Lord Young of Cookham (Con)

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 486 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and shall add a brief footnote to what he has just said. At Second Reading, I mentioned that when I was in the other place I went round a primary school in Andover, in one of the less well-off parts of the town. The year 1 teacher, who had been there for 20 years, told me that within a few weeks at the beginning of term she could tell which children were likely to end up in trouble—and, because she was also a magistrate in the youth court, she told me she was nearly always right. There will be many other teachers like her who are able to identify at an early stage which children and families need support. That is why, as other speakers have said, the Department for Education’s budget should be front-loaded, as all the evidence is that this produces the greatest return on investment—not just for the child but for society as a whole. Research by the IFS published only last month, and early research by the IPPR and the New Economics Foundation all confirm that putting things right upstream reduces problems later—problems which are more serious because they have a wider social impact and are more expensive to correct. My noble friend Lady Cash made the point eloquently in her speech. I recall in 2010 canvassing for my noble friend in north Kensington—I am sorry I did not knock on nearly enough doors, as otherwise her parliamentary career might have started a little earlier. In line with the Government’s policy on the NHS, we should put resources into prevention, rather than treatment. As earlier speakers have said, the previous Labour Government recognised this with Sure Start. There was some tension between those who wanted a universal service—a centre attended by children and families from all backgrounds, so that there was good integration—and those who wanted the service to be more targeted. There was some sort of compromise, in that Sure Start was focused on the more deprived areas but was universal. This resulted in the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, then leading on the policy in the No. 10 Policy Unit, receiving a leaflet inviting him to take his children to an aromatherapy session at his local Sure Start centre. All the evaluations of Sure Start were positive. It significantly improved the educational achievement of children from nought to four, with benefits lasting until GCSE, at age 16. Children with access to Sure Start performed significantly better in assessments at age seven, 11 and 16, and needed fewer EHCPs at secondary school. It substantially reduced hospitalisations and decreased absences from school. The benefits were stronger for those in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, for boys and for children from ethnic-minority backgrounds. To my mind, this means that future initiatives should be prioritised and targeted, rather than universal. Indeed, the analysis I have referred to indicated that Sure Start was disproportionately used by middle-class families instead of targeting specific families who needed the support. Then in 2010—mea culpa—I was a member of the coalition Government who abolished the ring-fence for Sure Start. While there were reasons for cutting public expenditure and reviewing how Sure Start operated, in retrospect it was a short-sighted decision, leading to the closure of many centres and the merging of others. Fast forward to the introduction of family hubs and Start for Life in 2022-23: like Sure Start, these draw together services in education, public health, parental needs and benefits advice. Although they are for children aged nought to 19, they are not actually all within a centre. Family hubs targeting a much wider range than Sure Start risk diluting the early offer of support, which I believe to be crucial. Of course, family hubs are less generously funded than Sure Start was. Family hubs also place more priority on virtual services and signposting, rather than on in-person community hubs. What this amendment would do is invite the Government to look at what has happened over the past 20 years, review all the available research, both here and overseas, and come up with an early years strategy. My personal preference would be for one focused on the under-fives—getting them up to speed for primary school and identifying and supporting the families and children that need help, rather than a wholly universal service. I do not know if noble Lords have read what Jenni Russell wrote in today’s Times. She said: “One of its starkest examples is the recent collapse in the proportion of children who are ready for school at the age of four”— a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell— “Some arrive still in nappies, a third can’t listen to simple instructions, a quarter can’t use the toilet alone. In a survey in January half of parents said school-readiness wasn’t their responsibility”. Those are the families that should be targeted. I know it is difficult to find money for under-fives because there is strong demand from primary schools, secondary schools, and higher and further education, but, as and when the economy improves, that is where the focus should be. Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has been in the news this week. She also wrote a report for the coalition Government, Working with Troubled Families. She spoke about her report at an ADCS conference in July 2013, saying, “we can tackle the problems families have better if we get to children with problems aged 4 rather than as excluded children in pupil referral units at age 11”. My teacher in Andover would wholly agree with that.