---

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support Amendment No. 14 and shall speak to Amendment No. 30, which would ensure that the Government issued guidance defining "reasonably practicable" and "sufficient". We are anxious to see set out the factors that local authorities must consider when assessing and securing childcare provision. That will help to give parents a clearer understanding of what they can expect from local authorities. As was discussed at some length last week, the Bill places a duty on local authorities to improve outcomes for young people, and to narrow the gap between the poorest and the rest.

Crucially, this duty to provide childcare focuses solely on meeting the needs of working parents, or those in training for work. Yet we know from the Government's own child poverty review that, of the 2.6 million children living in low-income
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC103
 
households, roughly half—in some of the poorest families in the country—are in workless households. Amendment No. 14 therefore broadly raises the question of what is deemed "sufficient". Local authorities need specific guidance from the Secretary of State, not just on the general provision of childcare but on what the Government regard as "reasonably practicable" and "sufficient". The Bill states that local authorities must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Will the Minister assure us that these matters—the detailed issues and what happens to workless families—will be addressed in guidance? Local authorities need to be clear on what this new duty requires them to do in practice, and how they will be judged when they have to deliver it. For example, will the assessment of the demand for childcare include an analysis of the demand in relation to cost, quality, type or hours of childcare? What about the degree of choice parents can have? All these issues must be answered. Local authorities will need guidance to provide childcare regarded as "sufficient".

The Earl of Listowel: I shall not speak to my amendment, but will support Amendment No. 41, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, on the quality and sustainability of childcare places. Before doing so, I apologise to your Lordships for speaking at too great a length and without clarity both at Second Reading and on the first day of Committee. I am afraid that I have been taking too much on for the past few months. I am sorry to have added to the burden on your Lordships, particularly those on the Front Benches.

Her Majesty's Government have already made the case for introducing an assessment of quality by local authorities. The Minister has acknowledged the continuing challenge of the childcare workforce. I welcome what the Minister said about improvements in the level of graduate staff, but we are some years away from seeing a graduate in every setting. Given the situation, we must be concerned that much of the available provision cannot be of the quality we would wish. In seeking to act as good parents, we should take every opportunity to promote quality.

I hope that the Minister will welcome the noble Baroness's amendment. I will write to the Minister on what local authorities might do in terms of these reviews and to ask the sort of questions that I have put in the past—on the parameters governing good-quality childcare, such as turnover and level of qualifications of staff, length of exposure to childcare and the age of children. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I support the ethos of Amendments Nos. 14 and 30. We will listen to the Minister's response as regards where we will go from there. I wish to ask a question for the record—I believe that I have informally been given the answer—about children who might be at risk, vulnerable or in need on the various local authority registers. My concern is that, in ensuring that there is sufficient childcare
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC104
 
provision for people to remain at work or to take education and training, local authorities' targets and priorities might be changed. It is crucial that the paramount priority should be for children who are at risk to be given childcare. I seek reassurance on the record on that point.

Baroness Crawley: I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short but important debate. I hope that I will be able to cover most concerns raised. I will deal with as many individual questions as possible. Amendments Nos. 14 and 30 focus on the issues at the heart of the childcare duty—the meaning of "sufficiency" and "reasonably practicable". As noble Lords will know, we have published a paper outlining our proposed approach to guidance on childcare duty which covers those issues. A copy has been placed in the Library and, I believe, was circulated to interested Peers. Obviously, if any interested Peers have not seen that paper, please let us know.

I support the underlying aim of Amendment No. 14: to ensure that childcare provision remains sufficient. As the Committee observed at Second Reading, it is important for children and parents that the childcare they choose is, above all, reliable. The Bill imposes a clear duty on local authorities to secure sufficient childcare provision—I will not go into the Oxford English Dictionary definition.

The paper on the childcare duty states that statutory guidance will make clear that what is sufficient will change over time as the childcare market develops. Local authorities must take account of those changes so that sufficient childcare is maintained. As such, the duty to secure sufficient childcare has a continuing effect. While it is in force, the requirement for the local authority to secure a sufficient stock of childcare will apply. In practice, the local authority must consider and plan for future changes that may have an impact on the sufficiency of childcare, including demographic trends and changes in the labour market. Consequently, I believe that the additional reference in the amendment is not required.

4 pm

Amendment No. 30 would require statutory guidance to local authorities on the childcare duty to cover two specific factors: the concept of "sufficiency" and "reasonably practicable". I fully accept that we will need to give local authorities clear guidance on these important issues—and we fully intend to do so—which go to the heart of the duty under Clause 6. I hope that the noble Baronesses will accept our assurance that these will be covered and that she will not press the amendment.

The concepts of "sufficiency" and "reasonably practicable" are central to the childcare duty, as is made clear in the policy paper. Key aspects of guidance on sufficiency are covered in paragraphs 4 to 10 of the paper, and key aspects of the requirements on local authorities, including how they might judge what is reasonably practicable, in paragraphs 17 to 19.
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC105
 

Although "sufficiency" and "reasonably practicable" are central concepts, they are not the only important issues that will need to be covered in statutory guidance. For example, as our paper shows, we plan to cover important matters such as accessibility. To list in the Bill some, but not all, of the issues we intend to address through guidance could introduce doubt about the extent to which the guidance could cover other areas. It is not appropriate to seek to list in the Bill all the issues that we want to cover in guidance. We want to avoid doubt about the extent of the guidance power so that we can respond appropriately to consultation.

Amendment No. 41 would require local authorities to assess the quality and sustainability of childcare in their area. It is crucial, as we discussed, to deal with the issue of quality consistently and coherently; that is why responsibility for assessing, monitoring and inspecting quality quite rightly lies with Ofsted.

The findings from the childcare sufficiency assessment will help local authorities to identify which issues need to be addressed locally under their duty in Clause 13 to support providers through information, advice and training. Again, our regulations and guidance will make clear to authorities that they must support providers not only to meet the requirements of the early years register and the Ofsted childcare register, but also to understand wider issues such as child protection, health and safety, and inclusion. We will also require local authorities to ensure that information and support are available to providers seeking to gain qualifications. These roles, however, are based on local authorities' informal knowledge of their local childcare providers and provision. The gaining of qualifications and the standards professionals must reach to be childcare providers are important issues at the heart of concerns expressed by the Committee. I think particularly of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who raised that on our first Committee day and again today. However, placing a formal requirement on local authorities to assess quality—which is what we are being asked to do—would duplicate and potentially conflict with the role of Ofsted. We believe that Ofsted provides the best possible opportunity for seamless maintenance and sustenance of high standards.

Amendment No. 41 would also require a local authority's childcare assessment to include the sustainability of childcare in its area. The childcare duty underpins the change of emphasis initiated by the 10-year childcare strategy: from place creation to place sustainability. We are, as it were, almost beyond the creation of places. In many parts of the country, as noble Lords will know, there is an oversupply. We are now focusing specifically on sustainability of those places—the quantity/quality argument. Indeed, recent data suggest that since March 2005 both closure rates and total closures have fallen in each quarter. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, raised that concern.

Under the childcare duty, the sufficiency of childcare will have to be sustained over time. Local authorities clearly have to understand the sustainability of childcare in their area. There would
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC106
 
be little point, for instance, in a local authority supporting a business that did not have the essential capacity to develop successfully to maturity. Clause 8 places restrictions on local authorities providing childcare themselves, if there are other providers willing and able to make appropriate provision. Again, we see this not as a public threat to private, voluntary and independent provision but as a public facility to ensure that there is adequate provision, whoever provides it. Clause 8 places a restriction on local authorities providing the childcare themselves, except in times of last resort.

Clause 13 gives local authorities duties and powers to provide information, advice and training to childcare businesses to help them to be sustainable. In assessing the sufficiency of childcare provision to meet parents' needs, and in keeping that assessment under review, local authorities will need to have regard to whether provision is and remains reliable and sustainable. The statutory guidance will reinforce those points. It will remind local authorities that it will often be far more cost-effective to sustain existing provision than to launch a new provider; and it will indicate how local authorities might determine the sustainability of provision in their area.

The duty has been placed on local authorities because they are best placed to understand local unmet need for childcare and to fine-tune support for providers, parents and the market. That is the appropriate way forward because national figures and research suggest that, in many parts of the country, there are already sufficient childcare places. Indeed, local authorities, providers and Ofsted have told us that there is now evidence of overprovision; that is why we have shifted the focus of policy and funding away from setting targets for place creation from the centre, towards supporting local authorities to secure a good match between local supply and demand. Trying to facilitate a new market such as childcare is not an easy task. That is why we believe that local authorities, because it is such a local market, are best placed to do it. We do not, therefore, anticipate the large-scale creation of additional childcare, which I know caused noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to be concerned about the quality of childcare.

I have, I hope, given a response to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about market diversity and private and voluntary providers. It has never been the Government's intention to set up childcare in competition with existing good-quality competition; that is why, under the Bill, local authorities will continue to foster that wealth and diversity of provision. Concern was also raised that the Bill would encourage local authorities to expand maintained provision at the expense of private and voluntary sector providers. The provisions to which I refer will counterbalance any risk that the new duties under the Bill would encourage local authorities to expand maintained provision. Statutory guidance will make clear how local authorities should work with and support providers and set out the criteria that they should consider before they can legitimately provide childcare.
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC107
 

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned workless households. The childcare duty requires local authorities to shape and support the local childcare market to meet the needs of working parents and those making the transition to work. They are a primary target group because this Government are committed to giving people a real choice about work and to helping lift families out of poverty. That is why one of the partners will be Jobcentre Plus, and why the Bill has an economic focus. The overall facilitation and support of the childcare market is likely to benefit all parents, working or not. The duty to secure childcare for working parents is a minimum requirement. There is nothing to stop local authorities securing childcare for other groups of parents for other purposes. Workless households will be covered in guidance, on which we will consult.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, sought reassurances on the record. The childcare duty and the Children Act 1989 work together: where a child is assessed under the children in need provision as needing childcare, the local authority must provide it under Section 17 of the 1989 Act. That duty is neither changed nor diminished by the Bill. I will write to the noble Baroness if she needs clarification but, if she is satisfied, my assurance is on the record.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will be aware that one of the ways in which we are focusing on our commitment to raising standards is the additional transformation fund for promoting training. We are not complacent; we realise that there are gaps and a great need to raise standards in certain areas of work with children.

I hope that I have made clear our commitment to high-quality, sustainable childcare, and that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

---