---

Mrs. Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con): Will the Minister pick up on the issue that most concerns us? We have teased out in parliamentary questions the sheer volume of places lost in the nursery sector. The figures that she kindly supplied to me only this week show that more than 200,000 places are being lost. We are most concerned about that trend and I would value her specific comments on it.

2.30 pm

Beverley Hughes: I do not think that there is a conflict in the way in which Conservative Members have selected part of the data that is available to us and to Ofsted on the total picture in relation to closure and opening rates of child care places. When referring to lower closure rates, until recently I have referred to total closures as a share of the total stock in places, including full day care, child minders and out-of-school clubs. The Ofsted data show that that rate has fallen quarter by quarter right across the board since the launch of the child care strategy.

I take it that Opposition Members are referring only to private sector places—

Mrs. Maria Miller: They cover the majority of such provision.

Beverley Hughes: Certainly, but there was an implication that the Ofsted data that I quoted were incorrect. The data go right across the board and show that there is much more stability in the sector as whole, although there are changes in the private sector market, as there are in any private sector market.

Mr. Paul Goodman: For the sake of clarity, the Minister is saying that her contention in Committee—that

"closure rates for these small businesses . . . have fallen dramatically."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 December 2005; c. 121.]—

is consistent with the figures that she has given, whereby approximately 128,000 places closed between 2003 and 2004 and approximately 187,000 places closed from April 2004 to March 2005. That is an increase. I do not understand how it is consistent with a 10 per cent. fall.

Beverley Hughes: I do not have those figures, but I agree that there is churn in the private sector part of the
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1000
 
child care market. It is not significantly greater than the general figures that I have seen on churn in other parts of the private sector market not related to child care. Private businesses stop trading and operating. The level of that in the child care market is not significantly greater than it is in other private businesses. If we look across the sector as a whole, in terms of the number of places that are being opened and the number that are closing, across the piece Ofsted data show that the rate of closure has fallen quarter by quarter since the child care strategy started and that, on balance, the net rate of places is increasing, because the rate of increase is greater than the rate of closure.

Mrs. Maria Miller: It is worth teasing out the information a little further. The figures are clear. We have seen a seismic difference in closure of nursery places over the past two years. The year before last, 59,000 places closed; last year, 200,000 places closed. The feeling we get is that that is reducing the take-up of nursery places. At the moment, the figures show that nurseries are running at 79 per cent. capacity, which is well below the level that is financially viable. That came out in the Public Accounts Committee debate on the subject two years ago.

I want the Minister to focus on that. The difference between 59,000 and 200,000 closures is enormous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said, it results in uncertainty for children and working parents, which we are not happy about.

Beverley Hughes: I think the hon. Lady will agree that she is using figures up to the end of December 2004. It is the case that, as the strategy was developing, there was turbulence in the system as private providers came into being. Perhaps they did not have the sustainability and went out of business, and some child care places were lost in that sector. I have not got the relevant figures with me, but I shall ensure that the hon. Lady gets them if she does not have them; however, I suspect that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) has them. On reading those figures, she will see that since December 2004 there has been much greater stability, even in that part of the child care market catered for by private-sector providers. So there has been much greater stability not only across the board, but in that particular part of the market, in the past 15 to 18 months. The market is settling down and we are not seeing the degree of churn that existed 18 months to two years ago, to which the hon. Lady referred. That said, I am concerned about this issue. Like the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Wycombe, we want a diverse and varied market that includes the private sector. As with the voluntary sector, where the private sector achieves good quality provision, we want local authorities to work with it to develop and grow such provision.

I turn to amendments Nos. 38 and 39 and local area agreements. I appreciate the attempt to use existing levers to ensure that local authorities are working in real partnership, but there are several difficulties with citing local area agreements. First, they apply to England only; secondly, they are voluntary agreements and have no statutory basis, so we could not include them Bill. As I have hinted, because the local area agreement process does not exist in Wales, amendment No. 39 is not appropriate.
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1001
 

A number of amendments—Nos. 5, 35, 13 and 59—deal with the ways in which local authorities relate to various groups of people who might want to use child care in their areas. On amendments Nos. 5 and 13, the child care needs of many of the carers cited is already covered by the duty on local authorities. They will be in—or be seeking to be in—employment, education or training, so they will be part of the population to whom the duty on local authorities will apply. There are also other initiatives to support carers of children or adults—regardless of whether they are in employment, education or training—through the social care and social security system: the carer's allowance, the carer's grant and council tax discounts.

I do acknowledge that parents and carers of disabled children need breaks, and such children also benefit from new experiences and opportunities to interact with other children, away from their families. However, the point is that we do not need new legislation to achieve that. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, and standard 8, on disabled children, of the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services, already make such provision. We must look to such measures, rather than expanding the duty on local authorities to ensure such provision for disabled families.

Annette Brooke: I want to repeat my concern that in the light of scarce funds, local authorities will prioritise. Although I appreciate that in some local authorities there may be considerable funding from social services for places, in others there is not, and no increased funding will be coming on board. Unless the Bill deals with this issue to some extent, the focus will be on working parents and some workless parents could be completely left out, simply because all local authorities have to prioritise. The child poverty target has not been met because just one method is being used to get people back into work; other methods need also to be used. If we focus on a single group, others might be totally overlooked. I am genuinely concerned about this issue.

Beverley Hughes: I appreciate the hon. Lady's concern and I know that it is genuine; she raises these issues because of her regard for such people. We are trying to frame a duty on local authorities to provide sufficient child care, and it is important that in doing so, we strike a balance. It is not that the groups whom the hon. Lady mentions are not important; they are, but we are talking about requiring, in law, local authorities to ensure that sufficient child care is available for certain groups. They will be judged accountable according to where we draw the line for that duty, and the Bill proposes that it should be drawn for working parents and the parents of disabled children.

In fulfilling that duty, local authorities will generally make good-quality child care more available across the board, and I have no doubt that it will be available for people outside the groups to which I have referred. We have to decide what we should require local authorities to guarantee, as far as they reasonably can, and the criteria against which we should judge them. The Bill strikes a reasonable balance in that respect, ensuring
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1002
 
that there is more child care for other groups, but not imposing a very high threshold of duty on local authorities.

Amendment No. 35 would place an explicit duty on local authorities to have regard also for the requirements of disabled parents when securing sufficient child care. I agree that the needs of disabled parents must be taken into account and accommodated, although not necessarily by this Bill. A new disability equality duty will come into effect in December this year, requiring all public bodies to ensure that disabled people are treated equally. Obviously, that duty will play a part in what local authorities must provide in connection with this Bill, and that is why the amendment is not necessary.

Amendment No. 59 would include on the face of the Bill the groups that local authorities should consult when carrying out their assessment duty. During the Committee stage, we published a paper outlining our intentions in that regard, and that is still available in the Library of the House. It states clearly that local authorities should consult with parents, carers, providers, employers and local organisations to ensure that the provision meets their needs. As I said in Committee, we will require local authorities by means of regulation to take account of the views of children. I hope that the hon. Lady will be happy with that, as it will give us a quality system for assessing sufficiency.

Other amendments deal with the relationship between the private voluntary sector and schools, the two parts of the sector that will provide child care. As part of the level playing field argument, amendment No. 7 would require local authorities to set up an appeals process to handle the concerns of child care providers. We discussed the matter very thoroughly in Committee, and the arrangements in the Bill will safeguard the very valuable role that the private and voluntary sectors play in maintaining the diverse market that we want to exist.However, as I said in Committee, if local providers still feel that they have been treated unfairly, processes are in place to ensure that they can complain to the local authority.

Secondly, we have said that any complaints received by the local authority must be referred to Ofsted for consideration as part of the joint area review. Thirdly, guidance will make it clear that the authority must inform Ofsted about issues raised in complaints in respect of its analysis of sufficiency and other matters.

Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 deal with the role of maintained schools, and once again are similar to amendments tabled in Committee. I still believe that amendment No. 31 is not necessary, as clause 35 of the Education and Inspections Bill will introduce a new duty for maintained schools to have regard to the children and young persons plan. That will take care of the objective contained in amendment No. 31.

Amendment No. 32 is similarly unnecessary. Maintained providers are already subject to quite stringent requirements in respect of the quality of the services that they provide and of the management of their delegated budgets. Local authorities already have to have in place detailed and well established monitoring and accountability arrangements for budgets in schools and other maintained settings. It follows that financial
 
9 Mar 2006 : Column 1003
 
assistance for child care in schools will be closely monitored in that way. Therefore, the amendments are not necessary.

2.45 pm

The hon. Lady rightly pursues the issue of the quality of child care. I hope that she did not feel crushed in Committee, because that was not my intention. I would never seek to do that, especially to the hon. Lady because I know that her sentiments are generally benign, if sometimes a little misguided in terms of how we get where we want to be. I tried to stress in Committee that a substantial part of the Bill—part 3—is about quality, because we are instituting a new regulation and inspection regime, and a new framework for the early years foundation stage as a basis for that regime. That Ofsted framework is the appropriate way to achieve a national consistent standard of achievement. In addition, clause 6 requires local authorities to have particular regard to the need to secure sufficient child care that is eligible for the child care element of the working tax credit. Child care will be eligible for tax credits only if it satisfies the standards set by Ofsted. It does not make sense to require local authorities to duplicate 150 times what we have already established, which is a national organisation that parents trust and that works to consistent standards across the country. That is the way to proceed.

Clause 11 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment of parents' needs for child care. That will not be just an assessment of parents' needs regarding the quantity of child care but of the quality and flexibility of that child care. Our regulations and guidance underpinning that duty will make it clear that local authorities must consider the types and features of child care that parents require.

We have to allow local authorities to exercise leadership in the way that they think best for their area. They are doing so in significant numbers, but that is different from placing them under a requirement that would potentially conflict with or duplicate Ofsted's role. I am the first to agree with the hon. Lady that the quality of child care is crucial, but I do not agree that the amendment is the way to achieve it.

I am afraid that I cannot give hon. Members much comfort in terms of accepting their amendments, but I hope that the reassurances that I have tried to give show that what they seek to achieve is either encompassed in the Bill or in other legislation or regulations. I ask the Opposition to withdraw the new clause and not to press the amendments.

---