Early Childhood Development

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and her cross-party colleagues in the important work that they are doing in highlighting the issues we are discussing. The manifesto is accessible, understandable and persuasive. Speaking as a relatively new dad, so much of it is also very intuitive. It makes one think, “Yeah, of course; that is pretty straightforward and obvious,” although we need to see a lot more of it happening.

I want to take a slightly different angle and talk a little about social mobility and the effect of the first days and years of life on children’s eventual chances. When considering child development, it is always helpful to have in mind a sort of pyramid—in fact, there is such a pyramid in the manifesto. It creates a hierarchy of need. The sharp end of the pyramid is the very sharp end of the scale—the acute cases where, frankly, social mobility is not the top priority. The top priority is child protection, basic safety and health; social mobility is a worry for another day. At the base of the pyramid is the massive part—the world at large; most people. In the middle is the section of children I want to talk about today: those born into poverty and disadvantage who are not quite in the acute bracket.

We know that social mobility in this country is low by international standards—we are usually bracketed with Italy and the United States—and it has not been improving. On average, those of us here in our forties—including, as of a couple of days ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)—have been less mobile in our lives than those of us here in their fifties. That is a poor state for any advanced democracy to find itself in. Why is that the case? When I was on the Education Committee, we used to find that everyone blamed the stage before. If we spoke to universities, they said that they were not getting the kids coming through from sixth forms; the sixth forms blamed the teachers doing the GCSEs; the secondary schools blamed the primary schools; the primary schools blamed the nurseries; and the nurseries said, “We are just not getting the kids through the door anymore.”

There is an element of truth in what they all said. The more one studies social mobility and children’s life chances, the more one realises that it increasingly does come down to the very earliest age. The all-party group on social mobility published a report called “Seven key truths about social mobility”. Truth No. 1 was that the point of greatest leverage for children’s life chances is what happens between the ages of zero and three—that is what we said, although it could equally be what happens between the ages of zero and two. The problem is that, of course, this is the public sector—we are trying to influence the Government and so on—and most of what happens between the ages of zero and two or three does not happen in a state-controlled or influenced setting; it happens at home. That makes things much more difficult.

Why is this a social mobility issue? How children are brought up is not particularly, or does not have to be, dependent on parents’ income, but there is quite a strong correlation. Figures from “An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK”, a report made by the previous Government at the end of their term, show that on school readiness, for example, children from the poorest fifth of households reach about a third of the way up the percentile scale at age 3, versus more than 60% of children born into the wealthiest third. There is a bunch of statistics like that.

It is frightening that even toddlers’ cognitive ability test scores vary more dramatically according to their parents’ income than according to innate differences in ability. In the millennium cohort study, which tracks children through time, that gap does not narrow between the ages of three and five; in fact, it seems to widen as children go through school. Why? I am careful not to infer any direct causality. All sorts of factors may be involved, but there are significant differences in some things that people associate with home learning environments, and so on, according to socio-economic groups. In the lowest socio-economic group—the poorest fifth of households—only about 40% of children are read to every day at age 3, as opposed to more than 80% in the top 20%. Again, those figures are from “An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK”. Those things can be tracked with a series of measures, including bed time, and so on.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of work undertaken by the chief medical officer of Scotland, Harry Burns, on brain development in children from families with generations of economic deprivation. It showed that their brains were developing differently: the fight-or-flight part of the brain was overdeveloped. That shows that there is a real link between children’s life opportunities and deprivation.

[Damian Hinds]

Clearly, there is a link—a range of studies suggest different ways in which that link manifests itself—and I do not think that any commentator argues about its existence, but there is nothing inevitable about that; it ought to be possible to equalise children’s life chances. Of course, there are examples of both brilliant and awful parenting in every income bracket. Children’s development is no respecter of the home they happen to have been born into. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) says,

“it is primarily parents who shape their children’s outcomes—a healthy pregnancy, good mental health, the way that they parent and whether the home environment is educational”.

As he and many others say, what parents do is much more important than who they are.

Home life is difficult territory for the state. I suggest that we need to think harder about how to communicate what is known about successful, positive ways to parent—a quite substantial body of evidence—in a way that does not come across as, and in fact is not, telling people how to bring up their children.

Geography, as well as income group, reveals other interesting differences in early child development. There is a particular difference in London. When people are told this, they assume that child development is worse in London than elsewhere, because of all the issues in a big city like this. However, that is not so. There was another report last week about the different school results of children growing up in London, versus those growing up elsewhere. That is often attributed to the London Challenge, which started in 2003. There are a number of reasons to believe that the London Challenge was not the sole or primary cause of those improvements. One reason to disbelieve that is that the difference in attainment scores for disadvantaged children is apparent way before they get to secondary school; in fact, it is apparent even in pre-school assessments: on average, disadvantaged children in London seem to do about 20% better on the “good level of development” scale than disadvantaged children in the rest of the country. A bunch of things are different about London children and families.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Excuse my missing the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, Mr Weir. As someone who was involved in the London Challenge, I should like to know what the relationship is. I am not clear about that. If it was not the London Challenge, what made the difference?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman asks a big question. I do not want to test your patience, Mr Weir, by debating the London Challenge, rather than early child development. I will talk in a minute about societal differences that may or may not be driving factors. The honest answer is that we do not know, but there are reasons to disbelieve that the simple explanation for London’s improvement is the London Challenge. First, the differences are apparent long before children reach secondary school, and the hon. Gentleman will recall that it only started in 2003. Secondly, when translated from London to the black country and Manchester, there were not the same results. Thirdly, so many other things that are different about London are worth looking into.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend speaks so authoritatively on social mobility. It is always interesting to listen to him. However, I put it to him that one reason for London’s exceptionalism could, of course, be that its large immigrant population comes from a different cultural place. My opinion, as opposed to a research view, is that immigrant populations have not suffered the same degree of family breakdown. We found, through my work with the parent-infant projects, that often in immigrant populations there is much more of a family network. Therefore, the bond is often quite secure, even in areas of great deprivation, because of the support for the earliest period of the baby’s life.

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend anticipates where I am going. We are into the realm of speculation. We do not know. It is true that many things are different about family structure, and so on, in London, compared with the rest of the country. We do not know what is the causality, if any, of any of those things or of the outcomes.

Let me start by mentioning some of the things that are the same. There is no significant difference in gender mix, age and birth weight of babies born in London; mothers tend to be older—we know that that is a factor in child development—and better educated; families are bigger in London, and children are more likely to have brothers and sisters; and the mix is massively more diverse than in the rest of the country, both in terms of ethnic diversity, recent immigrants and families with English as an additional language.

In London, there is a slightly lower percentage of children with either a single mother or both parents working; in other words, there are more families where at least one parent is at home. This surprises people. There is also lower participation in pre-school provision and use of formal child care, which, again, surprises people, because ordinarily we expect that participation in early years settings and use of formal child care is associated with positive improvements in child development.

Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire mentioned, although it is, bizarrely, difficult to get reliable statistics, it appears that London is above the national average for the proportion of families with children in which parents are married. That flies in the face of what most people would assume about this city. However, that raises an important question. A massive debate has been going on in America in the past couple of weeks about a Harvard report by Chetty et al. called “Where is the Land of Opportunity?” which presented a number of challenging results in the US context, in terms of social mobility. Its No. 1 conclusion is that family structure is the single most important determinant of social mobility in America and that, interestingly, it affects not only the immediate family, but has a broader effect. In other words, in a neighbourhood where most children are born to two-parent families—specifically, families where the two parents are married—even if people are not in one of those families, by being in such a neighbourhood, they have more chance of getting on.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is making a fascinating point. I entirely agree with the personal views of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on the different complexion of London, but one only has to look at Mediterranean countries to see the far lesser influence of family breakdown, which is related to inter-generational support. We have spoken about support for parents, the preference for having two parents and how marriage makes for greater stability. Places such as Barcelona have been rebuilt with a view to having different generations living on top of each other, whereas in this country, grandfather and grandma increasingly do not live round the corner, or within easy distance, to help look after the children, which adds extra pressure on the family. There is a bit of a clue, if we look further south, about the influences that may result in different outcomes in London.

[Damian Hinds]

I have a similar instinct. I want to be careful not to imply a causality that we do not know to exist, but one factor in some ethnic communities is that there is greater multi-generational support and more extended families. Intuitively, it makes sense that such support can be an advantage.

Where does all that leave early child development from the perspective of social mobility? First, the Government have to address, head-on, the thorny question of how to help parents to parent, while keeping in mind the pyramid of need, with acute cases at the top, children born into poverty and disadvantage in the next layer down and everyone else below that. I suggest that that should start pre-natally, which is a big part of the manifesto “The 1,001 Critical Days”. Speaking as a recent dad, it is amazing how little we were told or read about what was going to happen after birth, because we were so fixated on pain and the other things that people worry about at the moment of maternity. Sure Start and Sure Start outreach can play an important part in that. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester said on the variety of views on what Sure Start is. On the Select Committee, I always used to ask people to define Sure Start, and even when talking to professionals in the field, I would get different responses.

There is also a question about the role of television and new media in supporting mums and families to bring up children. Bookstart is fantastic, but it could be more targeted. I was surprised when we received free books through our door. If people in the income bracket of all of us in this Chamber are failing to buy books, or to get them out of the library, to read to our children, it is not a problem that will be solved by being given two or three books when the child is born. Like my hon. Friend, I pay massive tribute to the work done by Home-Start UK and others on direct one-to-one support.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman also pay tribute to Mumsnet? Mumsnet is a safe, non-judgmental and anonymous place where mothers can chat and seek advice and information.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Mumsnet is the sort of thing to which I was alluding when I talked about new media. When we talk about Mumsnet, we are obliged to say that Netmums is also available. There is a range of sources of non-judgmental peer-to-peer support, which is vital.

Secondly, the importance of evaluation also comes out of the manifesto “The 1,001 Critical Days”. Intuitively, we all know that there are lots of things that we can do in the earliest years of life that will make a massive difference to a child’s development and later opportunities, but it is difficult to persuade other people of what those things are. Evaluation therefore trades at a huge premium. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on early intervention, which I hope will change our mindset as a polity on how we intervene.

Thirdly, I am not suggesting for a moment that I think I have the answers, but we should not be afraid of talking more about the wider social context and what some of the impacts might be. While respecting people’s life choices and celebrating the diversity of society—families now come in all shapes and sizes—we should not, for the sake of children, be agnostic about what those choices are. We should also see what we can learn from the differences between communities in different parts of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luciana Berger]

My hon. Friend makes knowledgeable points that, given his experience on the Children, Schools and Families Committee, he is well placed to make. The example that I shared with the House—this is separate from the 1,001 days manifesto—shows that there are many activities going on around the country to address some of the issues, but the challenge is that the activity is not happening everywhere. We need to lead from best-case examples, which is why data sharing is so vital to make a difference. Will the Minister comment on what steps the Government are taking to encourage these activities to happen throughout the country?

I am also keen for the Minister to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who is no longer in her place. She mentioned the early intervention grant, which has funded many of the programmes that we are discussing. When the fund was first introduced, it totalled nearly £3 billion, but by 2015 it will have almost halved to around £1.5 billion. We have had contributions this afternoon about Sure Start centres, many of which have relied on the funding of the early intervention grant, and it is a blow that 576 such centres have had to close their doors since the last election. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) commented that he did not know what Sure Start was for—

[Damian Hinds]

To be clear, I did not say that—

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Luciana Berger]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Damian Hinds]

To be clear, I was talking about what happened when I was on the Education Committee, the successor Committee to the one chaired by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). When we asked people what the purpose of Sure Start was, we got different answers, even from practitioners in the field.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. I apologise if I misrepresented his words.

[Luciana Berger]

The point that I wanted to make about Sure Start, as a result of what has been said by both Government and Opposition Members, is that it is widely acknowledged that the centres have made a real difference to families. I have Sure Start centres in my constituency; Liverpool city council has gone out of its way to do everything possible to keep all centres throughout the city open—it has had to remodel and look at a hub-and-spokes model, given that we will have experienced cuts of 54% by 2016-17—all because of the centres’ importance to communities.

In one of the most deprived wards in my constituency, the Sure Start centre is giving vital support to parents in the most deprived households. It is providing meal packets for £1—fresh food with recipes—to encourage parents to cook for their children. That is making a real difference to those children’s nutrition, in particular in their early years. In another, more affluent, part of my constituency, the children’s centre is tailoring its services to the need in that area, because this ward has a high incidence of multiple births. That Sure Start centre is providing a vital support service for mothers who have twins and triplets—for parents contending with the challenges presented by a multiple birth.

Those centres are making a real difference in my constituency. Their staff—including Liz Parsons, a manager in the Picton Sure Start centre, to name just one person—provide vital hands-on support to parents, often first-time parents or parents with lots of children. The centres provide support, including parenting support, to many families in my constituency.

[Damian Hinds]

Like the hon. Lady, I pay tribute to the staff in the Sure Start centres in my constituency; they do a fantastic job. We all know that there are fantastic Sure Start children’s centres out there, but it is also worth dwelling on the fact that at the macro level we may not quite have cracked the formula. If we compare the millennium cohort study with the previous one, for the children who have been alive throughout the Sure Start period, the gap between the rich and the poor has not been narrowed at age five.

[Luciana Berger]

Towards the end of my contribution, I shall reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s points about social mobility. He commented that the gap between rich and poor might not have changed. Nevertheless, Sure Start centres have provided vital services to parents and families who might not have contended with that specific issue, but have dealt with a lot of other ones that we have discussed.

In the debate, we have not touched on health visitors, who are integral to this issue. It is welcome that the Government are committed to increasing the number of health visitors. The latest figures from the Health and Social Care Information Centre, however, show that there are 1,234 more health visitors than in April 2010, but that is less than a third of the way towards the Prime Minister’s target of 4,200 new health visitors by April 2015. With the deadline looming, will the Minister please offer some words of assurance about meeting the target?