It is a rare event that matters concerning childcare swing things at the ballot box. It is usually the economy or being tough on crime that hit the headlines. It was a bright idea of the National Children’s Bureau, therefore, when they decided to liven up their AGM on 1 December 2004 by inviting the spokespersons of the three main political parties to outline their policies to the meeting under the heading Setting the Agenda for Children and Young People..

The provision of services for children and young people is usually seen as a non-party-political issue. The differences between the parties are too slight to make it the subject, and politicians don’t want to be seen as uncaring or unsympathetic, unless one is talking about young offenders, when the tone changes. But that applies to all three parties.

Lib Dems

Annette Brook spoke first, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, starting with an apology for not knowing the field as she had only been in post 10 months. The Lib Dems, she said, were still working on their policy document, called Fair Foundations, though a draft Pre-Manifesto was available on the party website (whose address she did not have to hand).

Much of her speech was taken up with applauding the work of the Labour Government. As with Labour, early years provision is a top priority of the Lib Dems, together with reducing class sizes to 20 and extending wrap-around care at schools. Other priorities included care for disabled children, supporting employers, greater choice, improving the regulation of childcare services, the development of the Children’s Commissioner to protect rights, and training staff better. Annette Brook outlined a proposal for a new qualification for Early Years Teachers covering work with little children in health, education and social services.

Additional ideas mentioned in response to questions included professionalising foster care to replace residential care, raising the age of criminal responsibility and banning alcopops. When youth justice came up for discussion she denounced the Government’s attempt to create a climate of fear in the Queen’s speech and the demonising of young people. She argued for celebrating children’s achievements.

The Lib Dems want to place emphasis on quality. To achieve it, they would both increase the percentage of GDP spent on children to be nearer the Scandinavian 2.2%, rather than the British 0.8%, and one way in which this would be funded would be by scrapping Labour’s Child Trust Fund and the Child Support Agency. This proved to be the one major policy difference between the Lib Dems and the Government approaches.

Conservatives

Tim Loughton started by praising the National Children’s Bureau for pushing children up the political agenda and for expert assistance with the drafting of the Children Act 2004. He said that there would be “a lot” about children in the Conservative Manifesto, but the ideas which he shared gave the impressions of adjustments to the Government’s programme, rather than a major alternative philosophy or programme, except that they did not want to run a nanny state.

The Conservatives, if elected, would review the remit of the Children’s Minister, avoid micro-management and leave running the services to professionals. They would establish a Home Office Minister to link with voluntary bodies, who would be treated as partners to be respected. Funding would be streamlined with a view to sustainability. They were for Sure Start Plus, more sport for children, more leisure activities, more emphasis on health, life education about drugs, more school nurses - (there are 3,000 in 26,000 schools at present), flexibility and choice for parents, and tax credit for childminders looking after their own children.

In question time, Tim responded robustly to questions, though his answers did not smack of consistency. “Nothing annoys me more than people demonising young people,” he said, having just cited cases where children in private homes were said to be causing local crime waves in his constituency. Offending should be prevented by dealing with single parents, he suggested. A major problem for children in his view was obesity and he argued for the design of communities to encourage more walking to school. On training, he proposed the abolition of tuition fees to avoid putting graduates off work with children. Tim’s overall impact had a grape-shot effect, but it was wittily and vigorously put over.

Labour

Being a Minister, Margaret Hodge had the disadvantage of having to arrive late from another engagement – or was it a plus, giving an impression of busy-ness? She was also hampered by the fact that the Labour Government’s Ten Year Plan for children was due to be launched the following day and she had been ordered not to disclose its contents. She therefore majored on the Government’s achievements over the last seven years.

The Minister celebrated the fact that children were now at the heart of the political agenda. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition all vied to declare their interest in matters concerning children. She contrasted this concern with the previous twenty years in which the gap between the rich and the poor had widened, leaving many children to be brought up in poverty. The Government was committed, she said, to eradicating child poverty.

Unlike the Tories, Labour had invested in families and had worked to build integrated local services throughout the country. This had required Government departments centrally and local government departments and other agencies at local level to collaborate. There had been too many silos in the past; a holistic approach was now needed. She ended by expressing the need to listen to the voice of children and young people on all issues, not just those of obvious concern to them.

It was a good performance, in view of the constraints, focusing rather on the general issues rather than specific proposals, but it was backed up by an impressive track record of legislation, investment and action which the Minister could quote to support her case.

What is more, it was a record that the other two parties largely supported. It looks as if children will remain well up the political agenda in the next Parliament, whatever the outcome, but in accordance with tradition, they will not necessarily be a source of great political discord.