---

Childcare Bill

I do not fully understand the noble Earl’s concern. It is precisely for that reason that the investments set out by my noble friend Lady Crawley have been made. I know that these are not always regarded as sufficient funding, but they are very substantial, new investments. At Second Reading, I gave a whole set of figures for the funding that we propose to make available in the next two years to meet the under-fives responsibilities of local authorities. For fear of incurring another reprimand from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I will not give out the figures demonstrating the extent of the Government’s munificence in this area. I hope that we can take it as read that I gave those figures at Second Reading. The noble Earl’s point about the essential importance of central government working in partnership with local government in this respect is fully set out in paragraph 20 of the draft guidance. That makes it very clear that this is a collaborative process and that the setting of targets must take place in joint discussions. If the Secretary of State were minded to set targets that were more ambitious than those proposed by the local authority, there would be a specific requirement to give account of reasons to do that. The very process means that that would be an exceptional eventuality. I did not sufficiently reply to one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, which is what happens if the targets that are not met and if the inspection process leads to significant findings of failure. We are committed to proportionate responses and we made it very clear in the draft guidance that any intervention by central government would be proportionate, as would obviously be expected. However, I do not hesitate to say to the Committee that, as it would expect of a government, where there is evidence of significant failure, we have a duty on behalf of the public to ensure that provision is made locally for services that are not being properly conducted and managed to be properly conducted and managed. Where there is evidence of failure—for example, identified by Ofsted—we would expect to hold early discussions with local authorities and, wherever possible, agree solutions tailored to the circumstances of the authority, with the intention of avoiding more draconian action. However, the Secretary of State has more substantial powers of intervention, all of which will be used only given a substantial evidence base that services are failing locally. To give an example of a recent intervention, in Swindon in 2001, in response to a very critical Ofsted inspection, the Secretary of State issued a direction to outsource the strategic management of Swindon’s education department. Tribal Group plc was awarded a three-year contract up to August last year. To support corporate improvement, an education partnership board was put in place to provide impartial advice and guidance to the council. That provided a significant level of direction, but also support for the authority from professionals who were able to meet its capacity weaknesses. Later inspections reported highly satisfactory progress in education following that intervention and the inspectors commented in particular on the positive effect of the strategic partnership between the education partnership board, the work of Tribal and the local authority. As a result, the direction was lifted at the end of August last year. I have a number of other examples where interventions have taken place. Such interventions have a long established history in local education authorities. I should say that the power to intervene does not always mean outsourcing; it means taking appropriate action, which can often mean agreeing with the local authority significant changes in its corporate management or processes to ensure that defined and serious weaknesses are met, leading to real change on the ground. In conclusion, effective delivery and planning of services must depend on close and effective partnership between local and central government. It requires both to fulfil their roles. As part of that process, central government has a role in acting as the ultimate guardian of the public interest. Where local authorities are, in the judgment of professionals and inspecting bodies, not delivering services effectively, we have a duty to intervene to bring about change. However, that is an exceptional situation and, as we have made clear in the guidance, all interventions under the Bill will be proportionate and related only to clear and defined evidence of weakness and failure.