| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 40, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has indicated, there is a good deal of overlap between the amendments in her name and those in mine and that of my noble friend.
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC149
First, I will speak to Amendment No. 37 and then pick up Amendments Nos. 38 and 40. On Amendment No. 37, Clause 8(3) makes it very clear that the role of the local authority is essentially that of the commissioner. It states:
"An English local authority may not provide childcare for a particular child or group of children unless the local authority are satisfied—(a) that no other person is willing to provide the childcare . . . or (b) if another person is willing to do so, that in the circumstances it is appropriate for the local authority to provide the childcare".
The slightly contorted words of paragraph (b) leave the definition of "appropriate" unclear. The purpose of Amendment No. 37 is to clarify further what is meant by "appropriate". It would insert:
"In subsection 3(b) 'appropriate' means that provision of a suitable quality and type of childcare would otherwise not be available".
As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, pointed out, we are still left with uncertainty about precisely what "suitable quality" is. There perhaps is not a definitive definition, but the amendment nevertheless tries to clarify the matter a little more than the slightly contorted words of subsection (3)(b) do. Its aim is absolutely clear: if the local authority did not step in and provide suitable quality of provision, that provision would not otherwise be available in the area, and only in those circumstances would a local authority be allowed to step in and be the provider, as distinct from the commissioner of childcare.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 address a different issue. As it stands, schools are exempt from the requirements placed on local authorities to assess what provision is available in the private and voluntary sectors. Local authorities are required to consider what provision is available in schools, but schools do not have a reciprocal responsibility. Therefore, there is a considerable risk that in setting up childcare facilities schools will duplicate existing provision, thereby undermining the sustainability of that provision, often in the voluntary or the private sector. To a degree, therefore, there is a danger that in giving schools the right to set up provision without taking account of what else is available locally, it defeats the whole object of the Bill, which is to provide a diversity of provision and a choice for parents on childcare.
It is important therefore, in making a judgment about appropriate provision, that local authorities should judge childcare provided by schools in exactly the same way as they would judge those provided by other providers. In addition, it is equally important that schools play a full and vital part in local childcare planning arrangements. The two amendments seek to put schools on the same footing as other providers and not to set them apart.
Lord Northbourne: I support Amendment No. 39. My mind goes back to the time when schools set up pre-classes for four year-olds and put out of business an enormous number of playgroups and nursery settings. Schools have a reason for having a nursery school as a loss leader: it enables them to get a supply
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC150
of the best children. So schools are in a different business. Amendment No. 39 will probably not do any good, but it is worth giving it a try.
The Earl of Listowel: I understand that in Oxfordshire there is an obligation on new providers to conduct market research and show that there is a need for their provision before they can open. I wonder whether that model could be more widely used.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I support the amendment that enables providers to have a right of appeal. I looked through the Bill to see whether, if a provider found itself unable to provide what it wished to and it appeared that it had met all the criteria, it had a right of appeal as a basic human right. I hope the Minister will tell me that it is somewhere in the regulations—he is nodding—because it is crucial that it is there.
The second issue is maintained schools. When I raised this at Second Reading, the Minister robustly told me that schools were places where these services should be developed and that the concept of Every Child Matters was that school campuses would provide a wide range of facilities so that most parents would want to drop their children off and take their small children to the nursery at the same time. Those are very good arguments, but they contrast starkly with the planning that the Government are trying to put in place to make sure that under-5s provision is not duplicated or lost because other provision moves forward. The Government must be able to find a way between those two things. I have it clearly in my head that the Government are determined that schools should be able to do that. I hope the Minister will listen to our genuine concerns. It is not that we do not want to have nurseries on school campuses—we all think that that is a good idea—but we fear that they will endanger other facilities, which will mean that some parents will lose places because other provision will be forced out of the market. This is not an easy problem. Between now and Report, I hope that the Minister will have a look at how those tensions are balanced to see if there is some way through the dilemma.
Lord Adonis: A range of concerns have been raised in this group of amendments and we have had a good and useful debate on the many issues raised. We believe that healthy private, voluntary and independent sectors are vital to maintaining the diverse childcare market that will best meet the needs of parents. We set great store by contestability and we do not wish to undermine or diminish the role that the independent, voluntary and private sectors play in this area. I give that commitment on the part of the Government. It is not a commitment based on words, but is based on existing practice and the changes that we are bringing to bear in this area. In terms of practice, a survey of 459 Sure Start children's centres showed that 21 per cent were run by private, voluntary and independent sector providers and that those sectors also provided 58 per cent of the childcare in those centres, which are being set up under the Sure Start programme and so are quite apart from the
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC151
existing supply of private, voluntary and independent provision. I hope that that demonstrates to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that collaborative working is already happening successfully and that we are not dealing with conjecture about what will happen, but that we have a good basis on which to believe that the private, voluntary and independent sectors will continue to thrive as local authorities take on the commission roles set out in the Bill.
To commit further to our vision of a diverse market, we are amending the Sure Start grant memorandum so that from this month there will be a requirement for local authorities to consult, and consider using, the private and voluntary sectors as they develop Sure Start children's centres—as many already do. Clause 3, which is already agreed, requires local authorities to take all reasonable steps to involve the private, voluntary and independent sectors in the planning and delivery of early childhood services, which further underpins the obligations that we are giving them. Our Extended Schools prospectus makes clear that schools will need to work in partnership with other providers to complement and support access to existing services. In a large proportion of cases, schools are making their facilities available, and facilities in primary and secondary schools are being substantially rebuilt through the Building Schools for the Future programme.
The actual provision will be made by private, voluntary and independent providers, many of whom will find opportunities to make this provision significantly enhanced by these new facilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said that they may have difficulties doing so, in the context of private, voluntary and independent providers who currently face constrained facilities in their capacity to deliver childcare on the enhanced basis we are seeking to ensure. The enhanced facilities increasingly available in schools and children's centres will actually be a great boost to the private, voluntary and independent sectors. They will be able to make use of more appropriate facilities in making provision.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I appreciate the Minister giving way. I missed the first bit: was he just talking about children's centres, or providing the facilities in extended schools as well?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |