should be published in full for Parliament to see, rather than having a situation in which a Secretary of State could choose to—that is not to say that he or she would—censor them in some way by removing parts of the information.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I have not specifically discussed the Children’s Commissioner’s report with the commissioner, but I have had several meetings with him and I would be astonished if he allowed anybody—the Secretary of State or otherwise—to change his report. He quite rightly guards his independence and his reputation very jealously. With regard to the other measures of assessment that the hon. Gentleman was referring to, the outcomes of those assessments, as I think that he acknowledged, are owned by other bodies, not by the Department for Education and Skills. We receive them, but they are published and are in the public domain.

I hope that, with those assurances, Members will be happy to accept the Government amendment and that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will not press her amendment.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I am happy not to press my amendment, but we may wish to revisit the idea of an annual report to Parliament.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert

‘and explained as clearly and transparently as possible to parents.’.

This is a probing amendment and it would be useful to have the Minister’s response. It still relates to the exercising of the functions of local authorities in order to secure the targets—that horrible word—that have been laid down by the Secretary of State. There should be a clear steer for local authorities to make the information as user-friendly as possible. Most parents, whether they come from an advantaged or disadvantaged background, will have little knowledge of the well-being criteria and precious little knowledge of what it means in terms of the impact on their child. That is not to undermine the interest and concern of parents, but the information will not register.

Talking in broad terms, mental health and emotional well-being may mean many different things to many different people. It should be inherent in the advice given to local authorities enacting the legislation to secure those targets that they should go out of their way, particularly as this is pioneering legislation and parents have not been used to this level of support being marshalled by local authorities, to ensure that the information provided is as clear, user-friendly and transparent as possible.

The criteria may mean anything to anybody. For example, subsection (2)(d) refers to

“the contribution made by them to society”.

Does that mean their contribution if they have been successful enough to play football for the England football team or to win the Eurovision song contest? The criteria need to be explained in terms that parents can relate to, so that they know what to expect. If we are to empower parents more and give them greater control over the way they can access child care, they need to know what to expect when it goes right or if they fear that it is going wrong and what should have happened to provide them with the quality child care that they were led to expect.

This is a probing amendment that suggests that if the targets are to be meaningful, there should be a clear directive such as a local authority producing simple, straightforward pamphlets saying “This is what you can expect for your child in this borough.” That would be helpful and I am sure that that is the Government’s intention if the proposals are to mean anything. It is worth bringing the matter up in Committee to allow the Minister to signal her agreement and to explain in what practical way that will be achieved.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I agree with the spirit of the amendment in that parents should be given as much information as possible and that that should be done in a way that is meaningful and transparent to them.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill already places several duties on local authorities in this regard. Clause 12 places a specific duty on them to establish and maintain a service that provides information, advice and assistance to parents not just about the provision of child care but about any services or facilities that they need to support themselves and their young children. That duty is the most effective way of ensuring that parents and prospective parents receive the information they need about services.

The hon. Gentleman proposes to require local authorities to explain to parents any targets that might have been set by the Secretary of State. There are already two ways under the Bill in which that can and will be done. Under the 2004 Act, local authorities must produce and publish a children and young person’s plan setting out their strategy for delivering services. Hon. Members who are involved with their local authorities will be aware that most of them have made a great deal of progress in making those high-level plans accessible and meaningful.

The children and young people’s plan covers all children and young people in the authority’s area, including their early childhood services, and clearly will have to contain all the relevant information in an accessible way, along with anything relating to targets. However, what is more important for children’s centres—the main vehicle for delivering early childhood services—is that in spring next year, as I have just said in reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, we will publish a new performance management framework that will ask all children’s centres to publish annually a detailed account and self-evaluation of their services. It will include their contribution towards progress in the “Every Child Matters” outcomes and any national targets that we have set for the local authority involved.

The framework will have a clear focus on the quality of provision and how it improves outcomes for children, what parents can expect, what sense they can make of it and how it all hangs together. That is what parents want to know about—the quality of services and how their children can benefit from the integrated front-line services. As I say, that document, too, will contain details of national targets and the way in which the children’s centres are working towards them. I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will recognise that, at the local authority level and the children’s centre level, we intend to ensure that parents have full, accessible, transparent and meaningful information. I therefore hope that he will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister, who did what I hoped she would and gave some weight to the considerations that she was putting forward. Even if she does not consider it appropriate to put them in   the Bill, she clearly outlined the mechanisms by which such information will be made available, and must be made available if parents are to play an active and meaningful role. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.