| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Northbourne: On that point, the reason why I raised different kinds of care that are needed during the period from nought to five was in the context of the cost. The local authority will have to assess different costs for different kinds of childcare. The other point is that the noble Baroness mentioned the separation of childcare along with early years education, early years foundation stage and professional leaders. It has been expressed to me by members of the profession wiser than I in early years that there is a concern that this separation of early education from general education and putting it over into childcare will lead to a gradual
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC144
leaching away of teachers in the latter part of childcare. That is a matter for concern. It is an unfair question to ask off the top of my head like that, but if the noble Baroness would care to write to me, I would be very grateful.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I am not sure whether I am allowed to intervene at this stage; I lose track of the procedures. We had a debate about this at another point. When we are talking about childcare and the general welfare and development of the child—and we will come to this again when we start talking about tort and other vocabulary in the Bill—it is important that we do not see young children simply as being part of the education system. That is the serious danger if we start to talk about education in terms of the early years.
Education is a crucial part of the whole package. Childcare is understood not only by the profession but by parents as meaning the generality of care of children with development, education and universal "play" included. The hundreds of parents to whom I talk know what they want when they are talking about childcare. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was not intending that; but as I have struggled with this issue over quite a period I felt that I could not allow it to pass without saying that childcare is so important separated and as part of education.
Lord Northbourne: The point that I was making was that there are at the moment many teachers dealing with that age group. Once it is cut off, it was suggested to me that there is anxiety that there will be fewer teachers going into that area. I can give the noble Baroness my sources, if she would like. The concern was expressed to me by someone who knows what they are talking about.
Baroness Crawley: While I very much agree with the noble Baroness about that kind of universal recognition of the term by both parents and providers, the noble Lord has asked a legitimate question and I should be delighted to write to him about it. Where there are anxieties, we need to bring as much comfort as possible.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: The noble Baroness very kindly answered one of my questions, but I asked a number of others. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, used to say that he hated my lists of questions when we discussed the Education Bill in 2004. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness would consider those questions and drop me a note. That would be fine—no lengthy letters, please, just a note will suffice.
The Earl of Listowel: Graduate-level participants in early years settings constitute a very welcome development. There is concern—we have had a short discussion on this—that teachers have not had a child development aspect to their Post Graduate Certificate in Education for some time. It may have been pushed over to continuing professional development and edged out of the PGCE. That matter perhaps concerns the debate that we have just had on teachers and early
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC145
years provision and thinking about early years in the right way, not just in terms of teaching children. An understanding of child development will be crucial for teachers who go into early years settings. I hope that the noble Baroness will drop me a line explaining what the current situation is and what the plans are in that regard, as that would be very helpful.
I thank the noble Baroness for the information that was provided on levels 2 and 3 of the National Vocational Qualification in childcare. I also thank her for her helpful and full response to my questions. It seems churlish to make my next point, but there is considerable argument about the quality of the NVQ. It is very much a technical qualification and depends heavily on the quality of the assessor. There may be different opinions on the qualification, but I flag up the concern that we should not rely on it too much. Perhaps we need to go beyond it and rethink what the appropriate qualification is. The noble Baroness mentioned tools. I have written down that that remark was reassuring, but beyond that I cannot read what I have written. I again thank the Minister.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. Before I go to the meat of my response, I wish to say something about care and education. I do not mind using the word "education" in relation to very young children, because my understanding of education at that age is that it is about learning. Every single experience that a child has is a learning experience. They know that if they cry, somebody will pick them up. They know that if they pucker up their lips and suck, somebody will stick something in their mouth and usually warm milk will come out. They learn from every single experience. That is my understanding of the word "education" when used in the context of very young children. I believe that that is not an inappropriate understanding.
I go back to Amendments Nos. 35 and 42. As regards Amendment No. 35, I was a little concerned when I heard the Minister mention standardised assessments. I find it difficult to understand how a standardised assessment will take account of local cost variations. I appreciate the value of establishing a standard to enable one area to be compared with another, but I would not want an area where general overall costs were high to be disadvantaged in any way by having to fill in a standardised assessment. However, I shall leave that point for the moment.
The Minister did not feel drawn to my amendment. I agree that assessments should be done locally, as she said, and that they must be pulled together to inform policy.
As I understand it, she was saying that the Secretary of State's decision to intervene would be based on evidence, which it must be, but that the evidence would be on the basis of the joint area review sufficiency test rather than the assessment done locally by the local authority. I am quite satisfied by that, and I thank the Minister for it.
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC146
On Amendment No. 42, we heard again those magic words, "It will be in regulations and guidance". So let us hope that what comes out of the work that the department is doing with real practitioners working on the ground in local authorities results in some good best practice models and some bright shiny toolkits. I am highly amused by this expression "toolkits": I always expect spanners and screwdrivers to come out of them, but I am a practical soul.
Baroness Crawley: Perhaps covered in plastic.
Baroness Walmsley: Absolutely. The Minister mentioned price and the way in which the local authority will decide whether there is sufficient provision at the right price. Does the Minister mean that parents will be asked how much they are prepared to pay? Is that right? The noble Baroness is nodding.
Baroness Crawley: Yes, that is right.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister very much indeed. On the basis of those replies, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Powers of local authority in relation to the provision of childcare]:
Baroness Morris of Bolton moved Amendment No. 36:
"( ) A local authority must establish a complaints procedure for existing or potential childcare providers who have been disadvantaged by local authorities who choose to provide childcare and related services themselves."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 36, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37, to which I have added my name, and Amendments Nos. 39, 54 and 55. Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 go to the heart of issues that I raised at Second Reading. Subsection (3)(b) will enable the local authority, in simple terms, to provide childcare, even if childcare is already available, as long as it considers it appropriate. "Appropriate" in this context is open to subjective interpretation. What the local authority may argue is appropriate may be the opposite in the eyes of the voluntary and private providers.
The wording of this subsection flashes like a neon warning sign. Surely, that goes against the assurances that the Government have made about working with the private, voluntary and independent sectors to ensure that no time and resources are wasted on duplication of provision—duplication that could be detrimental to those private and voluntary providers.
The amendment standing in my name does exactly what it says. It would ensure that the local authority sets up a complaints procedure for existing or potential childcare providers who have been disadvantaged by local authorities who choose under this section to provide childcare and related services themselves, despite there being existing provision. That would
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC147
force the local authority to lay out its reasons for why it considered such a move to be appropriate in the first place.
The amendment tabled in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, comes at this problem from another angle. It neatly clarifies the definition of "appropriate" in this context; namely, that provision is appropriate only if it is of a suitable quality and type of childcare that would otherwise not be available.
While this amendment would save the local authority from putting in place a complaints procedure, it may need further qualification in terms of a definition of quality to make it more watertight.
6.45 pm
Sure Start and extended schools do not suit the needs of all parents. It is of even more concern that government provision has led to the closure of private and voluntary childcare services that offer smaller groups and flexible care.
In order to be viable, as we have mentioned today, childcare organisations need an occupancy rate of at least 80 per cent. In January 2004 it was 85 per cent. It has since fallen to 75 per cent. That worrying trend should not be indirectly encouraged by the drafting of subsection (3)(b). This is an example where one word, if we are not careful, can create a vast loophole which goes against the grain of what the Government have stated is their intention. I hope the Minister can accept either my amendment or that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, or, if not, say that he will return with one of his own on Report.
I turn to Amendment No. 39. This replaces subsection (4) in Clause 8 with the aim to place a duty on maintained schools to seek relationships with existing private and voluntary independent childcare providers before opening nursery facilities or out-of-hours' care for under-fives.
Various groups, including the NDNA, 4Children, the National Childminding Association and the Local Government Association have raised concerns about the exclusion for maintained schools in the current drafting of subsection (4). They argue that they would like to see schools operate on a level playing field with other PVI providers and fully engage with local authority childcare planning arrangements. The Daycare Trust highlights that. It says that,
"it is very important that schools play their full and vital part in local childcare planning arrangements—as well as in the wider Every Child Matters process of which childcare is a key part".
The Early Childhood Forum warns us that a failure for schools to account for other provision in their area,
"could adversely affect the viability of private and voluntary sector providers and childminders as well as restricting choice for parents".
Again, that is the opposite of what the Government hope to achieve in the Bill. My honourable friend in the other place, Nick Gibb, described the Minister's
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC148
reply as weak. I sincerely hope, and I am sure, that the Minister's answer in this Chamber will be anything but.
On Report in another place the mood remained one of concern that there remained a strong feeling that the playing field was not level and that we would seek more detail and reassurances. I hope that by replacing subsection (4) with a duty for schools to consult with the PVI sector instead of a straight removal of subsection (4) we will have given the Minister at this end a chance to reconsider the position outlined in another place. This issue clearly sits within the wider debate currently taking place over the relationship between schools and local authorities in the Education White Paper, as well as longer term childcare strategy—I should have said the Education Bill.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 insert two new clauses after Clause 17. Amendment No. 54 will ensure that local authorities act in a fair and transparent way in delivering best-value obligations regarding childcare provision by having due regard to any relevant statutory code of practice that the Secretary of State must provide by the start of next year. Amendment No. 55 underpins Amendment No. 54 by directly placing a duty on local authorities to act in such a fair and transparent manner. The overarching aim of both these amendments is to probe issues of stability and certainty by increasing contestability.
In its excellent report Children first, published in January, the CBI highlights that,
"there are already . . . examples of best practice in children's services, but this good practice needs to spread. It requires the government to act."
The CBI fears that the impetus behind the initiative to establish contestability in the provision of LEA services has slowed. I hope that the Minister can build on the passing comments made in the other place and provide us with the Government's response to the various CBI recommendations on this issue.
The concerns over stability and contestability link into the debates we have had regarding sustainability and sufficiency of childcare. Those concerns have only been heightened by the figures which confirm that, roughly, for every five places that are opening three are closing.
I have taken time to outline the various interlinking strands of this broad debate. I very much hope that the Minister can take the time the Committee permits to address each section in detail. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |