 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill |
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, James Davies,
Committee Clerks † attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 26 March 2009(Afternoon)(Part II)[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill[Continuation
from column
756] 10.30
pm On
resuming—
Mrs.
Miller: I beg to move amendment 407, in clause 187,
page 106, line 9, after
‘the’, insert ‘health
and’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 408, in
clause 187, page 106, line 9, at
end insert— ‘(d) raising the
achievements of disadvantaged children as defined in the relevant
Children’s Trust Board’s Children and Young
People’s
Plan.’.
Mrs.
Miller: These are the final amendments to
clause 187. They address two of the most important issues
facing Sure Start children’s centres: having health as a true
partner, and focusing on giving children from the most disadvantaged
families the best possible opportunity to achieve their potential. On
health being the elephant in the room, amendment 407 clearly places
health on the inspection report that Ofsted will produce. I am sure
that the Minister will argue that health is a subset of well-being, but
if our language were a little more direct in legislation we might
achieve better outcomes for
children. The
final amendment would ensure that children’s centres have a
pivotal role in helping the most disadvantaged children, and any Ofsted
report regime would have to have the outcomes for disadvantaged
children at the heart of what they are doing. This is an important
opportunity to send clear signals about the outcomes that we expect
from Sure Start children’s centres. The purpose of these two
amendments is to probe the Government’s intentions, because the
information about how the new Ofsted inspection regime will work is
patchy.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The hon. Lady has anticipated some of my
comments. I certainly agree that it is important that Ofsted
inspections and reports cover health outcomes, and they are already
covered by new section 98B(2)(c), which requires Ofsted reports on
children's centres to assess the contribution they make to improving
the well-being of young children. Under the Childcare Act 2006, which
the clause amends, “well-being” is defined explicitly as
including
“the physical
and mental health and emotional
well-being" of
children.
We are well
aware of the greater gain to be had from effective support for the most
disadvantaged families, and I agree that Sure Start children’s
centres have a particular role to play in raising the achievements of
children from disadvantaged backgrounds. We have been very clear from
the beginning that local authorities must improve the well-being of
young children in their area while reducing the inequalities that exist
between them. It follows, therefore, that in asking Ofsted to inspect
children's centres, we want to understand the impact that they are
having on the outcomes for the poorest children. I expect Ofsted to
draw on a variety of sources of information and evidence when coming to
their opinion of how effectively a centre is
performing. Officials
and Ofsted are currently working to design an inspection regime for
Sure Start children’s centres that will work within the current
inspections frameworks. The finer details will be settled following a
range of pilot inspections that Ofsted plans to conduct shortly. We
will certainly consider whether any specific provision for
disadvantaged children should be made within the regulations governing
the inspection framework. I hope that the hon. Lady will be satisfied
with
that.
Mrs.
Miller: I thank the Minister for her comments. I am
reassured that she will bring the matter to Ofsted’s attention.
It is important to establish ways of ensuring that the most
disadvantaged children receive the support that they need and deserve.
At the moment, the system is not doing what it could to support them,
and raising the matter with Ofsted and perhaps addressing it in
regulations with a specific requirement to examine the work of
children’s centres in supporting disadvantaged children will
achieve a better result for them. I await further information on how
Ofsted intends to take the matter forward. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave
withdrawn. Clause
187 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
188 and 189 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 190Free
of charge early years provision: budgetary framework:
England
Mrs.
Miller: I beg to move amendment 526, in clause
190, page 109, line 25, leave out
subsection (1) and
insert— ‘( ) A local
education authority in England must allocate funding for free of charge
early years provision for a funding period outside a maintained school
out of the authority’s individual schools budget for the
period.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 525, in
clause 190, page 110, line 18, at
end insert— ‘( ) The Code of
Practice on the provision of free nursery education places for three-
and four-year olds shall cease to apply in a local authority area until
that local authority has introduced a single funding formula for free
of charge early years
provision.’.
Mrs.
Miller: Many organisations have been battling for
consistency and funding throughout the maintained and PVI sectors in
child care for many years, and the Bill recognises that there has not
been a level playing field in funding since the early years entitlement
was introduced in 1998. Amendment 526 is important and
would ensure that all local authorities allocate funding for that
entitlement through the individual schools budget, thus helping to
ensure a fair and sustainable approach to that important funding
stream. The Bill could be open to interpretation, and perhaps the
Minister will help us with that. If there is to be a consistent
approach to funding—I am sure that she wants that as much as I
do—amendment 526, which is a probing amendment, might provide
the necessary clarity. I hope that the Minister will respond positively
to the intention of the
amendment. An
important change in early years funding is tucked away in the Bill. I
heard what the Minister said about some sort of thread holding that
together, but I am finding it difficult to see that thread. With so
little time for debate in Committee, perhaps those who have been
battling with the issue for some time could be forgiven for thinking
that the Government want to make the changes as inconspicuous as
possible. Ensuring
that maintained nurseries are paid in the same way as the PVI sector,
based on participation, is a long-overdue change, and the need for
clause 190 raises concern about the Government’s previous
analysis of the financial pressures on PVI providers over the past
decade. Back in 2005, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead
(Mrs. May) highlighted this issue for the Minister who was
then responsible for the matter, and is still responsible for it, the
Minister for Children, Young People and Families, the right hon. Member
for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), and received the response
that the facts do not stack up and that her analysis was incorrect. I
assert that the facts do stack up and that some nursery funding has
shown signs of inequity for years. The Government’s own analysis
underlines that point, because the DCSF’s benchmarking data on
early years expenditure, which was collected rather late in the day and
included in the Library’s excellent briefing note for this Bill,
clearly shows a stark funding difference between maintained nurseries
and the PVI sector. Indeed, funding for a maintained nursery place is
£6.90 an hour versus £3.72 an hour in the PVI sector. In
87 per cent. of local authorities, the funding level for the PVI sector
was between £3 and £4. I fail to see how the Government
can assert that there was a level playing
field. It
should come as little surprise to the Committee that as a result of the
problems with finance the number of child care places that have closed
has increased by 48 per cent. since 2003. Indeed, in 2007-08, for the
first time ever, more child care places closed than opened. More than
190,000 places closed, which is an indictment of the financial
situation in the
sector. Amendment
526 would help to ensure a level playing field in future, and would
clear some of the Bill’s ambiguity on whether local authorities
have a choice to pay PVI providers from the independent schools budget.
The amendment would oblige local authorities to do so, and if they are
obliged to have a single funding formula, they should be obliged to pay
the nursery grant from the ISB. Without doing so, local authorities
would not be able to meet their requirement to have a single funding
formula, so I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the
amendment. Amendment
525 offers a practical way of ensuring that PVI nurseries are given the
help that they need now. I have outlined the inequity that has been in
the system, so the Committee should not be surprised that in a
Laing and Buisson survey in 2008 almost two out of three nurseries said
that the free entitlement funding did not cover their costs of
delivery. Two out of every three nurseries in the survey said that, and
that has been the situation for some time. Indeed, in 2006 the National
Day Nurseries Association found that one third of all nurseries lost
more than £5 per session. A single funding formula to address
those issues is not due to be in place in all local authority areas
until 2010. The Government do not need me to point out that if that
trend continues, the cost of replacing lost places will be
considerable.
Mrs.
Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
The intention behind amendment 525 is to allow nurseries to ensure that
they cover their costs. If that includes charging a supplementary fee
before the new funding regime is in place, we must consider whether
that is preferable to allowing nurseries to go out of business, which
the figures that I gave suggest would happen. The financial pressure
has been increasing over time, and has been made worse by the
recession. A report in January from the NDNA showed that 40 per cent.
of nurseries have bad debts. The report also highlighted that occupancy
is down in one third of nurseries with one in 10 reporting a drop of 11
per cent. or more. Further work by the Federation of Small Businesses
shows that about 200 PVI nurseries could close in
2009. The
hon. Gentleman asked whether top-up fees were involved, and no hon.
Member wants that, but we must ask whether we want those organisations
to go out of business because the Government have ignored the core
structure of the financing for far too long, or whether we want parents
and children to have the stability that they need in child care and to
help nurseries to stay in business. We would all like entitlement to be
free, but the evidence is that the money is not going to the providers
as intended, and there is a gap between now and when the single funding
formula comes into place to fix the
problems.
Mr.
Laws: Is the hon. Lady not concerned that the consequences
of her policy, which seems to be to allow top-up fees, could undermine
the universal entitlement for some youngsters in particular parts of
the
country?
Mrs.
Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I
believe that that is already the case. The evidence suggests that some
organisations already charge incremental costs to try to keep their
businesses together. We can either ignore the problem, or try to give
them some practical help. I am concerned that the funding stream has
not worked as it should have done. The recent research into the true
cost of delivering child care in the PVI sector should have been done
years
ago.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 30 March 2009 |