Childcare Bill — New Clause 2 — Consideration of Attainment and Development Gaps When Implementing Free Childcare — 25 Jan 2016 at 18:00

Theresa May MP, Maidenhead did not vote.

The majority of MPs voted against requiring consideration of the attainment and development gap between different groups of children when implementing proposals for 30 hours per week of free child care for working parents.

MPs were considering the Childcare Bill[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled Attainment and development of children and stated:

  • “(1) In discharging the duty under section 1(1), the Secretary of State must have regard to narrowing the attainment and development gap between young children—
  • (a) of different genders;
  • (b) of different ethnic backgrounds;
  • (c) of different socio-economic backgrounds;
  • (d) living in different regions; and
  • (e) who do and do not have a disability.
  • (2) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report containing an evaluation of the impact of discharging the duty under section 1(1) on narrowing the attainment and development gap between young children—
  • (a) of different genders;
  • (b) of different socio-economic backgrounds;
  • (c) of different ethnic backgrounds;
  • (d) living in different regions; and
  • (e) who do and do not have a disability.”

The duty under section 1(1)[2] referred to is:

  • The Secretary of State must secure that childcare is available free of charge for qualifying children of working parents for, or for a period equivalent to, 30 hours in each of 38 weeks in any year

Qualifying children are those in England and under compulsory school age though there may be additional criteria set.

The rejected new clause was accompanied by an explanatory note[3] stating:

  • This new clause would require the Secretary of State, in discharging her duty under this Act, to have regard to the attainment and development gap between different groups of children. The Secretary of State would also have to publish a report on the impact of discharging her duty on such gaps.

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con264 (+2 tell) 0080.6%
DUP0 3037.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 1033.3%
Lab0 177 (+2 tell)077.2%
LDem0 2025.0%
PC0 1033.3%
UKIP1 00100.0%
Total:265 185077.5%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive