| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Adonis: I can happily give the noble Baroness a categorical assurance that those concerns will not be realised under this Government. I believe that I can meet the legitimate points that she has raised. Her concern is to see that choice and flexibility for parents are maximised and not constrained, which is our objective too.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness has seen the code of practice published at the start of this month on the provision of free nursery education places for three and four year-olds that we are seeking to expand, but my best response would be to quote from two key passages in it. I hope that when the noble Baroness has had a chance to reflect on it, she will agree that it meets the concerns. Paragraph 5.9 of the code states:
"The Department recognises that some providers are not open for 38 weeks and may not be able to offer the full entitlement, particularly in the first year—although they should be encouraged to do so wherever possible. Local authorities must nevertheless secure that there are sufficient 38 week places to meet parental demand. There is nothing to prevent parents from taking up a lesser free entitlement at the provider of their choice and providers should be funded accordingly. However, the local authority and the provider concerned have a responsibility to inform parents about the implications of their decision—in particular, that the local authority may not be able to fund top-up provision at an alternative provider".
In respect of new entitlements, paragraph 9.3 of the code of practice states:
"That is not to say that all providers will be required to meet every parental request for flexibility, rather that local authorities will have a responsibility to assess local demand and plan provision accordingly".
I hope that I can meet the noble Baroness's concern. We are dealing with the obligation on the local authority to see that there is adequate provision to meet the new entitlement, but we are not saying—particularly in the early stages where, as she so rightly said, many providers may have difficulty making appropriate adjustments and so on—that they must make those changes otherwise they will not be eligible for funding. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that we are not nationalising childhood and that we do not need to proceed with this amendment.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his reply. The people who briefed us are fully aware of the code of practice. They gave me a copy, which I have not had a chance to read because I have been reading all the wonderful information coming from the Department for Education and Skills. I will go back to those people with the answer from the Minister. I assume that the code of practice is working at the
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC136
moment, but they were concerned that the new requirements would stop them offering the flexibility that they currently offer. However, I will talk to them. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 pm
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 35:
"( ) The Secretary of State must provide an assessment of the sufficiency of childcare provision by local authorities at an interval no greater than every two years."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 35, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 42. Both amendments are about assessments. Amendment No. 35 implies that the Secretary of State will have been provided with the information by the local authorities. It will make local authorities accountable to the Secretary of State on their adherence to the duty to ensure sufficient provision of childcare and should ensure greater consistency of provision between local authorities. It will give the Secretary of State the information needed to inform future policy and revise guidance or anything else that needs to be changed. There is not a lot more to say about this amendment.
Amendment No. 42 ensures that the new duty on local authorities to carry out regular childcare assessments consists of an assessment of parents' demand for childcare, both met and unmet demand, as well as the supply of local childcare available. There is an implication that the affordability of childcare is assessed in relation to that demand. Ensuring that local childcare assessments consider both supply and demand is crucial to supporting the local authority to effectively plan and manage the local childcare market and to shape local provision to meet parents' needs. Under Clause 12(5), the local authority will be under a very welcome new duty to reach out proactively to families who do not traditionally use childcare services, but this is about creating demand to meet parents' needs as well as meeting existing demand. It is a crucial aspect of the market-management function that local authorities will increasingly adopt. Therefore, making specific reference to both supply and demand in Clause 11 will assist councils in fulfilling their strategic leadership role.
The policy note on Clause 11 indicates the Government's desire for local authorities to control childcare fees in their area. That is in paragraph 12 of the note. Control could occur indirectly. If a local authority deems that local providers are charging fees at a rate that is unaffordable to local parents, they could perceive the famous "gap" in provision, despite the presence of non-maintained providers. The council might then fill that gap with more places in the maintained sector or by directing parents to childcare it considers more affordable. It may not be of such good quality, but it may be affordable. Under those circumstances, it would be extremely helpful to be able to clarify precisely how the assessment process would function.
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC137
We have been approached by the National Day Nurseries Association which is particularly interested in having answers to the following questions that relate to how the law would operate. Since it is an important provider in the sector, it is reasonable to ask these questions. First, what will be the criteria by which local authorities and central government will judge affordability? Secondly, while flexibility between regions is important, is there a risk that we could end up with perhaps 150 different interpretations of affordable, one for each local authority in England? Thirdly, are the Government taking steps to co-ordinate a definition of affordability in local authorities across the country—to avoid what I have just suggested—containing bureaucracy for providers and producing clarity for parents? Fourthly, does the Government's understanding of affordability fully appreciate that good quality childcare providers will need to invest further in training and facilities to maintain and improve their service which will have an effect on the affordability of their places? Finally, will local authorities' understanding of affordable fully reflect the cost to day nurseries of providing childcare in a particular area, for example, land rent, staffing costs and business rates? I am particularly referring to London and the south-east where the costs of providing childcare are notably higher than they are elsewhere in the country. I would be most grateful if, when responding on this group of amendments, the Minister could give me some answers to that group of questions or could at least write to me.
Also in this group there are some amendments under the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about qualifications and experience, specifying what the regulations must cover with regard to the qualifications. I am very much attracted to those amendments because it is important that we are aspirational in terms of the level of qualification that we specify in childcare settings. So although I am not au fait with whether the actual wording of the amendments would be acceptable to the parliamentary draftsmen, I support the spirit of what the noble Earl is trying to highlight in his amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel: Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45 are my amendments in this group. Amendment No. 43 ensures that there is adequate expertise in the local authority to make sound judgments about what is high-quality childcare. There has been much restructuring of local authority services recently, and there is a concern that some of the expertise currently developed in childcare may be lost in that process. As we have seen in the questions about looked-after children and residential childcare, it is very important that those making decisions have an understanding of the true cost of high-quality childcare and that they invest to save and look to the value of good-quality care.
The other two amendments aim to gather information that would help us to see more clearly where good and not so good-quality childcare is provided. We need to know about variations in staff turnover and different settings and areas; about time set aside for INSET training; about levels of
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC138
qualification and distribution of qualified workers between different settings and different areas; and about the number of children in early years child care by age and by their length of exposure to child care. We particularly need to monitor the number of infants under the age of 12 months spending long periods in group care. It may be that Ofsted is the best body to do that, but I look forward to the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, on how frequently Ofsted gathers information. That is the purpose of these amendments. I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |