Clause 2 - Meaning of “early childhood services” for purposes of section 3
Childcare Bill
5:30 pm
Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Children and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)
I hope that I can provide reassurance on the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I agree with him about the importance of looked-after children and the difficulties that they still face. When one looks at outcomes, it becomes clear that they are not doing as well as their peers who are not in care. I agree with him that when we come to evaluate the effectiveness of the legislation should it pass through its legislative stages in this House and the other place, the outcomes for looked-after children will be a key part in determining whether we look back on the Bill as a success and whether it does what we intend it to do.
Some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are absolutely right. In fact, in any one year, we are talking about some 90,000 rather than 61,000 children, because children come in and out of care, sometimes on a short-term basis. Although it is still a small minority, the figure is slightly larger than the one that he mentioned, which refers to children who are looked after from the beginning to the end of any one year.
The amendments would specifically include in the definition of “parent” in clause 2 individuals who are employed by local authorities to try to capture those who are looking after children in care. In the clause as it stands, a parent is defined as including any individual who
“has parental responsibility for a ... child, or ... care of a ... child.”
Therefore, any carer who is looking after a child on behalf of a local authority, regardless of who their employer is, is already included by virtue of being an individual with care of a child. I think that the hon. Gentleman suspected that that was the case, and he was right to do so. The intention is to ensure that when carrying out the new duties to improve outcomes, secure sufficient child care and provide information, local authorities do not lose sight of the looked-after children who are in their own care. That is the intention behind all the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman. That is, of course, not only laudable as an objective, but achieving it will be essential to the success of the Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman also said in his opening remarks, the consequences for looked-after children—the fact that they do so much worse than their peers who have not been in care—is reflected in the figures for homelessness and worklessness. He mentioned teenage pregnancy in that context, although he did not mention offending. A disproportionate number of those who have been in care engage in offending behaviour, and the consequences of that can be catastrophic, not only for the individual, but for others in society. Those are just the kind of children that the Bill should assist.
I think that there is agreement on both sides of the House about the importance of ensuring that the provisions of the Bill have an impact on looked-after children. We had a bit of a debate about gaps this morning and I think that the obligation to narrow the gap between those achieving the best and the worst outcomes will focus the minds of local authorities, and those on whom the obligations are placed in practice, on how to improve the outcomes for those who are doing worst, which, in many instances, will be looked-after children. The overall aim and intention of the Bill, if its provisions are implemented properly, is to focus its good effects particularly on looked-after children.
Looked-after children who are under five are entitled to their free early-years provision in the same way as other children. The local authority is under a duty to secure that provision under clause 7.
I shall clarify the point that the hon. Gentleman made about children’s homes. Clause 18(5) means that a place in a children’s home is not defined as child care in the Bill. The duty of the local authority to secure sufficient child care remains unchanged.
All hon. Members can agree on the need to bear in mind especially the impact of measures on looked-after children who, as the hon. Gentleman said, have higher levels of ill-health—often mental ill-health—and much higher levels of special educational needs. If the Bill, when it is enacted, is to make the difference that we all wish to see, it must have a positive impact on looked-after children.