| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Walmsley: Perhaps before the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, replies, I might be allowed to put in my five pennies' worth. One might accept much of what the noble Baroness said about the sustainability and sufficiency of childcare. However, the concern of many of us is that, as long as the quality is good enough, the same childcare should be available from one year to the next. It is quite possible to have, in year one, 300 places supplied by settings A, B and C, and, in year two, 300 places provided by settings D, E and F.
As the Minister rightly said, it is not cost-effective to see a lot of businesses crumble and to open up new ones in their place. A lot of us are concerned about what can be done to ensure that settings that children are used to, as long as they are good quality, are sustainable. Constantly to change the people who care for children is bad for them. Has the Minister considered whether local authorities have enough powers to do that? We may well have a perfectly good setting in street A; and in street B the school—which has the power to do this, and does not have to consult anybody—can set up wrap-around care.
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC108
4.15 pm
It is human nature to run after the shiny and new. A number of parents running after the shiny and new offered by the school in street B could well leave the setting in street A with an uneconomic level of occupancy. Desirable though it may be to have extended schools, and for parents to be able to drop off the younger child and the older child on the same campus at the same time, I am concerned that local authorities do not—with the independence that schools have gained and will gain—have sufficient power to sustain good-quality settings that do a good job for parents and children.
The Earl of Listowel: May I make a point before the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, concludes this debate? I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for her references to my concerns and for her helpful reply. Reading Lang and Buisson's reports on the market recently, I noted that salaries for early-years workers increased by 5 per cent last year, while occupancy rates, I think, were at a low, with an average of 75 per cent. There are pressures on these settings, and I welcome the reassurances on how the market will be managed.
I recognise the importance of consistency and coherence in our approach to quality control. Will the Minister write to me about the frequency with which Ofsted collects information? I am concerned that once every three years would not be sufficient. Also, on how quality might be improved, might it be helpful to have INSET training on one afternoon a month? Perhaps she might think about that and come back to me. A concern regarding quality is that there is not the time for staff, especially those working on shifts in daycare settings, to get together, reflect on practice and improve it. I would welcome a response, perhaps at later, and I thank her again for her response.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, replies, I thank the Minister for her response to the amendment, but there is a real problem here. I have been looking through the guidance, which I received only this morning. One of the problems is that it focuses on putting supply and demand together. That is fair enough. This picks up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on quantity rather than quality. Paragraph 19 states:
"We intend that guidance should emphasise that local authorities seek to close gaps with formal childcare as far as is reasonably practicable".
Again, it is all very well issuing guidance, but if it just repeats the words "reasonably practicable" and does not tell you what is supposed to be reasonably practicable, that makes things pretty hard. I know that this is only the preliminary guidance, but local authorities must take decisions on this. It continues:
Paragraph 18 quite rightly lists many types of gaps that can exist, such as geographical, income, specific needs and time. Here it would imply that the largest gaps have priority, whereas there may well be other issues
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC109
that need to take priority in a particular area. Provision for workless families might be a very high priority in a particular area.
There is great danger that the guidance issued may be tautological in many senses and repeat the previous wording. I come back to the point made by my noble friend Lady Walmsley: local authorities have to translate this measure into practical actions. They will have to decide whether they are providing sufficient childcare, and they will be examined by Ofsted in that regard. They need better and much more specific guidance than the measure implies.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I believe that one of my honourable friends in another place said that the Bill could be renamed the "Mind the Gap" Bill. Given the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that would be appropriate.
I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that I very much enjoyed his Second Reading speech and all his interventions. I hope that he continues to make them.
I thank the Minister for her very full explanation, which I shall enjoy reading in Hansard. She said that local authorities would have to consider and plan, and that that was a difficult thing to do. Indeed, it will be difficult, not least because the Local Government Association has concerns about the new childcare duties, particularly on improving outcomes and reducing the gap in outcomes between the poorest children and the rest, and the fact that that will put financial pressure on local authorities. The Local Government Association questions whether the dedicated resources will be sufficient to carry out those duties effectively and in the manner the Government envisage. A second question is the sustainability of these resources and the Government's commitment to building on the gains currently being made. Not only will a lot be asked of local authorities, but they are not sure that they can deliver.
Much of the Minister's response to questions on quality, training and safeguarding concerned issues that we shall pick up on later amendments, so I shall not raise them now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 15:
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 21, 22 and 29 in this group.
As I have said many times, I welcome the Bill and its emphasis on providing more childcare for parents who want it. However, one thing I regret is its emphasis on providing childcare only for working parents or those training to work, as touched on by my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford. One of the Government's objectives, of course, is to assist parents back to work to alleviate child poverty, and we all support that. However, we must not ignore children in workless households, who may not need wrap-around care or
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC110
care for such long periods, but need it all the same. That is what this group of amendments seeks to address.
Workless households may share certain criteria apart from a low household income, such as low educational attainment, stress and poor parental relationships because of that stress and low income. Although the parents may well love their child as much as, or more than, any other parent, they may not have the knowledge and skills to understand what best to do to help the child in its development. A placement in a good-quality childcare setting for part of the week will alleviate or correct those situations as appropriate, and as parents decide they need it.
Good professional staff can assist children in their intellectual and every other kind of development in ways that their parents may not be able to. They can also help parents to do that. They can identify problems that need early intervention. A good centre will work with parents, helping them to understand what the centre is doing with their child and how they can continue with learning through play when they get home. It may be able to lend toys or direct parents to a toy library.
Having time without the child for a few hours while he or she is being safely cared for and educated elsewhere will help to alleviate stress and contribute to parents' relationships. It would give them time to explore the job market and decide what they want to train for, thereby ensuring the future stability of the child's family. That is surely the primary thing in the child's best interests.
Another group of workless households is those where a child has a disability. I have had a briefing from the National Autistic Society, among others, which raised this matter. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will have something to say about it. One of its surveys found that 70 per cent of carers for children with autism could not return to work due to a lack of appropriate care facilities. Securing suitable provision for those families requires workless families to be addressed in a high-priority way. For all those reasons, I have sought to amend the Bill to include non-working families in the local authority's brief to provide childcare; not just to have regard to it, but make sure that what they want and what they need is provided.
Of course cost is involved, but such families are likely to qualify for the assistance available through benefits and free places. However, it is important that the places are provided where they are needed just as much for those families as for those who are working. It is also important that the provision is suitable for such children and that staff training is adequate to understand the needs of such children. I shall say no more about that at the moment, as I have a later amendment on that. This group of amendments brings workless families further up the pecking order in the Bill than they are at the moment. There are many good reasons why that should be so. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |