Infants, Parents and Carers Bill
Wednesday 14th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 day, 23 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:25
09:25
09:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We now begin line by line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today's sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. This shows how the clause is selected. Amendments have been grouped together for debate. There are two groups for debate on this bill, each of which has led by the question that a clause stand part of the bill. The member in charge, Sir Desmond Swayne, will be called to speak, and his contribution will address the bill as a whole.
I understand that he does not want to speak separately on the second part, and other members are then free to indicate they wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing at the end of the debate on each group. I will call Sir Desmond again if any member has tabled an amendment during a particular group. They will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. I hope the explanation is helpful.
So we start with clause one and I call Sir Desmond Swayne.
I understand that he does not want to speak separately on the second part, and other members are then free to indicate they wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing at the end of the debate on each group. I will call Sir Desmond again if any member has tabled an amendment during a particular group. They will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. I hope the explanation is helpful.
So we start with clause one and I call Sir Desmond Swayne.
09:26
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Dame Siobhan, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to address the chair, but particularly so when you are in it. With your permission, I will make one contribution, but deal within that contribution separately with the groups. So coming first to clause one, Stand Park clause one sets out the statutory powers available to the Minister to secure services and functions with respect to pregnancy or childbirth, health and development needs of infants, or the relationship between parents, parent or carer and infant.
Now, whilst there is an amendment within this group on section on clause two of the Bill, clearly that amendment has implications for clause one and the substance of the amendment is that it should include the. If I can find the amendment paper, I've got it. It should include the well-being of infants and parents and carers, and prospective parents and carers, and inequalities between infants, parents, carers and prospective parents and carers.
And that is defined in the amendment by physical, mental, emotional health needs and in respect of infants protection from harm and neglect. Now, my reading of the powers set out in clause one is clearly that that is inclusive of the well-being of infants and parents. Clearly, the wellbeing of infant parents must fall within pregnancy or childbirth, the health and development needs of infants, or the relationship between parents and carers.
So I'm confident that the amendment would be consistent with the powers being granted in clause one. I'm not so sure that equalities comes within those three powers that are set out, and my fear would be that the amendment would leave ministers making an assessment, which included health and wellbeing and inequalities, but no power to address the issue in statutory instruments . In clause one on on the issue of inequality.
But it's a technical matter that I will defer to the Minister on, but that's my take on it. Of course I'll give way.
Now, whilst there is an amendment within this group on section on clause two of the Bill, clearly that amendment has implications for clause one and the substance of the amendment is that it should include the. If I can find the amendment paper, I've got it. It should include the well-being of infants and parents and carers, and prospective parents and carers, and inequalities between infants, parents, carers and prospective parents and carers.
And that is defined in the amendment by physical, mental, emotional health needs and in respect of infants protection from harm and neglect. Now, my reading of the powers set out in clause one is clearly that that is inclusive of the well-being of infants and parents. Clearly, the wellbeing of infant parents must fall within pregnancy or childbirth, the health and development needs of infants, or the relationship between parents and carers.
So I'm confident that the amendment would be consistent with the powers being granted in clause one. I'm not so sure that equalities comes within those three powers that are set out, and my fear would be that the amendment would leave ministers making an assessment, which included health and wellbeing and inequalities, but no power to address the issue in statutory instruments . In clause one on on the issue of inequality.
But it's a technical matter that I will defer to the Minister on, but that's my take on it. Of course I'll give way.
09:29
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I am very grateful to the honourable member, and I just wanted to bring greater clarity, because if you are discussing the well-being of prospective parents or carers, that could be pre-conception as well. And I'm going to forward that argument within my contribution later. But in that case, there could be need for some technical amendment to the definition under clause one. Subclause two. Sir Desmond.
09:29
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Swayne Well, that's a fair point. But but undoubtedly that that is a matter for debate. The regulatory powers are set out to be made as by statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure. So we now come to clause two. Clause two sets out the requirement for an assessment and a consultation of sorts within that assessment, to which the amendment now would add explicitly the need for health and wellbeing, and for inequalities to be included.
Now, I believe that the. Assessment of need implicitly includes those things as and as as they should. These are important matters and therefore should be included. But my argument would be that implicitly it's already there. However, it is important that the minister, when making her assessment, should look beyond demand to how babies and families are faring, especially those that are at risk, at risk of doing poorly.
So I can entirely understand the desire to make explicit on the face of the bill that which is implicit within it. After all, if I argue that the bill is doing this anyway, what danger is there of adding an explicit requirement? Belt and braces. The difficulty, as I see it, is that it opens us up to the danger of a report stage where other things that are implicit in the Bill would seek to be added explicitly, and I have received a whole number of suggested amendments from organisations representing different aspects of childcare and infancy and pregnancy, stating things that could be added explicitly to the face of the bill, which I believe are clearly implicit in the powers that we're giving to ministers.
So that's the issue why I would wish to resist the amendment. We then come to clause three, the exercise of functions that ensure appropriate level of provision. So having made an assessment, the Minister must then make appropriate levels of provision to meet those needs. That concludes my assessment of the first group of amendments. So we now come to the first group of Stan part and amendments.
So we now come to clause four, which is the reporting power, annual reporting power on the provision and outcomes before Parliament clause five. The interpretation of various terms, what we mean by infant, what we mean by parent and prospective parent or carer. And then finally clause six the commencement and short title defining the short title and setting out the rules for commencement. I commend both groups to the House, but I would seek to ask that the amendment not be moved.
Now, I believe that the. Assessment of need implicitly includes those things as and as as they should. These are important matters and therefore should be included. But my argument would be that implicitly it's already there. However, it is important that the minister, when making her assessment, should look beyond demand to how babies and families are faring, especially those that are at risk, at risk of doing poorly.
So I can entirely understand the desire to make explicit on the face of the bill that which is implicit within it. After all, if I argue that the bill is doing this anyway, what danger is there of adding an explicit requirement? Belt and braces. The difficulty, as I see it, is that it opens us up to the danger of a report stage where other things that are implicit in the Bill would seek to be added explicitly, and I have received a whole number of suggested amendments from organisations representing different aspects of childcare and infancy and pregnancy, stating things that could be added explicitly to the face of the bill, which I believe are clearly implicit in the powers that we're giving to ministers.
So that's the issue why I would wish to resist the amendment. We then come to clause three, the exercise of functions that ensure appropriate level of provision. So having made an assessment, the Minister must then make appropriate levels of provision to meet those needs. That concludes my assessment of the first group of amendments. So we now come to the first group of Stan part and amendments.
So we now come to clause four, which is the reporting power, annual reporting power on the provision and outcomes before Parliament clause five. The interpretation of various terms, what we mean by infant, what we mean by parent and prospective parent or carer. And then finally clause six the commencement and short title defining the short title and setting out the rules for commencement. I commend both groups to the House, but I would seek to ask that the amendment not be moved.
09:33
09:33
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
It's a pleasure to serve under your worship, and I'm incredibly grateful to be able to sit on this committee today. Reforging the cross-party consensus on the value of investing in the early years is essential, and this bill helps us to get back to where we ought to be, focusing on improving support for children and their families so that everyone can get the best possible start in life. I'd like to reiterate my thanks to the Right Honourable member for New Forest West for bringing forward this important piece of legislation, and I have laid an amendment to this bill in order to make what is implicit in the intention behind this bill explicit on the face of the bill, and I will describe why I have done so.
To immediately address the right Honourable member's concerns about further amendments. It is, of course, always the case that campaigners, where they see an opportunity for further reform within the law. They seek to influence that. But I know that many of us wish to see this piece of legislation proceed and become law swiftly, and I am sure that those campaigners will understand the need for making sure that outcomes and inequalities, which actually speaks to many of their aims with the legislation they wish to see.
I'm sure they will want to see the succeed as an amendment. If we want to improve experiences at the beginning of life, recognising how determinative that period is for life chances, than it stands to reason that this legislation should make explicit the inequalities of outcomes for babies and infants. This was a key requirement of the Childcare Act in 2006, and was part of the governing philosophy behind Surestart, which is the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found had the biggest impact on improving outcomes for children in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
The Bill, as it stands, relies on the government reporting on the views of parents and carers and their prospective counterparts, and whilst that insight is incredibly valuable, it ignores those who cannot speak for themselves.
To immediately address the right Honourable member's concerns about further amendments. It is, of course, always the case that campaigners, where they see an opportunity for further reform within the law. They seek to influence that. But I know that many of us wish to see this piece of legislation proceed and become law swiftly, and I am sure that those campaigners will understand the need for making sure that outcomes and inequalities, which actually speaks to many of their aims with the legislation they wish to see.
I'm sure they will want to see the succeed as an amendment. If we want to improve experiences at the beginning of life, recognising how determinative that period is for life chances, than it stands to reason that this legislation should make explicit the inequalities of outcomes for babies and infants. This was a key requirement of the Childcare Act in 2006, and was part of the governing philosophy behind Surestart, which is the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found had the biggest impact on improving outcomes for children in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
The Bill, as it stands, relies on the government reporting on the views of parents and carers and their prospective counterparts, and whilst that insight is incredibly valuable, it ignores those who cannot speak for themselves.
09:35
09:35
09:35
09:36
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Justice, thank you for your intervention and indeed I have, and I will come to that in just a moment. As I was saying, the current bill does not give sufficient voice to those who cannot speak for themselves who. Of course, babies and infants. My amendment seeks to ensure that the government will assess how successful services are in improving the physical, mental and emotional wellbeing of infants, parents and carers and, crucially, our progress in tackling inequalities in the early years.
Whilst there is other legislation such as the Equality Act to guide secondary legislation, we know from bitter experience that future governments could repeal legislation which has equality as its goal and indeed we are in difficult and divisive times in our country at the moment, where there are those who would seek to repeal the Equality Act, thereby undoing any of the protective features that the Equality Act would bring to this important bill today. In order to anticipate future governments policies, this bill must make reporting on equality of outcomes paramount, because significant inequalities exist in many of the most fundamental measures of baby's health and development.
Black babies, for example, are more than twice as likely as white babies to be born stillborn babies in the 10% most deprived areas are more than twice as likely to die as babies in the 10% least deprived areas. And babies growing up in poverty are more likely to experience domestic abuse within their family and less likely to be breastfed. At the moment, the bill stands, these inequalities, while reported on by a government through auspices such as the Equality Act, might be identified.
But in the future there may be no requirement for this to be the case. As part of this bill and simply showing that there is provision for babies, infants and their parents and carers could make sure that the Secretary of State is able to discharge their duty under this bill, whether it actually operates to reduce inequalities or not. And the fact is, is that under our current legislation, we still have these deep inequalities, in part because the focus on reducing inequalities between areas has been lost, lost deliberately.
And I think we ought to see whether we could return to making sure that is the focus. The bill, as it stands, does not explicitly require the Secretary of State to look at outcomes for babies and their parents, or what those outcomes may indicate about the quality and availability of services. While the views and experiences of parents and carers are incredibly important in understanding need, they do not paint the full picture and we cannot rely solely on them to analyse successes and failures of services.
The public deserves to know the realities of inequalities in early childhood, and governments must welcome robust scrutiny of their policies to help support babies. Of course, this amendment also requires the government to look at the wellbeing of parents, something that is particularly important given the Maternal Mental Health Alliance report that says that 1 in 4 mothers experience a mental health condition during pregnancy or after birth, and suicide remains the leading cause of death for women between six weeks and a year after giving birth.
This amendment keeps the bill flexible and streamlined, and, I understand would not increase any financial cost to the bill. But it also clarifies the role of the government in measuring success, because this bill needs to be future proof. Indeed, this is the activity of this bill to make sure, on a cross-party basis, that we have services that genuinely lead to a change in the outcomes for babies and infants and children throughout their life.
It must stand the test of time, regardless of the color, the priorities , or the whims of future governments. And of course, I have absolutely absolute faith in this government and its commitment to early years investment. Wonderful growth or best start family hubs. But we all saw how quickly the consensus behind Surestart fell apart, with a change in government and how a generation of children, as well as their parents, were disadvantaged by its collapse.
Whilst there is other legislation such as the Equality Act to guide secondary legislation, we know from bitter experience that future governments could repeal legislation which has equality as its goal and indeed we are in difficult and divisive times in our country at the moment, where there are those who would seek to repeal the Equality Act, thereby undoing any of the protective features that the Equality Act would bring to this important bill today. In order to anticipate future governments policies, this bill must make reporting on equality of outcomes paramount, because significant inequalities exist in many of the most fundamental measures of baby's health and development.
Black babies, for example, are more than twice as likely as white babies to be born stillborn babies in the 10% most deprived areas are more than twice as likely to die as babies in the 10% least deprived areas. And babies growing up in poverty are more likely to experience domestic abuse within their family and less likely to be breastfed. At the moment, the bill stands, these inequalities, while reported on by a government through auspices such as the Equality Act, might be identified.
But in the future there may be no requirement for this to be the case. As part of this bill and simply showing that there is provision for babies, infants and their parents and carers could make sure that the Secretary of State is able to discharge their duty under this bill, whether it actually operates to reduce inequalities or not. And the fact is, is that under our current legislation, we still have these deep inequalities, in part because the focus on reducing inequalities between areas has been lost, lost deliberately.
And I think we ought to see whether we could return to making sure that is the focus. The bill, as it stands, does not explicitly require the Secretary of State to look at outcomes for babies and their parents, or what those outcomes may indicate about the quality and availability of services. While the views and experiences of parents and carers are incredibly important in understanding need, they do not paint the full picture and we cannot rely solely on them to analyse successes and failures of services.
The public deserves to know the realities of inequalities in early childhood, and governments must welcome robust scrutiny of their policies to help support babies. Of course, this amendment also requires the government to look at the wellbeing of parents, something that is particularly important given the Maternal Mental Health Alliance report that says that 1 in 4 mothers experience a mental health condition during pregnancy or after birth, and suicide remains the leading cause of death for women between six weeks and a year after giving birth.
This amendment keeps the bill flexible and streamlined, and, I understand would not increase any financial cost to the bill. But it also clarifies the role of the government in measuring success, because this bill needs to be future proof. Indeed, this is the activity of this bill to make sure, on a cross-party basis, that we have services that genuinely lead to a change in the outcomes for babies and infants and children throughout their life.
It must stand the test of time, regardless of the color, the priorities , or the whims of future governments. And of course, I have absolutely absolute faith in this government and its commitment to early years investment. Wonderful growth or best start family hubs. But we all saw how quickly the consensus behind Surestart fell apart, with a change in government and how a generation of children, as well as their parents, were disadvantaged by its collapse.
09:40
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
The Honourable Lady give way briefly. Can I thank the Honourable Lady for giving way? Can I also thank the member for New Forest West for bringing this excellent bill? I await the sort of technical appraisal of whether this needs to be in it. But we cannot we cannot deny that inequalities directly influence the type of services we need in in a specific area. And my role as a GP, I've seen that many that children born in deprived areas need a much higher level of support in terms of surestart type services and indeed in terms of video, interactive guidance, because often relationships are poor and this often leads these poor relationships to children starting school, not being able to hold a knife and fork, or indeed are still in nappies.
So it does influence what type of services. But I accept your point, the member's point that actually there may be technical guidance that this is integrated within the bill. So thank you.
So it does influence what type of services. But I accept your point, the member's point that actually there may be technical guidance that this is integrated within the bill. So thank you.
09:41
09:42
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I agree with entirely with the force of the argument in favour of equality being included in the bill as as you know, entirely in very, very important that these issues be addressed. The difference between us is that I think they are already implicit in the bill. Her demand that it be explicit is predicated on future proofing it. Alas, were there to be a government that was determined to remove equalities and repeal the Equalities Act, it would soon enough repeal this provision within this act.
The difficulty with Surestart was that there was no statutory provision, and this was done by administrative fiat without putting legislation before the Commons justice.
The difficulty with Surestart was that there was no statutory provision, and this was done by administrative fiat without putting legislation before the Commons justice.
09:42
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank both the honourable members for their interventions. I guess what I would say is, is that when you're thinking about trying to make sure that you're developing good legislation, which we're all here to do, the core that you're trying to actually achieve needs. From my perspective, to be explicit in the legislation, because otherwise it gets watered down. And of course, the honourable gentleman is absolutely right that any future government can overturn any previous government's legislation, and that's bound by international law and so forth.
But the fact is, is that making explicit here today, we recognise that it makes it more difficult for future governments to undo what has come before, because it allows that brilliant light of transparency to be shone at a time where we might need it most in the future. And to make the argument here today that this needs to be explicit and for the government to recognise that would be in itself a small but perhaps in the future, important way of maintaining the integrity of this legislation.
I'm delighted that this amendment has the support of a number of children's charities working in this space, including Start Strong, the NSPCC, the National Children's Bureau, Barnardo's, the first 1001 days movement, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Tessa Jowell Foundation. And with your permission, Madam Chair, I'd just like to read a message from Tessa Joel's daughter, Jess Mills. She said that mum believed passionately in creating outstanding public infrastructure to support our most disadvantaged babies and families in the earliest years.
Her vision for Surestart was that these should be centres and places where the quality of service. That meant that she would have wanted to use them . When me and my brother were babies, whilst also providing targeted wraparound support for our most vulnerable babies and families, whose needs were often much more complex to give them the best possible chance to thrive. And I'm grateful to the Minister for looking at this amendment closely. I hope in her remarks, she will be able to either accept the principle of this amendment and commit to making sure that there is a workable piece of legislation ahead of report stage.
That's because children's success, their health and their safety are all too often predetermined long before they're born by inequalities baked into our society. It is the moral duty of our government to level the playing field and to ensure that even if we do not all have the same start to life, then we may be able to attain similar journeys and ends with the right support from birth. It is with that ambition that I have laid this amendment.
Thank you.
But the fact is, is that making explicit here today, we recognise that it makes it more difficult for future governments to undo what has come before, because it allows that brilliant light of transparency to be shone at a time where we might need it most in the future. And to make the argument here today that this needs to be explicit and for the government to recognise that would be in itself a small but perhaps in the future, important way of maintaining the integrity of this legislation.
I'm delighted that this amendment has the support of a number of children's charities working in this space, including Start Strong, the NSPCC, the National Children's Bureau, Barnardo's, the first 1001 days movement, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Tessa Jowell Foundation. And with your permission, Madam Chair, I'd just like to read a message from Tessa Joel's daughter, Jess Mills. She said that mum believed passionately in creating outstanding public infrastructure to support our most disadvantaged babies and families in the earliest years.
Her vision for Surestart was that these should be centres and places where the quality of service. That meant that she would have wanted to use them . When me and my brother were babies, whilst also providing targeted wraparound support for our most vulnerable babies and families, whose needs were often much more complex to give them the best possible chance to thrive. And I'm grateful to the Minister for looking at this amendment closely. I hope in her remarks, she will be able to either accept the principle of this amendment and commit to making sure that there is a workable piece of legislation ahead of report stage.
That's because children's success, their health and their safety are all too often predetermined long before they're born by inequalities baked into our society. It is the moral duty of our government to level the playing field and to ensure that even if we do not all have the same start to life, then we may be able to attain similar journeys and ends with the right support from birth. It is with that ambition that I have laid this amendment.
Thank you.
09:45
09:45
09:45
09:45
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I thank the honourable member for New Forest West for bringing forward this important piece of legislation and all of the members that have supported it in its in its progress. Two of the points that I'd like to raise to the Minister that I hope she'll be able to clarify. One is when we talk about prospective parents in the amendment tabled by the honourable member, that the definition of a prospective parent is somebody who is experiencing a pregnancy.
And I wonder if we would include parents who are undergoing IVF in that, especially when you have an embryo transfer, you might not know if it's worked, but at that moment, after your embryo transfer, you are pregnant. And we know in this country there is a postcode lottery of IVF services. You can live one road and get three rounds of IVF and then live the other road and get only one. And those people are prospective parents in my mind, because they are working very hard and going through real difficulties to actually bring young people that would be loved into this world.
I refer members to my register of Interests as the chair of the Appg for Infant Feeding and Inequalities, and I would reflect that. When I launched the Appg, we called it the Appg for infant feeding, and then we added in and inequalities afterwards because it is so important to make sure that the inequalities that we see are throughout everything that we do. And we know that families from more deprived areas are half as likely to breastfeed their children, even though we know that breastfeeding can have positive outcomes in terms of health for both the mother and the baby, and also in terms of affordability for those families as well.
And so I would have a few questions for the Minister as to whether whether she could clarify that breastfeeding support is going to be included in the infant support services that are being assessed as part of the bill. The survey that was recently published found that 710 mothers who stopped breastfeeding by the time their baby was 4 to 6 months old said they would have liked to have breastfed for longer. So there is a clear demand in in the public realm that people would, if they saw more support for breastfeeding, they would be able to continue doing that for longer.
But for whatever reason, be it all of the challenges that come alongside breastfeeding, they stop earlier than they would like to. There is also a positive steps with the Infant Feeding Survey that was published in June 2026. It shows that breastfeeding rates are going up, but it would be helpful to understand if that's going to be monitored as part of this process so we can make sure that that trajectory continues. And when we talk about reducing health inequalities, making sure that no mother experiences a postcode lottery of breastfeeding support, which is currently so apparent, so many of our breastfeeding services are actually run by volunteers, by midwives on their days off, by health visitors who are squeezing in the time to provide those services.
And for so many families, that's not available to them at all. And I also ask the minister whether she'll commit to publishing clear and statutory guidance defining the breastfeeding and infant feeding support services that local authorities ought to provide as part of this, because in the most recent announcement from the government, which was the rollout of the the healthy babies funding to all local authorities, which is excellent. It doesn't explicitly mention breastfeeding support and infant feeding support, whereas the previous rollout was far more explicit in its wording.
Thank you.
And I wonder if we would include parents who are undergoing IVF in that, especially when you have an embryo transfer, you might not know if it's worked, but at that moment, after your embryo transfer, you are pregnant. And we know in this country there is a postcode lottery of IVF services. You can live one road and get three rounds of IVF and then live the other road and get only one. And those people are prospective parents in my mind, because they are working very hard and going through real difficulties to actually bring young people that would be loved into this world.
I refer members to my register of Interests as the chair of the Appg for Infant Feeding and Inequalities, and I would reflect that. When I launched the Appg, we called it the Appg for infant feeding, and then we added in and inequalities afterwards because it is so important to make sure that the inequalities that we see are throughout everything that we do. And we know that families from more deprived areas are half as likely to breastfeed their children, even though we know that breastfeeding can have positive outcomes in terms of health for both the mother and the baby, and also in terms of affordability for those families as well.
And so I would have a few questions for the Minister as to whether whether she could clarify that breastfeeding support is going to be included in the infant support services that are being assessed as part of the bill. The survey that was recently published found that 710 mothers who stopped breastfeeding by the time their baby was 4 to 6 months old said they would have liked to have breastfed for longer. So there is a clear demand in in the public realm that people would, if they saw more support for breastfeeding, they would be able to continue doing that for longer.
But for whatever reason, be it all of the challenges that come alongside breastfeeding, they stop earlier than they would like to. There is also a positive steps with the Infant Feeding Survey that was published in June 2026. It shows that breastfeeding rates are going up, but it would be helpful to understand if that's going to be monitored as part of this process so we can make sure that that trajectory continues. And when we talk about reducing health inequalities, making sure that no mother experiences a postcode lottery of breastfeeding support, which is currently so apparent, so many of our breastfeeding services are actually run by volunteers, by midwives on their days off, by health visitors who are squeezing in the time to provide those services.
And for so many families, that's not available to them at all. And I also ask the minister whether she'll commit to publishing clear and statutory guidance defining the breastfeeding and infant feeding support services that local authorities ought to provide as part of this, because in the most recent announcement from the government, which was the rollout of the the healthy babies funding to all local authorities, which is excellent. It doesn't explicitly mention breastfeeding support and infant feeding support, whereas the previous rollout was far more explicit in its wording.
Thank you.
09:49
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you very much. And it is indeed a pleasure to be able to speak in support of this bill and indeed, this amendment. And the honourable gentleman laid out very clearly why this bill is important in the second reading debate that we had. And this morning, again, he spoke very, very well and made a case why this amendment also, perhaps, is not needed, and I hesitated to add my name to this amendment for the very reasons he laid out.
And the last thing we wanted was to risk that the government might withdraw its support for this bill or make it a Christmas tree bill. But I think, however, I came to the conclusion that this amendment was very much needed for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend, in her excellent speech in support of her amendment and this bill and the Bill, the present Bill, as it is without the amendment, would take reasonable steps and would require reasonable steps to be taken to find out the view of current and prospective parents and carers in assessing the needs for infant support services, but it does not currently require an assessment of outcomes.
And the honourable gentleman said it's already implicit in the Bill, but we really do need from this to have a strong focus on data and evidence to see how babies and their parents are faring, to understand where provision is working and where it is not. And with scope, as we've heard, to hold future governments to account. And I know the honourable gentleman said we can't always future proof everything, but we do have to have a view on what the color of a future government might be and how they might feel about issues of equality or inequality.
So I do think it is important to try to make legislation, new legislation that we're making today, as good as it can possibly be, if that involves future proofing it. Yes, I will.
And the last thing we wanted was to risk that the government might withdraw its support for this bill or make it a Christmas tree bill. But I think, however, I came to the conclusion that this amendment was very much needed for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend, in her excellent speech in support of her amendment and this bill and the Bill, the present Bill, as it is without the amendment, would take reasonable steps and would require reasonable steps to be taken to find out the view of current and prospective parents and carers in assessing the needs for infant support services, but it does not currently require an assessment of outcomes.
And the honourable gentleman said it's already implicit in the Bill, but we really do need from this to have a strong focus on data and evidence to see how babies and their parents are faring, to understand where provision is working and where it is not. And with scope, as we've heard, to hold future governments to account. And I know the honourable gentleman said we can't always future proof everything, but we do have to have a view on what the color of a future government might be and how they might feel about issues of equality or inequality.
So I do think it is important to try to make legislation, new legislation that we're making today, as good as it can possibly be, if that involves future proofing it. Yes, I will.
09:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
With respect to the issue of outcomes, it's quite explicit under section four that the reporting should include outcomes in respect of the. What is set out in clause two, B one, two and three. And that's where I think that there is clearly an, in my estimate, an omission of inequalities. I'm quite confident that health and wellbeing are included within pregnancy or childbirth, health and development needs of infants, or the relationship with parents and carers and infants.
I'm not convinced that that includes powers to make regulations on inequalities. So, so clearly, if if there were to be an amendment, it would need to it would need to address the issue in my estimate in clause one. Yes.
I'm not convinced that that includes powers to make regulations on inequalities. So, so clearly, if if there were to be an amendment, it would need to it would need to address the issue in my estimate in clause one. Yes.
09:53
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Yes and I agree. Outcomes are mentioned in clause four two B, but the the having the word inequality. And I did sort of ponder this at length for all the reasons that we've heard about from my hon. Friend and also the the spokesperson for the Lib Dems around breastfeeding. In my part of the will from that survey, only 41% of women in the North East are still breastfeeding at 6 to 8 weeks, compared to 60% it is in the South west, for example.
And why that is? Is it inequality? Is it lack of support from. Is it a postcode lottery of services? I think we need to not just sort of have a, you know, an outcomes measured. We need to know why and what the if it is inequality behind that. And I think that would therefore be the one and only perhaps amendment that we do tag on to this very important bill.
And I do think it would be worth doing if the honourable gentleman and the Minister would still support that amendment, and we. Of course, it is very welcome that parents and carers should have a say in shaping these services, but we must also ensure that the outcomes are. More importantly, as I said, the inequality of those outcomes are considered when assessing need. So therefore, as I say, I'm very proud to be supporting this bill today to see it become law and to support this amendment also.
Thank you.
And why that is? Is it inequality? Is it lack of support from. Is it a postcode lottery of services? I think we need to not just sort of have a, you know, an outcomes measured. We need to know why and what the if it is inequality behind that. And I think that would therefore be the one and only perhaps amendment that we do tag on to this very important bill.
And I do think it would be worth doing if the honourable gentleman and the Minister would still support that amendment, and we. Of course, it is very welcome that parents and carers should have a say in shaping these services, but we must also ensure that the outcomes are. More importantly, as I said, the inequality of those outcomes are considered when assessing need. So therefore, as I say, I'm very proud to be supporting this bill today to see it become law and to support this amendment also.
Thank you.
09:55
09:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I welcome the bill on its ambition to strengthen support for babies, parents and carers during pregnancy and the early earliest years of life. Parents love their babies and want them to be happy and healthy, and governments must support them in this important role. And I acknowledge the simplicity of this bill is part of its importance and its beauty, and I understand that. So I agree that there is a little resistance to to adding amendments to the Christmas tree legislation.
But I do worry sometimes that in that fear of such type of legislation, we apologies for the pun. We risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater in terms of really laying down explicitly in legislation, amendments on inequalities that will be difficult to change in the future, because that starkly we have to be honest with you, it would be very hard to argue politically that you're removing this from the babies bill as, as it were. So building it into this bill, I think is very important.
So I strongly support amendment one, which would require the Secretary of State to consider the well-being of their babies and their parents and inequalities and their outcomes when assessing need and reporting on infant support services. This amendment speaks to why we are all here to improve babies and parents lives. We need to understand where the families are doing well, where outcomes are falling short, and where further action is needed. And we can't just look at national statistics, and improvement in the national average can conceal the fact that some babies are being left further behind.
We need to be able to look at the outliers. Across the country. There are stark and persistent inequalities, a baby's chance of surviving pregnancy, birth and their first years of life and of growing up healthy and developing well are affected by factors including family income, ethnicity, disability and where they live. This amendment would ensure future secretaries of state pay attention to these differences when making decisions in what they do and where they target action and resources.
In the second reading debate, I talked about Stoke on Trent's persistently high infant mortality rate, the number of babies who die before their first birthday in Stoke on Trent is almost twice the national rate. We frequently top that very sad of all charts. If national government doesn't pay attention to these local differences and inequalities, it will miss opportunities to improve and save babies lives. Behind every statistic, a real baby whose lives have been lost.
It's a hard one. This one I will never forget. Little Chloe Wiltshire or her brave mum Ashley, who who I talked about in this bills debate. These are the babies and families I think of when we talk about the need to do better. And I am very grateful that from that debate, not only has the minister agreed for maternity care and agreed to meet Ashley, but so has the maternity commissioner to really bring about change.
And I'm very grateful to the honourable member for allowing that opportunity to be raised. Yes.
But I do worry sometimes that in that fear of such type of legislation, we apologies for the pun. We risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater in terms of really laying down explicitly in legislation, amendments on inequalities that will be difficult to change in the future, because that starkly we have to be honest with you, it would be very hard to argue politically that you're removing this from the babies bill as, as it were. So building it into this bill, I think is very important.
So I strongly support amendment one, which would require the Secretary of State to consider the well-being of their babies and their parents and inequalities and their outcomes when assessing need and reporting on infant support services. This amendment speaks to why we are all here to improve babies and parents lives. We need to understand where the families are doing well, where outcomes are falling short, and where further action is needed. And we can't just look at national statistics, and improvement in the national average can conceal the fact that some babies are being left further behind.
We need to be able to look at the outliers. Across the country. There are stark and persistent inequalities, a baby's chance of surviving pregnancy, birth and their first years of life and of growing up healthy and developing well are affected by factors including family income, ethnicity, disability and where they live. This amendment would ensure future secretaries of state pay attention to these differences when making decisions in what they do and where they target action and resources.
In the second reading debate, I talked about Stoke on Trent's persistently high infant mortality rate, the number of babies who die before their first birthday in Stoke on Trent is almost twice the national rate. We frequently top that very sad of all charts. If national government doesn't pay attention to these local differences and inequalities, it will miss opportunities to improve and save babies lives. Behind every statistic, a real baby whose lives have been lost.
It's a hard one. This one I will never forget. Little Chloe Wiltshire or her brave mum Ashley, who who I talked about in this bills debate. These are the babies and families I think of when we talk about the need to do better. And I am very grateful that from that debate, not only has the minister agreed for maternity care and agreed to meet Ashley, but so has the maternity commissioner to really bring about change.
And I'm very grateful to the honourable member for allowing that opportunity to be raised. Yes.
09:58
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Can I draw her attention to clause three, part three, where the Secretary of State may determine that different levels of provision are appropriate to different areas, and she makes that point, I think, very, very well indeed that clearly ministers have to bear in mind exactly what she is drawing the committee's attention to.
09:58
09:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I acknowledge that point. It is clear that I just feel very strongly it should should deal with inequalities very explicitly. Amendment one would establish a clear, consistent base for assessing needs and holding governments to account. Governments and priorities change. We all know the future. Governments may not care as much as today's ministers do about babies, how babies are doing, or about addressing inequalities, as my hon. Friend so clearly explained, putting outcomes and inequalities on the face of the Bill would help ensure they remain central to decision making and reporting in the years ahead.
We owe it to every baby and every family to understand where support is falling short, confront the inequalities that persist and ensure that no child's early experiences and life chances are, no parents experiences of their own, of their children are determined by their postcode or family circumstances. Yes.
We owe it to every baby and every family to understand where support is falling short, confront the inequalities that persist and ensure that no child's early experiences and life chances are, no parents experiences of their own, of their children are determined by their postcode or family circumstances. Yes.
09:59
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you, Dame Siobhan, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. And obviously, I want to commend the honourable member for New Forest West and may I call him a friend across the chamber, because this this is an excellent bill, and I'm so pleased that as the the first member to be number one in the ballot, he was able to choose this, but also building on the work of Dame Andrea Leadsom in the other place and other people like my hon.
Friend, here are so many people in this Parliament have done so much good to make sure that this bill has come to fruition today, and I support spoke in support of the bill at second reading, and it was a real honour to do that. I I'm also speaking today in in support of amendment one by the honourable member for Lowestoft. And I take on board what the honourable member for New Forest West is saying about the intricacies, and I defer to his abundant knowledge about intricacies, because in this place he knows far more than I do.
But I'm just speaking in support of it because it's all about the inequalities. And I think we know that a number of charities and NGOs have supported the amendment, but it's all about the inequalities, really. And at present in the UK, there are stark and stubborn inequalities in outcomes and factors including ethnicity, family income, geography and disability are all associated with differences in parents and baby's likelihood of surviving pregnancy and the first first parts of life, and also making sure they are healthy and developing well as they go forward.
That's so important. So this proposed amendment would not prescribe which services government must provide, nor require government to achieve specific outcomes through any single service. It would instead require government to understand and report on whether babies and their parents are doing well, where inequalities exist, and whether these are changing over time. Putting these requirements on the face of the bill would ensure that outcomes and inequalities remain a consistent part of the government's assessment and reporting.
Regardless, as we've already heard of future changes in policy, parliament or personnel. So those were the important things I thought for me, and obviously I defer to the honourable gentleman's interpretation, but it's just important. We cannot go forward with a bill unless we actually know what it's measuring. We need a baseline, and then we need to be able to return to that data year after year after year to say, are we making progress? Because if we can't say that, then that is an issue and we can't adequately amend services to make sure that that works in the future.
I would say that as a I was a physiotherapist for 32 years. I do declare an interest, but I was a paediatric physio for for many of those years. And I know just how important this bill is in terms of preterm, you know, babies in the womb. We treat babies in the womb. Now, this is amazing stuff. You know, my physiotherapy colleagues can actually treat babies in the womb. This is amazing.
And obviously surgeons do actually operate in the womb as well. So the first 1000 days and the honourable member says about its from conception to, you know what, the first couple of years, it's so important from conception is really, really important. And Pre-conception obviously planning as well. And obviously once the baby is born, whether the baby is born preterm, whether they go to in my day, we call it special care baby unit, but it's now we know those thousand days are so, so important.
And that's why every baby across the UK and I say this as a Welsh MP because Flying Start never went away in Wales. It's a bit shaky, but it never went away compared to Surestart, say, in England. So it's really important that we do make sure we have a level playing field for all our our mums and babies in the future. We. The evidence is very, very clear that, you know, a brain needs stimulation from from day one because the neuroplasticity of that brain becomes so much less after the age of five.
It's really, really important. So whether or not this amendment is accepted, I believe this is an excellent bill, and it's a good start to making sure we go forward, United to make sure that we do the best we possibly can for parents and babies as we go forward in the future. But I do want to pay tribute to the work undertaken by all my honourable friends who've been here much longer than I have, who have worked so hard on this, and I'm looking forward to hearing what the minister has to say.
Friend, here are so many people in this Parliament have done so much good to make sure that this bill has come to fruition today, and I support spoke in support of the bill at second reading, and it was a real honour to do that. I I'm also speaking today in in support of amendment one by the honourable member for Lowestoft. And I take on board what the honourable member for New Forest West is saying about the intricacies, and I defer to his abundant knowledge about intricacies, because in this place he knows far more than I do.
But I'm just speaking in support of it because it's all about the inequalities. And I think we know that a number of charities and NGOs have supported the amendment, but it's all about the inequalities, really. And at present in the UK, there are stark and stubborn inequalities in outcomes and factors including ethnicity, family income, geography and disability are all associated with differences in parents and baby's likelihood of surviving pregnancy and the first first parts of life, and also making sure they are healthy and developing well as they go forward.
That's so important. So this proposed amendment would not prescribe which services government must provide, nor require government to achieve specific outcomes through any single service. It would instead require government to understand and report on whether babies and their parents are doing well, where inequalities exist, and whether these are changing over time. Putting these requirements on the face of the bill would ensure that outcomes and inequalities remain a consistent part of the government's assessment and reporting.
Regardless, as we've already heard of future changes in policy, parliament or personnel. So those were the important things I thought for me, and obviously I defer to the honourable gentleman's interpretation, but it's just important. We cannot go forward with a bill unless we actually know what it's measuring. We need a baseline, and then we need to be able to return to that data year after year after year to say, are we making progress? Because if we can't say that, then that is an issue and we can't adequately amend services to make sure that that works in the future.
I would say that as a I was a physiotherapist for 32 years. I do declare an interest, but I was a paediatric physio for for many of those years. And I know just how important this bill is in terms of preterm, you know, babies in the womb. We treat babies in the womb. Now, this is amazing stuff. You know, my physiotherapy colleagues can actually treat babies in the womb. This is amazing.
And obviously surgeons do actually operate in the womb as well. So the first 1000 days and the honourable member says about its from conception to, you know what, the first couple of years, it's so important from conception is really, really important. And Pre-conception obviously planning as well. And obviously once the baby is born, whether the baby is born preterm, whether they go to in my day, we call it special care baby unit, but it's now we know those thousand days are so, so important.
And that's why every baby across the UK and I say this as a Welsh MP because Flying Start never went away in Wales. It's a bit shaky, but it never went away compared to Surestart, say, in England. So it's really important that we do make sure we have a level playing field for all our our mums and babies in the future. We. The evidence is very, very clear that, you know, a brain needs stimulation from from day one because the neuroplasticity of that brain becomes so much less after the age of five.
It's really, really important. So whether or not this amendment is accepted, I believe this is an excellent bill, and it's a good start to making sure we go forward, United to make sure that we do the best we possibly can for parents and babies as we go forward in the future. But I do want to pay tribute to the work undertaken by all my honourable friends who've been here much longer than I have, who have worked so hard on this, and I'm looking forward to hearing what the minister has to say.
10:04
10:04
10:04
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
indebted to the honourable member for New Forest West for. bringing forward this bill and all the work that he has done on this. I'm going to start by focusing my contribution on clause for sub clause two B, because I think this is where today's debate hinges, looking at inputs into the services and then the outcomes in respect to matters mentioned earlier in the bill. And I think we are talking about fine lines and distinctions, but they are incredibly important.
Now, in the intervention I made, I went talking about the need for outcomes. If we are serious about achieving equality and outcomes, we cannot just start at the point as set out in the bill at pregnancy and childbirth, or indeed in the amendment. The key in respect of. Prospective parents and indeed to the interpretation of what a prospective parent is. And that's expected to become a parent as a result of a current pregnancy, or expects to become a parent or carer of an infant already born.
The reason I raise this is because if we are truly to take a public health approach to pregnancy, we know that many of the factors which impact on the outcomes will be determined. Preconception. I want to just give a very clear example of that. If we look at the exposure of an infant to Fasd, this is fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We know that 77% of parents at the point of conception have used alcohol , and therefore exposes the foetus to risk of developing Fasd.
As a result of that, the trajectory through pregnancy and beyond of that infant will be impacted by what happens. Preconception. So if we are serious about the outcomes as set out and addressing the inequalities, if we just start at the point of conception, then we miss a huge opportunity to change the outcomes for those infants and address the very measures that we are trying to address there. And with Fasd having a higher prevalence now than children on the autism spectrum, we have got to recognise the impact that by focusing on preconception can have and ensuring that parents have the support.
And I spoke to my director of public Health just yesterday, and he also added, as you would expect, issues around smoking cessation, looking at mental health, looking at exercise, looking at diet, ensuring that women are healthy at that point of conception will mean that their pregnancy will carry in a safer environment. So I think it's really important for us to consider if we are very serious about trying to address the inequalities, to look at the opportunity which this amendment provides, and therefore there is some conflict.
And that's why I think it's really important to look at that through the earliest of years. I also want to raise the factors which really can have an impact as well, and to seek assurance from the honourable member that we're not just talking about physical, mental and emotional health, but also environmental health. Again, a very important public health intervention. But I can't tell you the countless times that I've had to support a woman who is pregnant because they have appalling housing conditions that are presenting a real stress on her and anxiety through the pregnancy.
And we know that then that can lead to poorer outcomes as well. And I think it's really important that when we're looking at into this bill, that we are looking holistically at the surroundings of a woman and ensuring that she has got the support that she needs in the the wider measures that are required. Of course, I'm.
Now, in the intervention I made, I went talking about the need for outcomes. If we are serious about achieving equality and outcomes, we cannot just start at the point as set out in the bill at pregnancy and childbirth, or indeed in the amendment. The key in respect of. Prospective parents and indeed to the interpretation of what a prospective parent is. And that's expected to become a parent as a result of a current pregnancy, or expects to become a parent or carer of an infant already born.
The reason I raise this is because if we are truly to take a public health approach to pregnancy, we know that many of the factors which impact on the outcomes will be determined. Preconception. I want to just give a very clear example of that. If we look at the exposure of an infant to Fasd, this is fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We know that 77% of parents at the point of conception have used alcohol , and therefore exposes the foetus to risk of developing Fasd.
As a result of that, the trajectory through pregnancy and beyond of that infant will be impacted by what happens. Preconception. So if we are serious about the outcomes as set out and addressing the inequalities, if we just start at the point of conception, then we miss a huge opportunity to change the outcomes for those infants and address the very measures that we are trying to address there. And with Fasd having a higher prevalence now than children on the autism spectrum, we have got to recognise the impact that by focusing on preconception can have and ensuring that parents have the support.
And I spoke to my director of public Health just yesterday, and he also added, as you would expect, issues around smoking cessation, looking at mental health, looking at exercise, looking at diet, ensuring that women are healthy at that point of conception will mean that their pregnancy will carry in a safer environment. So I think it's really important for us to consider if we are very serious about trying to address the inequalities, to look at the opportunity which this amendment provides, and therefore there is some conflict.
And that's why I think it's really important to look at that through the earliest of years. I also want to raise the factors which really can have an impact as well, and to seek assurance from the honourable member that we're not just talking about physical, mental and emotional health, but also environmental health. Again, a very important public health intervention. But I can't tell you the countless times that I've had to support a woman who is pregnant because they have appalling housing conditions that are presenting a real stress on her and anxiety through the pregnancy.
And we know that then that can lead to poorer outcomes as well. And I think it's really important that when we're looking at into this bill, that we are looking holistically at the surroundings of a woman and ensuring that she has got the support that she needs in the the wider measures that are required. Of course, I'm.
10:08
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Confident that needs the needs of infants, parents, babies from conception on clearly would include, in my estimate, the needs for housing, healthy housing and all those provisions, and therefore I would my. My take would be that this is implicit within what. The Minister must assess the needs as. The danger, of course, is that if we start being explicit about all these things, we're going to have a very large, very long bill and a prolonged report stage.
10:09
10:09
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I'm really grateful for the honourable member's clarity, and I think that in this debate will hopefully ensure that we are measuring these elements, but securing the right environments. I did also want to raise a further issue, which is of particular importance to me as the chair of the all party parliamentary group for Adoption and Permanence, and that is around children at risk. We know that if there are early interventions to support parents through a pregnancy, that we can diminish that risk of a child being taken into the care system.
And in speaking to our director of midwifery, the distress that that causes midwives in trying to support a very distressed mother as a child is removed. And trying to reduce that risk is really important. So that information sharing between health and local authorities is absolutely crucial, so that interventions can be made to try and secure the relationship between the child and their parents, and to reduce the risk of a child being removed at birth or in early days.
And I think it's really important. Whilst I recognise in my own local authority, much is done at that point that a baby is born to secure those family bonds, that during pregnancy, it's really important that those interventions are made to reduce that risk. And therefore that in itself is often stemmed from inequalities. So being able to measure some of those measures is incredibly important. And finally, I just wish to key points with regards to looking at again on for two, looking at inputs, when we come to looking at inputs, we know that workforce in itself has been an incredibly difficult issue to address at times, because we do not have a comprehensive workforce plan between the multi agencies which are involved around an infant.
And therefore, I would like to propose to the minister that she looks at creating such an integrated multi-agency workforce plan over the 1001 critical day period to ensure that we see that real integration of service, but also that we don't see the deficit. Because clearly, if you haven't got the workforce there, that is going to have a huge impact on the outcomes, and particularly for more vulnerable families. And finally, I want to raise a pathway within the measurement.
Again, looking at the report and how the report is produced in clause four, it is really important that parents and carers with lived experience have agency and voice in the formulation of reporting, and I would really appreciated the minister could comment on that in her remarks, because I think we have been able to demonstrate in York, when parents and carers are involved in providing feedback, that services improve, and I'll end my remarks there. Thank you, doctor.
And in speaking to our director of midwifery, the distress that that causes midwives in trying to support a very distressed mother as a child is removed. And trying to reduce that risk is really important. So that information sharing between health and local authorities is absolutely crucial, so that interventions can be made to try and secure the relationship between the child and their parents, and to reduce the risk of a child being removed at birth or in early days.
And I think it's really important. Whilst I recognise in my own local authority, much is done at that point that a baby is born to secure those family bonds, that during pregnancy, it's really important that those interventions are made to reduce that risk. And therefore that in itself is often stemmed from inequalities. So being able to measure some of those measures is incredibly important. And finally, I just wish to key points with regards to looking at again on for two, looking at inputs, when we come to looking at inputs, we know that workforce in itself has been an incredibly difficult issue to address at times, because we do not have a comprehensive workforce plan between the multi agencies which are involved around an infant.
And therefore, I would like to propose to the minister that she looks at creating such an integrated multi-agency workforce plan over the 1001 critical day period to ensure that we see that real integration of service, but also that we don't see the deficit. Because clearly, if you haven't got the workforce there, that is going to have a huge impact on the outcomes, and particularly for more vulnerable families. And finally, I want to raise a pathway within the measurement.
Again, looking at the report and how the report is produced in clause four, it is really important that parents and carers with lived experience have agency and voice in the formulation of reporting, and I would really appreciated the minister could comment on that in her remarks, because I think we have been able to demonstrate in York, when parents and carers are involved in providing feedback, that services improve, and I'll end my remarks there. Thank you, doctor.
10:12
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Caroline Johnson, Shadow Minister thank you, Madam Chair, and it's a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship this morning, and I'd like to start by congratulating our writing of the new college grads for bringing this bill today and also recognizing the traditions of other members right across both houses and the former members of Parliament, Andrea Leadsom and Will Quince, who've done so much work in this area. I should also declare an interest, Madam Chair, as I am a consultant paediatrician in the NHS and also a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
I also want to put on record that the opposition is supporting this piece of legislation. Child development is hugely important. That is why we're all here today. In particular why I am here at all in respect of it being a major motivator for me to become an MP in the first place. I saw the effects as a paediatrician of children who were not receiving the care that they needed in the early years, and the profound the fact that it can have now, some of those cases were deliberate neglect, and where I saw children who had delayed growth, delayed development, physical changes.
I remember one little boy who had. He was admitted with vomiting and he wasn't ill. In respect of a medical condition. We discovered he'd learnt to vomit because nobody came . If he cried. And so those children need us to step up for them in a way that we aren't always doing at the moment. But there is a spectrum and most of the children are thankfully not in that in that situation.
But it does demonstrate the the profound changes that can occur if children are not looked after. But we also see the profound improvements that can occur if children receive all of the things that they need to thrive to their best opportunity. Sometimes parents may not understand the importance of certain interventions, or they may need support to be able to deliver them. And that is where this bill comes in. Some children need more support because of their own individual circumstances.
Perhaps they were born prematurely. Perhaps they have a chronic or a genetic condition. Perhaps their parents need extra support because their parents have mental health conditions, or haven't got the money to provide certain interventions that may be beneficial. And it is our job to ensure equality of opportunity so that every child has the opportunity to thrive and achieve their potential. And as the honourable member for York said, this starts before a baby is conceived and before a baby is born and raised.
In the maternity debate just the other day, Madam Chair, that the optimization of any treatment for chronic ill health and the prevention of taking drugs that may be teratogenic, we know that, for example, I met yesterday with a group who are campaigning in relation to infants who are exposed to sodium valproate in the womb and the teratogenic effects that that had. And they're waiting, of course, for the government to respond to the report, which I hope it will do very soon.
But as the honourable member says, there are issues around alcohol, smoking and vaccination which can also help to improve the children's outcome in the long run. And folic acid. We know that if a child is not having enough folic acid in the womb, then there is a risk of neural tube defects such as spina bifida and anencephaly. And the government have proceeded with the work that we've started on folic acid supplementation in flour, which would help to reduce that in terms of maternity care.
Again, this was talked about at some length in the main chamber earlier in the week, but I didn't get answers to a couple of questions. Just ask the minister while we're here. She could update the House and when the workforce plan will be produced, confirmed that the MSF on maternity and neonatal care will be available by the end of December. And also our honourable member for Lowestoft. Yeah, talked about the differences in outcomes between Black and Asian and white babies.
But there is a gap in maternal mortality between Black and Asian women and white women in the outcomes for maternity care. And the government have said that there were 31 manifesto that they would set a target for the reduction of that gap, but I haven't heard what it is. And if the minister could help with that, I'd be very grateful. Nutrition is really important, ensuring that children have access to the right nutrition as the brain rapidly grows over the first two years, and as others have said, breastfeeding is really helpful, but breastfeeding is not as easy as it sounds.
I remember when I had my first child, Madam Chair, and I had read the books cover to cover, and I knew I'd seen a number of infants breastfed over time as a paediatrician, and I remember being told by the antenatal care lady that it would be quite straightforward. The baby would know what to do and it'll all be very easy. It isn't like that at all in my experience, and actually it was quite, quite difficult to breastfeed and it can be quite uncomfortable in the first few weeks.
In fact, read , uncomfortable, read, very uncomfortable in the first few days. And I think it it's something that we, if women are supportive of, particularly in those first couple of weeks, then it does become easy actually, and simple and much easier than bottle feeding because it's always with you and always available and, and better for the baby. But that's that support group and the support that I had for breastfeeding support group in Grantham near my home was very helpful at that time.
And if more women had access to that sort of support, we could see that more women would get the right nutrition in that respect.
I also want to put on record that the opposition is supporting this piece of legislation. Child development is hugely important. That is why we're all here today. In particular why I am here at all in respect of it being a major motivator for me to become an MP in the first place. I saw the effects as a paediatrician of children who were not receiving the care that they needed in the early years, and the profound the fact that it can have now, some of those cases were deliberate neglect, and where I saw children who had delayed growth, delayed development, physical changes.
I remember one little boy who had. He was admitted with vomiting and he wasn't ill. In respect of a medical condition. We discovered he'd learnt to vomit because nobody came . If he cried. And so those children need us to step up for them in a way that we aren't always doing at the moment. But there is a spectrum and most of the children are thankfully not in that in that situation.
But it does demonstrate the the profound changes that can occur if children are not looked after. But we also see the profound improvements that can occur if children receive all of the things that they need to thrive to their best opportunity. Sometimes parents may not understand the importance of certain interventions, or they may need support to be able to deliver them. And that is where this bill comes in. Some children need more support because of their own individual circumstances.
Perhaps they were born prematurely. Perhaps they have a chronic or a genetic condition. Perhaps their parents need extra support because their parents have mental health conditions, or haven't got the money to provide certain interventions that may be beneficial. And it is our job to ensure equality of opportunity so that every child has the opportunity to thrive and achieve their potential. And as the honourable member for York said, this starts before a baby is conceived and before a baby is born and raised.
In the maternity debate just the other day, Madam Chair, that the optimization of any treatment for chronic ill health and the prevention of taking drugs that may be teratogenic, we know that, for example, I met yesterday with a group who are campaigning in relation to infants who are exposed to sodium valproate in the womb and the teratogenic effects that that had. And they're waiting, of course, for the government to respond to the report, which I hope it will do very soon.
But as the honourable member says, there are issues around alcohol, smoking and vaccination which can also help to improve the children's outcome in the long run. And folic acid. We know that if a child is not having enough folic acid in the womb, then there is a risk of neural tube defects such as spina bifida and anencephaly. And the government have proceeded with the work that we've started on folic acid supplementation in flour, which would help to reduce that in terms of maternity care.
Again, this was talked about at some length in the main chamber earlier in the week, but I didn't get answers to a couple of questions. Just ask the minister while we're here. She could update the House and when the workforce plan will be produced, confirmed that the MSF on maternity and neonatal care will be available by the end of December. And also our honourable member for Lowestoft. Yeah, talked about the differences in outcomes between Black and Asian and white babies.
But there is a gap in maternal mortality between Black and Asian women and white women in the outcomes for maternity care. And the government have said that there were 31 manifesto that they would set a target for the reduction of that gap, but I haven't heard what it is. And if the minister could help with that, I'd be very grateful. Nutrition is really important, ensuring that children have access to the right nutrition as the brain rapidly grows over the first two years, and as others have said, breastfeeding is really helpful, but breastfeeding is not as easy as it sounds.
I remember when I had my first child, Madam Chair, and I had read the books cover to cover, and I knew I'd seen a number of infants breastfed over time as a paediatrician, and I remember being told by the antenatal care lady that it would be quite straightforward. The baby would know what to do and it'll all be very easy. It isn't like that at all in my experience, and actually it was quite, quite difficult to breastfeed and it can be quite uncomfortable in the first few weeks.
In fact, read , uncomfortable, read, very uncomfortable in the first few days. And I think it it's something that we, if women are supportive of, particularly in those first couple of weeks, then it does become easy actually, and simple and much easier than bottle feeding because it's always with you and always available and, and better for the baby. But that's that support group and the support that I had for breastfeeding support group in Grantham near my home was very helpful at that time.
And if more women had access to that sort of support, we could see that more women would get the right nutrition in that respect.
10:18
10:18
10:18
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Just I thank the shadow minister for giving way. And she's making a really important point. Does she also agree with me that representation in politics is so important, and having women in politics, because they are able to talk about their unique experiences when it comes to breastfeeding and, and making sure we get lots of women into politics so that they can raise important points like she just did.
10:18
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I think it's important that we have women and men in politics, because fathers have an important role to play in babies, too. And, and gentlemen can talk about their experiences of, of, of fatherhood. And one of the challenges that some babies face is the lack of that male role model. So I think it's a balance between the two. And, and of course, women and men can talk about each and either topic if they wish to do so.
So, so the other thing I want to talk about was interaction and play the serve and return. The effects of being played with and, and stimulated essentially is very important for brain development. And the lack of it can lead to reduced attention span, reduced memory, and weaker impulse control in the long run. So it's something that people might believe comes instinctively. And to some it does, but to others less so, and the support and understanding what they can do to help their baby is, is something that I think women and men value because they will actually, everyone or almost everyone loves their children intently.
And so they will want to do the best for their baby. And sometimes it's helpful to be able to know what the what that is. And often I get patients in clinic who come with one problem. But if they have a small infant, they will often while they while I'm here, doctor. And I'm sure the GP officer will tell. Tell us the same and get that question. Can you just look at this? Can I just ask about that? And that's because there are so many questions.
And to have the opportunity to ask, answer them, have them answers are very important. I just want to talk about inequalities as well, because we've talked about inequalities a lot this morning. But there is inequality between the services provided in cities and in rural areas. And I wonder if the minister has any comments to make on how these services will be provided in rural environments, because very often the postcode average income may be maybe good, but they'll be hidden poverty within that because of the discrepancies that you see less of in cities in terms of postcode average.
So and obviously transport can be more difficult in rural areas too. So how will the minister ensure that the services provided are accessible to those who need them? I also want to talk about the money of it, because actually, if we invest one £1 in a child's life when they're this age, we can get £10 back in return because of the better outcome in the long run. So will the minister confirm that the money will be provided for these services in full, that the workforce there will be a workforce plan to ensure there is a workforce to deliver these services.
And the honourable member for Washington and Gates himself, I know has done a lot of work in this area over the years and cares about it very deeply, talks about outcomes and outcomes is important, but not value for money because you have to be careful taxpayers money. So what are the interventions that are making the most difference and how do we focus on achieving those interventions? We need to think carefully about what we measure. But overall, I think this is a good bill that will help influence some children to develop their full potential and have equality of opportunity, and therefore I will support it.
So, so the other thing I want to talk about was interaction and play the serve and return. The effects of being played with and, and stimulated essentially is very important for brain development. And the lack of it can lead to reduced attention span, reduced memory, and weaker impulse control in the long run. So it's something that people might believe comes instinctively. And to some it does, but to others less so, and the support and understanding what they can do to help their baby is, is something that I think women and men value because they will actually, everyone or almost everyone loves their children intently.
And so they will want to do the best for their baby. And sometimes it's helpful to be able to know what the what that is. And often I get patients in clinic who come with one problem. But if they have a small infant, they will often while they while I'm here, doctor. And I'm sure the GP officer will tell. Tell us the same and get that question. Can you just look at this? Can I just ask about that? And that's because there are so many questions.
And to have the opportunity to ask, answer them, have them answers are very important. I just want to talk about inequalities as well, because we've talked about inequalities a lot this morning. But there is inequality between the services provided in cities and in rural areas. And I wonder if the minister has any comments to make on how these services will be provided in rural environments, because very often the postcode average income may be maybe good, but they'll be hidden poverty within that because of the discrepancies that you see less of in cities in terms of postcode average.
So and obviously transport can be more difficult in rural areas too. So how will the minister ensure that the services provided are accessible to those who need them? I also want to talk about the money of it, because actually, if we invest one £1 in a child's life when they're this age, we can get £10 back in return because of the better outcome in the long run. So will the minister confirm that the money will be provided for these services in full, that the workforce there will be a workforce plan to ensure there is a workforce to deliver these services.
And the honourable member for Washington and Gates himself, I know has done a lot of work in this area over the years and cares about it very deeply, talks about outcomes and outcomes is important, but not value for money because you have to be careful taxpayers money. So what are the interventions that are making the most difference and how do we focus on achieving those interventions? We need to think carefully about what we measure. But overall, I think this is a good bill that will help influence some children to develop their full potential and have equality of opportunity, and therefore I will support it.
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:22
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Think we've had a very thoughtful and well informed debate on the bill. I am grateful to all the members who have contributed, but I want to pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest West for bringing forward the Bill and the care, determination and constructive spirit with which he has championed it, and I will follow his lead and deal with both groupings in my remarks. I think we can all agree that every baby should get the best possible start in life.
And I'm delighted that last month, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced the expansion of healthy babies to every local authority in England. Like Surestart before it, healthy babies will make enhanced health support available in every part of England, giving all families access to trusted, practical help throughout the critical 1000 days from conception to age two. This bill will complement healthy babies expansion, providing long term visibility and accountability for support from conception through the first two years of life, and the bill creates a clear and enduring framework for support from conception to age two.
Now, we've had a number of important points raised in the debate today. I want to refer, first of all, to the honourable member for Chichester, who asked about whether those undergoing IVF would be included in prospective parents, and the bill focuses on support from conception to two years. As we've heard, parents who conceive through IVF will therefore be covered from the point at which a pregnancy is established in the in the same way as any other prospective parent.
She also asked about breastfeeding, breastfeeding and there were a number of contributions on that very important issue, and she was asking about whether there would be support in the secondary legislation that would come forward. So our starting point for secondary legislation will be the Healthy Babies offer, and that includes maternity health, visiting infant feeding support, perinatal mental health support and parent infant relationship support, while remaining open to considering other services that might there might be evidence showing that babies and families actually need.
So the answer to that is absolutely yes. And we also heard from my honourable friend for Washington and Gateshead South. And again, I want to pay tribute to her for all the work she's done in her previous role in making sure that this bill is before us today, and we are moving through the stages in the House and as ever, a very thoughtful and very well informed contribution and supporting amendment one. And then my hon. Friend for Stoke on Trent South, who again spoke in support of amendment one and spoke so movingly again about her constituent and Chloe, Chloe Wiltshire and the very sad case.
And I'm very glad that ministers will be meeting shortly with my honourable friend now, my hon. Friend for Newport West and Islwyn talked about her experience as a paediatric physiotherapist and how important the support that families get, that mothers get from conception onwards to to ensuring that children babies get the best start in life. And my hon. Friend for York Central, who has ever made a very considered speech, raised a number of issues, including environmental issues and whether that would be considered.
And I was very interested to hear the exchange between the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend on that point, and the belief that he has that that's implicit within the drafting of the bill, that environmental issues, amongst others, would be considered the children at risk and the sharing of data between health and local authorities. Absolutely. That's a key issue that we need to work at and the workforce plan. And I know the honourable lady who speaks for the opposition also raised the workforce plan, and I am told we won't have to wait too much longer.
There will be a workforce plan published shortly, but I take the point that my hon. Friend raises about the need for integrated planning around the workforce, for babies and children, and also, of course, the need for the voice and agency of families, mothers, fathers, carers to be included in this whole issue. And just finally, on the preconception issue, preconception health is, of course, very important, but the bill is deliberately focused on the clearly defined period from conception to age two, when support can be directly linked to pregnancy, childbirth and infant development.
Extending it further would significantly broaden its scope and duplicate wider public health policy. So if I can just turn to the clauses before us today, clause one establishes the scope of the framework set out in the Bill, and it requires the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the publicly funded infant support services to which the act will apply, together with the functions connected with their provision. These services must support pregnancy or childbirth, an infant's health and development, or the relationship between an infant and their parent or carer.
Crucially, the clause allows services and functions to be updated as needs and provisions evolve, helping support remain relevant to babies and families. Any change will be made through regulations subject to parliamentary oversight, and that approach allows the framework to evolve as evidenced. Services and families needs change because the regulations will be subject to the affirmative process, both houses will have an opportunity to scrutinise and approve them. Clause two puts the needs and experience of infants, parents and carers at the heart of national decision making.
It helps ensure that babies whose voices are too often unheard are not overlooked. We all know that the period from conception to age two is a golden opportunity to shape life, health, learning and happiness. This clause, therefore, requires the Secretary of State to assess the expected level of need for infant support services specified in the Bill. This is a practical, evidence informed approach so that it can respond to the needs of babies and families as they change.
The clause deliberately does not prescribe every detail of the assessment. It does, however, establish a clear expectation that need will be understood and kept under review, helping inform decisions about services and resources.
And I'm delighted that last month, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced the expansion of healthy babies to every local authority in England. Like Surestart before it, healthy babies will make enhanced health support available in every part of England, giving all families access to trusted, practical help throughout the critical 1000 days from conception to age two. This bill will complement healthy babies expansion, providing long term visibility and accountability for support from conception through the first two years of life, and the bill creates a clear and enduring framework for support from conception to age two.
Now, we've had a number of important points raised in the debate today. I want to refer, first of all, to the honourable member for Chichester, who asked about whether those undergoing IVF would be included in prospective parents, and the bill focuses on support from conception to two years. As we've heard, parents who conceive through IVF will therefore be covered from the point at which a pregnancy is established in the in the same way as any other prospective parent.
She also asked about breastfeeding, breastfeeding and there were a number of contributions on that very important issue, and she was asking about whether there would be support in the secondary legislation that would come forward. So our starting point for secondary legislation will be the Healthy Babies offer, and that includes maternity health, visiting infant feeding support, perinatal mental health support and parent infant relationship support, while remaining open to considering other services that might there might be evidence showing that babies and families actually need.
So the answer to that is absolutely yes. And we also heard from my honourable friend for Washington and Gateshead South. And again, I want to pay tribute to her for all the work she's done in her previous role in making sure that this bill is before us today, and we are moving through the stages in the House and as ever, a very thoughtful and very well informed contribution and supporting amendment one. And then my hon. Friend for Stoke on Trent South, who again spoke in support of amendment one and spoke so movingly again about her constituent and Chloe, Chloe Wiltshire and the very sad case.
And I'm very glad that ministers will be meeting shortly with my honourable friend now, my hon. Friend for Newport West and Islwyn talked about her experience as a paediatric physiotherapist and how important the support that families get, that mothers get from conception onwards to to ensuring that children babies get the best start in life. And my hon. Friend for York Central, who has ever made a very considered speech, raised a number of issues, including environmental issues and whether that would be considered.
And I was very interested to hear the exchange between the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend on that point, and the belief that he has that that's implicit within the drafting of the bill, that environmental issues, amongst others, would be considered the children at risk and the sharing of data between health and local authorities. Absolutely. That's a key issue that we need to work at and the workforce plan. And I know the honourable lady who speaks for the opposition also raised the workforce plan, and I am told we won't have to wait too much longer.
There will be a workforce plan published shortly, but I take the point that my hon. Friend raises about the need for integrated planning around the workforce, for babies and children, and also, of course, the need for the voice and agency of families, mothers, fathers, carers to be included in this whole issue. And just finally, on the preconception issue, preconception health is, of course, very important, but the bill is deliberately focused on the clearly defined period from conception to age two, when support can be directly linked to pregnancy, childbirth and infant development.
Extending it further would significantly broaden its scope and duplicate wider public health policy. So if I can just turn to the clauses before us today, clause one establishes the scope of the framework set out in the Bill, and it requires the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the publicly funded infant support services to which the act will apply, together with the functions connected with their provision. These services must support pregnancy or childbirth, an infant's health and development, or the relationship between an infant and their parent or carer.
Crucially, the clause allows services and functions to be updated as needs and provisions evolve, helping support remain relevant to babies and families. Any change will be made through regulations subject to parliamentary oversight, and that approach allows the framework to evolve as evidenced. Services and families needs change because the regulations will be subject to the affirmative process, both houses will have an opportunity to scrutinise and approve them. Clause two puts the needs and experience of infants, parents and carers at the heart of national decision making.
It helps ensure that babies whose voices are too often unheard are not overlooked. We all know that the period from conception to age two is a golden opportunity to shape life, health, learning and happiness. This clause, therefore, requires the Secretary of State to assess the expected level of need for infant support services specified in the Bill. This is a practical, evidence informed approach so that it can respond to the needs of babies and families as they change.
The clause deliberately does not prescribe every detail of the assessment. It does, however, establish a clear expectation that need will be understood and kept under review, helping inform decisions about services and resources.
10:28
10:28
10:28
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
and Bill will monitor what services are available and where there are deficiencies, but we already know today. So I'm welcoming the government's commitment to expanding Healthy Babies programme across England. But we know today that there's a 40% shortfall in health visitors that are needed to cover, and some health visitors are covering , instead of 250 cases, up to 1000. So will the minister comment on the actions the government is taking today to address known deficiencies in parallel with bringing this bill forward?
10:29
10:29
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Well, I'm grateful for the honourable gentleman for raising that point, because we all understand how important health visitors are, and I absolutely acknowledge the reduction in the numbers over over previous years. And that's something that this government is determined to do something about. So take take the point. And what I would say is that this is a for me, being responsible for children's health, I'm very conscious that we have a service with with health visitors that has great potential.
I'm thinking particularly around vaccinations
I'm thinking particularly around vaccinations
10:29
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Particularly around vaccinations and improving the rates of vaccinations. And we've got some work going on with health visitors to do that. So I will perhaps write to the honourable gentleman with more specific details, but I absolutely take the point. Just returning to the clause. I just want to make it clear that, importantly, the Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to include the views of parents and carers, as well as prospective parents and carers when carrying out this assessment.
And just as we encourage local areas to shape services for and with families, national decisions should begin with the experience of babies and those who care for them. And that goes to the the point that my hon. Friend from York Central was raising. Some babies and families, of course, face additional challenges such as poor mental health, isolation, financial pressure or housing insecurity, and a regular assessment will help bring these pressures into view and inform decisions about the appropriate levels of provision.
And it might be helpful at this point if I turn to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the member for Lowestoft and I know she has long championed the rights of children and the need to address inequalities, and she again made her points in the debate with her usual eloquence and passion. And I understand and I welcome the challenge that she has made. She is right to press the government to ensure that the assessment looks beyond expressed demand, considering both wellbeing and inequalities, and pays particular attention to those experiencing the greatest disadvantage, and the government shares that objective.
If I start by saying that it was always intended that clause two assessments would consider health inequalities, drawing on evidence of unmet need and differences between groups and places we intended. And I think the hon. The right hon. Gentleman did, too, that that would be implicit in the drafting of the Bill. Now, we've heard reference to section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and section one C of the NHS act 2006.
The equality, duty and the duties have regard to reducing inequalities in access to and outcomes from health services. Together, they require particular attention to those experiencing the greatest disadvantage. However, I absolutely understand the importance of ensuring the assessment considers wellbeing and inequalities. Families do not experience need equally, and the assessment must pay particular attention to those facing health inequalities so that unmet need is identified and services can respond fairly and effectively.
I therefore, would welcome the opportunity to work with the honourable member for Lowestoft and the right hon. Member for New Forest West to further consider the amendment ahead of report stage, and on that basis, I would ask my hon. Friend if she would consider not pushing it to a vote at this stage and returning to it at report stage. Clause three is concerned with action. It builds on the assessment required by clause two, and ensures that evidence about the needs of babies and families informs the exercise of the Secretary of State's functions.
The clause requires the Secretary of State, when exercising functions specified in the Bill, to act with a view to ensuring appropriate levels of service provision for infants, parents and carers, and prospective parents and carers. In doing so, the Secretary of State must have regard to the most recent assessment of need carried out under clause two. This creates a clear link between understanding need and considering appropriate levels of provision. The Bill deliberately does not impose a rigid or uniform national requirement.
Needs existing services and local circumstances differ, and an equal distribution of resources will not always deliver on equitable and equitable response. Instead, clause three allows the Secretary of State to take account of assessed need, differences between areas and the services already available. The level and type of provision may therefore vary. While the needs of babies and families remain central to decision making. This approach strengthens visibility and accountability while retaining the flexibility needed to respond as circumstances change.
Babies and families needs can change rapidly, and an agile response is required. Those 1001 days cannot wait. Clause four provides the accountability mechanism at the heart of the bill. It requires the Secretary of State to prepare a report for each reporting period, and to lay that report before both Houses of Parliament. The report must assess the level of provision of the specified infant Support services during the period. This will give Parliament regular and transparent information about the support available in England to infants, parents, carers and prospective parents and carers.
Importantly, the report must consider not only what provision exists, but the contribution those services have made to positive outcomes in relation to pregnancy and childbirth, infant health and development, and the relationship between parents or carers and the infant. This includes examining those outcomes in the light of the needs assessed under clause two. Clause four therefore completes the link between understanding need, considering the appropriate level of provision and reporting openly on the contribution services are making to the positive outcomes.
By making provision and outcomes more visible. This clause will support sustained focus on babies and their families and provide a clear basis for parliamentary scrutiny. Clause five defines the bill's key terms. It defines an infant as a child under two years of age. That reflects the bill's focused on the earliest period of life when the foundations for health, wellbeing and development are laid. The clause defines a parent broadly, including anyone with parental responsibility for a child or an infant.
It also recognises carers who look after an infant without having parental responsibility. This inclusive approach reflects the range of family circumstances in which infants are cared for. It ensures that the bill is not limited to one particular family structure or legal relationship. Clause five also covers prospective parents and carers. This means the bill can take account of people preparing to become responsible for an infant, whether through a current pregnancy or in relation to a child who has already been born.
These definitions do not create any separate duties or entitlement to services. They provide the clarity needed for the duties and the bill to be understood and applied consistently. Clause six contains standard provisions needed to bring the bill into effect. It deals with territorial extent, commencement, transitional or saving arrangements and the short title of the act. The bill extends to England and Wales, but its substantive provisions apply to England.
Clause six will take effect on Royal assent, with the remaining provisions commenced by regulation. This allows time to prepare for implementation regulations, specifying or changing the services and functions within scope will be subject, as I have said to the affirmative procedure, giving both houses the opportunity to scrutinise and approve them. Dame Siobhan, this is a really important bill. It will help ensure that babies and families remain visible in national decision making and that support during the critical period from conception to age two is informed by need, focused on outcomes and accountable to Parliament.
I would like to thank all members for their thoughtful and constructive contributions today, and again, pay tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest West for bringing forward this bill and for his continued commitment to giving every baby the best possible start in life. The government is pleased to support this bill and I commend it to the committee. It is.
And just as we encourage local areas to shape services for and with families, national decisions should begin with the experience of babies and those who care for them. And that goes to the the point that my hon. Friend from York Central was raising. Some babies and families, of course, face additional challenges such as poor mental health, isolation, financial pressure or housing insecurity, and a regular assessment will help bring these pressures into view and inform decisions about the appropriate levels of provision.
And it might be helpful at this point if I turn to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the member for Lowestoft and I know she has long championed the rights of children and the need to address inequalities, and she again made her points in the debate with her usual eloquence and passion. And I understand and I welcome the challenge that she has made. She is right to press the government to ensure that the assessment looks beyond expressed demand, considering both wellbeing and inequalities, and pays particular attention to those experiencing the greatest disadvantage, and the government shares that objective.
If I start by saying that it was always intended that clause two assessments would consider health inequalities, drawing on evidence of unmet need and differences between groups and places we intended. And I think the hon. The right hon. Gentleman did, too, that that would be implicit in the drafting of the Bill. Now, we've heard reference to section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and section one C of the NHS act 2006.
The equality, duty and the duties have regard to reducing inequalities in access to and outcomes from health services. Together, they require particular attention to those experiencing the greatest disadvantage. However, I absolutely understand the importance of ensuring the assessment considers wellbeing and inequalities. Families do not experience need equally, and the assessment must pay particular attention to those facing health inequalities so that unmet need is identified and services can respond fairly and effectively.
I therefore, would welcome the opportunity to work with the honourable member for Lowestoft and the right hon. Member for New Forest West to further consider the amendment ahead of report stage, and on that basis, I would ask my hon. Friend if she would consider not pushing it to a vote at this stage and returning to it at report stage. Clause three is concerned with action. It builds on the assessment required by clause two, and ensures that evidence about the needs of babies and families informs the exercise of the Secretary of State's functions.
The clause requires the Secretary of State, when exercising functions specified in the Bill, to act with a view to ensuring appropriate levels of service provision for infants, parents and carers, and prospective parents and carers. In doing so, the Secretary of State must have regard to the most recent assessment of need carried out under clause two. This creates a clear link between understanding need and considering appropriate levels of provision. The Bill deliberately does not impose a rigid or uniform national requirement.
Needs existing services and local circumstances differ, and an equal distribution of resources will not always deliver on equitable and equitable response. Instead, clause three allows the Secretary of State to take account of assessed need, differences between areas and the services already available. The level and type of provision may therefore vary. While the needs of babies and families remain central to decision making. This approach strengthens visibility and accountability while retaining the flexibility needed to respond as circumstances change.
Babies and families needs can change rapidly, and an agile response is required. Those 1001 days cannot wait. Clause four provides the accountability mechanism at the heart of the bill. It requires the Secretary of State to prepare a report for each reporting period, and to lay that report before both Houses of Parliament. The report must assess the level of provision of the specified infant Support services during the period. This will give Parliament regular and transparent information about the support available in England to infants, parents, carers and prospective parents and carers.
Importantly, the report must consider not only what provision exists, but the contribution those services have made to positive outcomes in relation to pregnancy and childbirth, infant health and development, and the relationship between parents or carers and the infant. This includes examining those outcomes in the light of the needs assessed under clause two. Clause four therefore completes the link between understanding need, considering the appropriate level of provision and reporting openly on the contribution services are making to the positive outcomes.
By making provision and outcomes more visible. This clause will support sustained focus on babies and their families and provide a clear basis for parliamentary scrutiny. Clause five defines the bill's key terms. It defines an infant as a child under two years of age. That reflects the bill's focused on the earliest period of life when the foundations for health, wellbeing and development are laid. The clause defines a parent broadly, including anyone with parental responsibility for a child or an infant.
It also recognises carers who look after an infant without having parental responsibility. This inclusive approach reflects the range of family circumstances in which infants are cared for. It ensures that the bill is not limited to one particular family structure or legal relationship. Clause five also covers prospective parents and carers. This means the bill can take account of people preparing to become responsible for an infant, whether through a current pregnancy or in relation to a child who has already been born.
These definitions do not create any separate duties or entitlement to services. They provide the clarity needed for the duties and the bill to be understood and applied consistently. Clause six contains standard provisions needed to bring the bill into effect. It deals with territorial extent, commencement, transitional or saving arrangements and the short title of the act. The bill extends to England and Wales, but its substantive provisions apply to England.
Clause six will take effect on Royal assent, with the remaining provisions commenced by regulation. This allows time to prepare for implementation regulations, specifying or changing the services and functions within scope will be subject, as I have said to the affirmative procedure, giving both houses the opportunity to scrutinise and approve them. Dame Siobhan, this is a really important bill. It will help ensure that babies and families remain visible in national decision making and that support during the critical period from conception to age two is informed by need, focused on outcomes and accountable to Parliament.
I would like to thank all members for their thoughtful and constructive contributions today, and again, pay tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest West for bringing forward this bill and for his continued commitment to giving every baby the best possible start in life. The government is pleased to support this bill and I commend it to the committee. It is.
10:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I thank the members of the committee for their attendance and for their contributions, and in particular, to thank the Honourable lady, the member for Lowestoft, for her amendment which has enabled the debate that we've had and enabled the Minister to make the commitment that she is now given to work further on the issue of the amendment, and that, after all, is one of the principal duties of a committee stage to achieve that debate and scrutiny of the bill.
I think we are all, as a committee of one objective in this. Even if we may have detected some minor difference as to how it might best be achieved, I should also like to thank the Minister and her officials for the work that has gone into the preparation for getting the bill to its stage today, and particularly for recent discussions that we've had, and to the support of the staff in my own office who have carried the burden of that. Can I ask all members of the committee to put into their diary the 29th of January, Friday, the 29th of January, when we will deal with the remaining stages? That's certainly my estimate of when we'll deal with the remaining stages.
And it's very important that were there to be any division, and I would hope that there would not. But were there to be any division on that day, it is vital that the House be caught. Thank you very much.
I think we are all, as a committee of one objective in this. Even if we may have detected some minor difference as to how it might best be achieved, I should also like to thank the Minister and her officials for the work that has gone into the preparation for getting the bill to its stage today, and particularly for recent discussions that we've had, and to the support of the staff in my own office who have carried the burden of that. Can I ask all members of the committee to put into their diary the 29th of January, Friday, the 29th of January, when we will deal with the remaining stages? That's certainly my estimate of when we'll deal with the remaining stages.
And it's very important that were there to be any division, and I would hope that there would not. But were there to be any division on that day, it is vital that the House be caught. Thank you very much.
10:39
10:39
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Clause one stand part of the bill, as many are of that opinion, say I. I. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Can I ask the member for Lowestoft what she would like to happen? Not me. Mr.. The question is that clause two and clause three stand part of the Bill, as many are of that opinion, say I.
I. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause four stand. Part of the bill, as many are of that opinion, say I. I. Of the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. The eyes have it. The question is that clause five and six stand part of the bill, as many are of that opinion, say I.
I. Of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that clause four stand. Part of the bill, as many are of that opinion, say I. I. Of the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. The eyes have it. The question is that clause five and six stand part of the bill, as many are of that opinion, say I.
10:40
10:40
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Of the contrary? No. I think the ayes have it. The eyes have it. The final question I must put is that I do report this bill to the House. The question is that I report the bill to the House, as many are of that opinion, say I. I to the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.
Order, order!
Order, order!