| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the amendment because the proposal to designate the locality will be served by way of a notice if the proposals of the action plan are served at the same time so that local licensees know what is in store for them. The representations that are to be received under subsection (2)(b) are likely to be much fuller and much more focused than would otherwise be the case.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, did not speak to Amendment No. 86, but I am assuming that he is dealing with it because it is grouped with Amendment No. 79.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am sorry, I did not appreciate that Amendment No. 86 was grouped with it. That underlines what I said a moment ago: that the fullest of consultations together with the action plan should be carried out.
26 Apr 2006 : Column 250
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 79 would place a duty on a local authority to publish the content of the proposed action plan when issuing the notice to begin the alcohol disorder zone process. I understand the point behind the amendment: it is right. We know from our consultation with the stakeholders that it is important for interested parties to have an opportunity to see the proposed action plan at the consultation stage. I would also go further and say that it is important that interested parties also see what actions might be undertaken at the compulsory charging stage, so that they have a picture of where the process could end up.
However, this amendment is not the right way to secure that end. I agree with the objective but I do not agree with the way in which the noble Viscount seeks to achieve it. I can assure noble Lords that through a combination of regulations and guidance we will ensure that what we mean by the proposal to designate an alcohol disorder zone is spelt out and spelt out with clarity. It will include a requirement to publish the proposed content of the action plan at the consultation stage. That should satisfy the concerns that have been raised.
Amendment No. 86 would make a specific provision for the affected businesses to be consulted on the action plan. It is clear that it is crucial that the licensed trade along with other interested parties is fully involved at every stage along the route; particularly at the stage when representations are made and an action plan is being prepared. When the local authority publishes the proposed action plan together with a package of measures that will be undertaken using the compulsory charge should the alcohol disorder zone be designated it is vital that the trade engages in a meaningful way. Inserting a provision for consultation in the draft action plan would imply that there needed to be an additional formal round of consultation after the 28 days had elapsed. That would build into the process an unnecessary delay.
I offer the assurance that through guidance local authorities will be made aware of the need to engage with the trade. We have that as a clear objective. I am grateful that the noble Viscount has that as a clear objective. With that reassurance I hope that he will not press his amendment because we are at one. We think that our approach achieves the end more simply and without adding another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and further delaying the process.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Minister has spoken in such a way that if there was a failure to consult, application for judicial review would undoubtedly succeed.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the Minister. At least he has taken on the intention behind the amendment. We are disappointed that we cannot get it into the Bill, but with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.
26 Apr 2006 : Column 101
Wednesday, 26 April 2006.
Grand Committee
The Committee met at fifteen minutes to four of the clock
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (LORD HASKEL) in the Chair.]
Childcare Bill
(Second Day)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): I give the usual admonitions before we begin: please turn off your mobile phones. If there is a Division in the Chamber while the Committee is sitting, we will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 6 [Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents]:
Baroness Morris of Bolton moved Amendment No. 14:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 41. Before I do so, I thank the Minister for all the information sent this week. I shall repay the compliment throughout today's proceedings by asking lots of questions.
Clause 6 places an obligation on local authorities to secure sufficient childcare places to meet the requirements in the Bill. Clause 11 places a duty on local authorities to assess this sufficiency at least every three years and to keep assessments under review. Amendments Nos. 14 and 41 are all about ensuring sustainability and, therefore, stability.
Conducting an audit of what provision is already available is, although time-consuming, a relatively easy part of the process, but issues such as changes in how people work and the mobility and flexibility of the workforce are complex. Not least, there are rapidly changing demographics: since the 1970s, the population of under-fives has been on a downward trend, although it is expected to rise slightly by 2020. We are almost asking local authorities to become crystal-ball gazers, and in an unfamiliar and demanding area. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will have some pertinent questions for the Minister on how assessing sufficiency will work in practice when she speaks to her Amendment No. 30, so I shall not rehearse them here.
Much of the new childcare provision is being set up with a five-year funding plan, although I am sure that we shall have to look much further ahead than that. It is coming in with heavy subsidy at the front end. There
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC102
are genuine concerns that these places may not be sustainable and that a level playing field is not operating. The National Day Nurseries Association recognises the need to widen accessibility to childcare and make it affordable to more families, but it stresses that, to maintain diversity of provision, aspirations for the pricing regime must remain realistic. Local authorities must be mindful that overheads and financial pressures differ between the public, private and voluntary sectors.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, may have been going to remind the Grand Committee of this anyway but, in last week's sitting, in response to another amendment, she said that the document Childcare Bill: Duty to Secure Sufficient Childcare states that:
"Local authorities should consider the range of ways that they can work with childcare providers to improve the affordability of childcare".
The noble Baroness warned that, in other areas in which she had been involved, that was sometimes a way of trying to force prices down. I very much hope that that will not happen here. It is especially true in London and the south-east, and if local authorities do not take it into account, there is real danger that they will drive private and voluntary operations out of the market—and then there would be no diversity of provision.
As my honourable friend Tim Loughton said in another place, it is,
"no good creating new, heavily subsidised child care places only to knock out perfectly good-quality existing ones".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/05; col. 94.]
Current government figures show that three childcare places are closing for every five opening.
There are genuine concerns that this laudable Bill could, if we are not careful, lead to nationalisation of childcare. Existing providers must be given adequate assurance that new childcare will not be created without consulting them and appropriate market research. Parents must be given adequate assurance that they will have real choice for their children, with stability in that choice. These assurances can be achieved with the acceptance of these amendments. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |