Clause 2 - Meaning of “early childhood services” for purposes of section 3
Childcare Bill
5:00 pm
Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing and Shoreham, Conservative)
We are making rapid progress: we are on clause 2—and it is dark.
Again, these are probing amendments that set out some of the differences, or similarities, between the Bill and the 2004 Act. The Act talks of children’s services departments. I know that there have been big changes in local authority social services departments, which are now split into adult services departments and children’s services departments. As part of the 2004 Act, local authorities are required specifically to establish directors of children’s services, a function that we agree with, as the buck with whom responsibility should stop for problems relating to the abuse of children or indeed welfare criteria. That was a new provision in the Act that we very much supported.
In probing with amendments Nos. 68 and 69, I am therefore asking the Minister why we still refer to the local authority’s social services functions, when, to mirror the terminology of the 2004 Act, we could refer to children’s services. Clearly adult services will not have a direct role in this matter, which is limited to children’s services. Amendment No. 68 would make that change in clause 2(1)(b). The addition of children’s services, again as per the 2004 Act, is relevant in subsection (2). Either there has been a mistake or there is a good reason for the drafting, on which the Minister will enlighten us.
I deal now with the third of the trio of amendments, although I think I know the answer to this point, which was raised by the National Union of Teachers. Another element of the reorganisation of social services into children’s services departments is the fact that there should be a lead elected member of the local authority who will have responsibility over various children’s services matters. I think that that responsibility is automatically transferred, as part of the legislation. Is that the case? I am referring specifically to clause 16. If that is not the case, why is the lead member for children’s services not being given responsibility over this child care legislation, considering that he or she has been given responsibility for the other activities of children’s services through the 2004 Act?
These probing amendments were tabled to try to get some continuity with the 2004 Act. I see that in-flight refuelling is now arriving to give us a reason for the difference.