Disadvantaged Children

Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and his colleagues on calling this debate. I would also like to remark on the quality of his speech. If my contribution is half as good as his, not only will I be pleased, but the House will be relieved.

Let me begin by reminding the House of the audacious goal that the Labour Government set not only this House, but the nation. They were the first Government to say that, over a 20-year time span, we would abolish child poverty. Whatever one says about the results, they were a Government who tried to will the resources to achieve that objective. In fact, the Government’s consultation document puts the money intended to try to raise the incomes of the poorest families—largely through the tax credits system—at £150 billion. These are huge sums, amounting to £15 billion a year on average, which is the equivalent of 4p on the standard rate of tax. Therefore, the previous Government were immensely serious about trying to achieve that objective.

If we look at the published data, however, we see that the results are modest, if not disappointing. Despite the size of the resources, the number of poor children was reduced, over 10 years, by 600,000. That is of course important for those 600,000 children, but it left 2.8 million still in poverty. In a sense, the figures are the beginnings for our new debate—a debate that we as politicians must now craft, and which the hon. Gentleman opened so well.

That debate is about this question: where do we go from here? Even if we were not beset by the largest structural deficit since the second world war, would we continue with the same strategy as the previous Government?

In particular, the previous Government emphasised the importance of redistributing income. In our debates on the then Child Poverty Bill, I questioned whether it was an adequate strategy by itself. I did so partly because of what I saw in my constituency and what I saw when travelling to other Members’ constituencies: those troubling signs, when children whose parents are not working are late for school; and when no one in the household thinks it is important enough to get themselves up, so that they can then get the children up, to get them washed, dressed, fed and off to school on time. Slowly, I began to question whether money by itself, important though it is, was an adequate strategy to deal with child poverty.

Then, the Prime Minister offered me the opportunity to review poverty and life chances—an offer that I willingly accepted. Two pieces of information—two bits of knowledge—that I came across in undertaking that review knocked me sideways, one of which came from one of the more successful Birkenhead junior schools. The school first came to my notice 20 years ago when parents were not being truthful about where they lived because they wanted to get their children into the school. We might all think that it is wrong to lie, but I felt a sneaking admiration for those parents who, knowing the cards that they had been dealt, felt that getting their children into a good school and giving them a good start was the best thing they could do for them. So that school is not in any way a sink school.

I asked the headmaster to list the skills that he and his teaching staff—and the equivalent staff in other schools—thought necessary if children were to be able fly on their first day. Hardened as I am to some aspects of life, I was staggered by the list of qualities that teaching staff would have liked all children to have. I stress “all children”, because some already have them. For example, he said that it would be important for children starting school to know their own name; to know the word “stop”, because it could be used to avert danger; to be able to take their coat off; to be potty-trained; to be able to hold a crayon; and to be able to sit still. To my mind, this issue clearly went beyond money, no matter how important money is.

The second piece of information was from the national surveys, which are about the only thing from which the hon. Member for East Hampshire did not quote. The work that the university of London has carried out on the cohort studies shows that, perhaps by three years old and certainly by five, life’s race is over for most children. Of course we might be able to make some differences later on, but for most children we have not yet discovered how to change their life chances after the age of five. It seemed to me, therefore, that any review of poverty and life chances needed to concentrate on those crucial early or foundation years. We have called them “foundation years” because it seems that all life’s opportunities are built on them.

The report has two main recommendations. The first is that the Government should build up a series of life chances indicators, nationally and locally, to run alongside the poverty objectives in the Child Poverty Act 2010. The second is that, once those indicators have been put on to the statute book or equivalent, alongside the financial goals relating to dealing with child poverty, the Government should have a different driver for policy. The previous Government were concerned to prevent the numbers of poor children from increasing, and every year, if possible, to find the money to reduce the numbers. That concern suffocated the rest of the debate. One could have forgiven people for not knowing that there were four definitions of poverty on the statute book. The one goal was to move children’s families above 60% of median earnings. I stress that that is important, but I no longer believe that it is necessarily the key criterion with which we should be concerned when considering life chances. We suggested the establishment of the foundation years in order that the Government should have an organisation through which they could drive new policy. That involves the grouping together of all those activities and services that at present go under the title of “early years”. Those early years start long before pregnancy; they start in schools.

The last piece of personal information that I want to give to the House is that I recently spoke to a group of 15-year-olds in a school that I shall be proud to chair when it becomes an academy. I asked them what they most wanted from their school contract. Two of the replies staggered me. One asked whether the school would be able to teach them how to make lifelong friendships, and what the necessary skills would be. All of them wanted to know how to be good parents. They did not say “better parents”. None of them gave any hint that their parents might even once, let alone regularly, have put their own needs before those of their children. It seems to me that if we are to drive policy differently and liberate those whose life chances are now determined by the age of five, we cannot start early enough. The whole culture of a school and what is taught in it about these skills is clearly part of the answer.

I should like to address to those on the Treasury Bench one challenge for the Government. I am lucky in that none of the Sure Start units in my constituency is being cut, reduced or closed, but that is not likely to be true elsewhere. Although the report, which I was privileged to help compile, says that we should not accept Sure Start as it is and that we should turn it upside down so that it much more closely meets the original objective of helping the most disadvantaged families most, it is inconceivable that we can make a go of the foundation years if Sure Start units all over the place are slaughtered.

For reasons that were set out during the election and in the coalition agreement, the Government believe that, wherever possible, power and money should be devolved to local authorities so that they can do as they think best for their area. Local authorities will, of course, be judged by their own local life chances indicators. I hope that the electorate will push for their establishment and measure their local authority’s success in widening life chances—in other words, lifting up those who have the least advantage in our communities.

This programme will not work without some more money. I am not talking about the £150 billion given for redistribution through tax credits, but it is naïve to believe that the Government will be able to make a go of establishing life chances or be able to report progress to the electorate by the end of this Parliament unless they find from somewhere moneys to finance the foundation years more fully—other than from the current budgets allocated. I emphasise again that we are not calling for huge sums. I do not think that we know how to spend huge sums in this area, but some commitment is certainly needed. I hope that when the Government complete their review in March, they will confirm not only that they are going to follow this strategy, but that they will accord it a higher priority than other areas and that, if need be, resources will be shifted from those areas to make the foundation years the driving force to change the life chances of our poorest citizens.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

When I was first elected to the House and we talked about educational achievement, the conversation was nearly always about A-levels and universities. One of the great things about the Government of whom I was pleased to be member was that we shifted the debate from educational achievement by young adults to one about educational achievement at the beginning of education—children learning to read, for example. What is wonderful about today’s debate is the focus on the very beginnings of education and children at the stage when they are learning to talk and listen. These basic skills are the building blocks of our personalities and future abilities to cope with the world.

[Mr Frank Field]

May I also draw attention to the fact that, not only has there been this wonderful change, but it must be the first Parliament in which more Members want to debate this than the horse racing levy? [Laughter.]

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The laughter following that remark shows that my right hon. Friend is supported in his view. It is a positive shift. My suspicion is that it reflects the greater participation of mothers in politics—but I will not push that point too far! We know that disadvantage starts earlier, well before school, and unfortunately gets worse during formal education. Despite the efforts of the previous Government, which I helped with, the gaps in achievement remain stubbornly wide, although we managed to narrow them in some respects. At five, 35% of children who qualify for free school meals achieve a good level of development, compared with 55% of children who do not qualify. The children on free school meals are more likely to be bullied, twice as likely to be permanently excluded, half as likely to get good GCSEs and, despite progress, less likely to go to university.

We need to make it clear that disadvantage is directly associated with poverty in education. There is a further disadvantage, however, to do with boys. The second lowest achieving group of pupils in schools are white British boys. They are exceeded only by Gypsies and Travellers. People have said that it might be because there are too few male teachers in primary schools. As someone who used to educate primary school teachers, I think it is partly because too few young men are interested in small children, and therefore have the skills and qualities that would make someone like me, interviewing students for teacher education courses, consider them capable of becoming good teachers. Perhaps it tells us something about how we bring up young men that they do not know enough about the lives of children.