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

I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 3, line 9, after ‘persons’, insert

‘and voluntary and professional bodies’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 193, in page 3, line 10, at end insert—

‘(d)young children’.

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

This is a probing amendment and has been grouped with a Liberal Democrat amendment that deals with a rather different subject, but we shall touch on that at the same time.

The clause includes a list of people with whom an English local authority must engage when it is drawing up and implementing its child care provision plans. We have no objection to that at all and we are particularly pleased with the reference to “parents and prospective parents”. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) will greet the inclusion of that as well; it is a subject he may wish to speak about later. The clause also refers to the need to consult early years providers and, equally importantly, it states that the private and voluntary independent sectors should be involved. I am pleased that they are mentioned because they are an important part of the child care provision that we are trying to improve.

The clause goes on to use the fairly catch-all term:

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

That refers only to people, so we have tabled a probing amendment that refers to voluntary and professional bodies. It is not clear from the explanatory notes whether they would be included automatically. I am sure that they should be and that the Minister intends for them to be included, but it would be useful to clarify the matter during the debate.

A great many voluntary organisations and charities involved with children have done a lot of work in this area and lobbied hard for much of what is in the Bill. They will be an essential part of local decision making and consultation by ensuring that what local   authorities are facilitating is appropriate and sufficient. There are also professional and trade bodies representing various independent nurseries; all sorts of other organisations have come together into lobby groups to lobby on the provisions. It is right that those groups should be given a role in what will not be an easy task—the new provision of child care—and it is essential that local authorities are left in no doubt that they should be consulted on an equal basis to the others explicitly listed in the clause. The amendment is a probing one, and I am hopeful that the Minister will say that those groups are automatically included under the various technical definitions used. It will be helpful for her to say that and send out a strong signal on the matter.

I have a good deal of sympathy with amendment No. 193, in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), which seeks to add young children to the list as an integral part of the consultation process. Just because a child is young, it does not mean that we can pat them on the head and ignore them.

The National Children’s Bureau has done some interesting work and produced interesting guidance on exactly how we can consult and take account of the views, wishes and preferences of young and very young children. They can be observed in different environments. When a nursery is being built or when a property is being adapted to be a nursery, it is essential to observe how children act in their environment. If the environment is wrong in terms of doors and windows, nooks and crannies, and places where they can play comfortably and be safe, their development and success at that nursery could be impaired. There are a number of ways in which to take on board the views of young children without requiring them to write an essay or to fill in a survey form for the local authority.

Another point, which is not pedantic, is that when we discussed the 2004 Children Bill the Government recognised the importance of properly consulting young children as part of the exercise of setting up the various structures in the legislation. The new children’s commissioner made that a key part of his mandate. Not only was he interviewed by young children, which was apparently one of the more gruelling parts of his selection process, he regularly consults and without a second thought includes children in the various processes that he is dealing with. It would be useful if that could be put in the Bill because it would send a clear signal to local authorities that they should do that automatically. That would greatly benefit the process and add to the quality of the outcomes.

We support the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady, as well as our amendment No. 72.

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

I want to reciprocate the support of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I agree with the principles of amendment No. 72. I am not sure about the drafting, but the hon. Gentleman has outlined the people and groups that   need to be fully involved. It would be comforting to those groups to state in the Bill that they will be involved throughout.

On amendment No. 193, I was heartened by the rebuff from the Minister on Tuesday in so far as I understand that under clause 3(4)

“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”.

I was assured that that included listening to parents as well as implementation. I am therefore encouraged that inserting paragraph (d), which would include listening to young children, into the list would be totally appropriate.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the pioneering work by the National Children’s Bureau and others, and I also referred to that at an earlier sitting. I am pleased that the Government have been so supportive of that work. However, to have a commitment to listen to the views of young children has yet to be enshrined in law and what better place to start than the Childcare Bill? This is an opportunity to be pioneering.

The Early Childhood Forum’s response to the consultation on the 10-year child care strategy states:

“In particular there is disappointment that the ethos of listening to children, which was prevalent in the Every Child Matters document, is not mentioned nearly enough to warrant recognition of the importance it has on the quality of service provision and the well being of children. Nor will this document be a catalyst for changing the attitudes towards listening to our youngest children. It would be a shame to miss the ideal opportunity to cement that commitment to listening to children from birth about the services they use.”

Listening to young children is a foundation for quality early childhood practice. In fact, it is a way of spreading best practice between local authorities and providers because the interaction would enhance the service and introduce all the practices that we will have, perhaps in regulations, when we know more about the early foundations stage.

It is an amendment that we can put forward confidently, because the additional duty of listening to young children is unlikely to be an added cost, for once. It is part of the process of improving the work force and raising quality. There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence showing how quality has been improved, and I want to refer to a paper that I was given by Investors in Children.

Mooney and Blackburn sought children’s views to identify some quality indicators for effective early years practice and environments that were used to inform the Government’s Investors in Children quality assurance scheme endorsement. Among the views expressed, it was suggested that child care settings should offer opportunities to be with friends as well as outdoor play space, refreshments, fair rules—I think that children are good at equality when they talk about what is fair and what is not fair—and caring and interested adults who listen. How often do we hear “Nobody is listening to me”? It was also suggested that child care settings should offer a safe environment—I think that children are good judges of that—and so on. The paper contains a great deal of good practice, and I offer the Minister this pioneering opportunity to agree to amendment No. 193.

Justine Greening (Putney, Conservative)

Perhaps the Minister can provide some clarification on this brief point when she responds to my hon. Friend.

Subsection (2) refers to the duty of local authorities to identify parents or prospective parents. I take it that that means biological prospective parents rather than people who are thinking of having children. I also note that clause 11(3) says:

“Subsequent childcare assessments must be prepared at intervals not exceeding three years.”

As parents are prospective parents for no more than nine months, I wonder whether there is a slight contradiction there that should be tidied up or clarified by the Minister. To fulfil their obligations, local authorities are likely to have to do inspections and assessments more frequently than every three years.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

Order. The Committee was delighted to listen to the hon. Lady, but may I gently tell her that what she said was not relevant to the amendments that we are debating; it is a point for clause stand part. I am sure that the Minister will know how to deal with the points that she made.

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

We have heard that amendment No. 72 would insert a specific reference to voluntary bodies into the duty on local authorities in subsection (4)(c). Before I reply, it might be helpful, given Tuesday’s debate, if I recap on the overall purpose of the opening group of clauses.

As the Committee appreciates, clauses 1 to 5 relate to the outcomes duty, but, in practice, their combined effect is to give Sure Start services statutory underpinning, with statutory guidance explaining how the new duties are to be achieved through the children’s centre way of working. To achieve the maximum effectiveness of services to improve children’s life chances in the way that we discussed on Tuesday, clause 3 sets out the essential characteristics of those early childhood services. They must be delivered in an integrated way to facilitate access and maximise the benefits to service users, they must include a proactive outreach approach and they must involve parents in the planning and provision of services. These services are the ones specified in clause 2—early years provision, social services, such as family support, information services provided by local authorities and relevant services provided by the national health service and Jobcentre Plus. Local authorities will be able to achieve that child-focused service delivery only by working with their partners to implement the duties as set out in clause 4.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole wants to ensure that local authorities include providers from the private and voluntary sectors in the planning and delivery of those services. Those sectors play a vital role in the provision of early childhood services, and I agree that it is important that planning builds on and maximises the potential of existing services. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham acknowledged, that is why   clause 3(4)(b) will give local authorities a duty to involve private and voluntary providers of early years provision.

Further, the duty in subsection (3)(c), on which the amendment focuses, is broadly drawn to cover everyone else who can contribute to improving the well-being of young children and to reducing inequalities. It places a wide responsibility on local authorities and their partners to involve other people and organisations engaged in relevant activities in the field of early childhood and children’s services. That includes any other relevant parts of the private and voluntary sector, beyond those early years providers referred to in subsection (4)(b), because securing the benefits of that mix of service provision is crucial to the success of children’s centres.

That is why we have reinforced that message in the children’s centres planning guidance, which was issued last year, and in the practice guidance, which was issued last week. We say that local authorities must work with the voluntary and professional bodies to plan and deliver children’s centres, and in particular they must be offered opportunities to participate in identifying local needs and developing plans to meet those needs. We stress that consultations must be held before decisions are taken about where centres should be based and what services they should provide.

We say also that local authorities should look to voluntary organisations, private companies and, in particular, social enterprise organisations not only to supply services, but to run and manage children’s centres. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be assured that the clause is widely drawn and encompasses the concerns and questions that he raised.

Amendment No. 193 would make local authorities take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate the involvement of young children not in the practice and services that they receive, on which the hon. Lady focused, but, in relation to this clause, in the planning of early childhood services.

We agree that early childhood services will be effective only if they engage not only parents, but children who use them. I am committed to that, and so are the Government. That includes listening to the views of children under five years old who use the service.

The clause would place a duty on local authorities to consult young children on the planning of services, because the words in the clause relate to the making and implementation of arrangements. I hope that the hon. Lady can appreciate that although she was talking about young children’s experience of the service delivery, there are practical difficulties in engaging that age group in meaningful, wide-ranging formal consultation about such questions as where children’s centres should be located.

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

I thought that it might be appropriate to insert listening to young children in that provision of the Bill, because the provision starts with   taking “all reasonable steps”. I agree with some of the Minister’s comments, but the caveat “reasonable steps” would not bring young children into some of the detailed physical arrangements the Minister might be talking about. I also concede that ethical considerations need to be taken on board when working with and listening to young children. Does the Minister think that

“must take all reasonable steps”

is the protective phrase, so that local authorities will not have a ridiculous duty placed on them?

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

I think that the phrase “all reasonable steps” concerns the scope of the duty, which is quite broad. The key question is what is it a duty to do. It is a duty to consult on matters such as where children’s centres should be. Consultation should take place on the strategic planning for children’s centre service delivery. The hon. Lady spoke knowledgably about the valuable work that has been done by the voluntary sector, and mention has been made of the Children’s Society, Mencap and the National Children’s Bureau, the work of which was funded by the Government. We are very committed to that.

The hon. Lady knows that such work is based on consulting children about their settings—what they would like to eat and drink, when they can go outside and how their experience should be organised from day to day—to involve and empower them to express their views about those experiences. I can reassure her about the concerns she expressed regarding the involvement of children at that level. It is a specialist area and it is rather too early to deal with it in this Bill. However, the children’s centre practice guidance, which I hope she has had a chance to examine, places the emphasis on practitioners listening to and involving children in the discussion of how things are organised and their experience in those settings.

The Bill requires local authorities actively to encourage and facilitate the involvement of parents when planning the provision for an area. For practical reasons, such as the ability of children to take part in high-level decisions and discussions, it is not appropriate to extend the requirement in clause 3 to young children. With regard to the day-to-day experience of children, I assure the hon. Lady that the guidance on the way in which children’s centres must be run already places a great emphasis on the involvement of children and the responsibility of practitioners to listen to them. I hope that she feels that that is acceptable and rather more appropriate.

Stephen Hesford (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Amos, President of the Council), Privy Council Office; Wirral West, Labour)

May I encourage my right hon. Friend to maintain her position? She is right that under subsection (4)(c), those involved will be able to take account of children’s views. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is not listening. Will those involved be able to take children’s issues into account, as the Minister outlines?

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

That is absolutely right. The process includes, of course, some of the most important people whom local authorities are required   to consult in the making of arrangements: the parents of very young children. I hope the hon. Lady accepts that it is much more appropriate that we involve children in the delivery of practice and that it would be neither appropriate nor straightforward for young children to be involved in planning matters or for the local authorities to consult formally that population about issues such as the siting of children’s centres.

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

Will the Minister comment on whether it would be desirable to include a requirement to listen to young children? She argues, fairly convincingly, that this might not be the right place in the Bill, but surely it is not enough to hide it away in guidance if we want to send a message to the sector about spreading good practice.

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

Such a requirement certainly will not be hidden away in the statutory guidance. There is an onus on us to try to make law that is feasible and reasonable. We are discussing decisions about where children’s centres would be best placed, who should manage them and which bodies apart from those listed in the Bill should be involved. It is not appropriate or feasible to expect local authorities to have a formal consultation with young children about such matters, as important as it is to push the boundaries further in involving young children in the issues that affect them on a daily basis.

Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

I do not believe that my hon. Friend is suggesting that local authorities consult everybody about everything, but it is appropriate, and helpful, to consult on some things. It would be useful to include that. I understand that the Children’s Commissioner for England considers it good practice to talk to children and consult them. As my hon. Friend said, this may not be the appropriate place, but laying emphasis on working with children and taking on board their views is important and would lead to better facilities for the whole community.

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

On what is appropriate, I think that the hon. Gentleman agreed with me rather than with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. I am trying to make it clear that the clause is about strategic decisions on the number of children’s centres, their siting and who should manage them. I do not think that it is appropriate or feasible to expect children under five to take part meaningfully in such consultations. Therefore, it is unreasonable to apply such a duty to local authorities.

However, having made those decisions, further decisions such as what is happening inside the children’s centre, how practitioners interact, what facilities are available, how things should be organised and the day-to-day experience of young children under five are a completely different matter, and children should and will be involved in them.

Clause 3 is about high-level planning. I do not agree with the hon. Lady that it would be appropriate to put a duty on local authorities to involve children under five in such decisions.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for elaborating on what is in the Bill and in the explanatory notes. The Bill refers to consulting with providers in the private, voluntary and independent sectors only, but I am concerned about a host of other children’s groups that may not be providers. They produce literature and provide advice, support services to young parents and outreach services, but they do not themselves provide child care nursery places or other child care facilities. However, on what the Minister said, it is clear that all those bodies have a role, and that it would be unusual for local authorities not to want to consult them. This discussion has been useful in that it will reinforce that point for local authorities.

I shall allow the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole to speak to amendment No. 193 before I say what I intend to do with amendment No. 72.

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

I am disappointed by the Minister’s reply, as I should like the words “listening to young children” to be in the Bill. However, I listened carefully to her and I do not wish to press the amendment to a vote, as I want to look at the whole Bill to see whether there is a more appropriate place for it.

I respect the fact that the phrase is in the guidance, but this first Childcare Bill should contain the words “listening to young children”. However, I shall go through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb to see whether I can find a better place for the amendment.

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

On the basis of my earlier comments and having heard the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Ann Coffey (PPS (Rt Hon Alistair Darling, Secretary of State), Scotland Office; Stockport, Labour)

I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister a question about subsection (4), which places a duty on local authorities to

“take all reasonable steps to encourage and facilitate”

parents, early years providers and so on

“in the making and implementation of arrangements”.

That will clearly give rise to tension, as I have experienced locally, when early years providers have felt that they have not been involved as much as they might have been in discussion about the role of the children’s centres. The position has much improved. I have received good feedback from the providers in my area, who now feel that they are being included, and the system is working well, but I can foresee areas of tension in future. How does my right hon. Friend think the provision will work if an early years provider or parent feels that they have not been properly consulted?

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

I agree that local authorities should work closely with the private and the voluntary sector when developing children’s centres, as I made clear in my earlier response.

Our policy on the provision of child care in children’s centres has been set out in guidance. Local authorities must consider using private or voluntary provision where it is available. The guidance published last week says:

“Local authorities should avoid simply duplicating existing provision as they establish children centres. In line with the Childcare Bill, we will expect local authorities to determine whether it is appropriate for private or voluntary providers to deliver the service, before they do so themselves.”

My hon. Friend will have noticed that, under clause 8, local authorities will not be expected to provide child care unless it is appropriate for them to do so. Phase 2 of children’s centres—from 2006 to 2008—is about to begin. We have said that, where there is good local provision of child care, the children’s centre does not have to provide it.

My hon. Friend also asked what arrangements were in place to ensure that local authorities adhered to the guidance and used private and voluntary providers where possible. The current process increasingly involves children’s services advisers whom we have appointed under a director for children and learners in the Government offices. They will work closely with the local authorities for which they are responsible and look in detail at their plans to ensure that the guidance as we have expressed it is adhered to.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s account of the fact that in Stockport that arrangement already seems to be working well and that private and voluntary providers are happy that local authorities are working in the spirit of the policy. I am sure that that is the case elsewhere in the country. We have the mechanisms in place through those children’s services advisers to ensure that planning is appropriate and fully involves the private and voluntary sectors.