---

Childcare Bill

I am grateful to the noble Earl and to other Members of the Committee for raising important issues surrounding quality, which is essential to all that we are seeking to achieve in developing the children’s workforce and outcomes for children. That is very much in the guidance and I will be happy to supply the noble Baroness with some chapter and verse on that. I should also warn the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that throwing babies out of baths will get her into serious trouble under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. I am not sure whether that is one of the three Bills that she said she is working on, but I am happy to draw her attention to the provisions in it that might get her an automatic bar without the right of representation—which I am sure was not what she had in mind when she used that phrase and it might push her straight back to her dictionary. Perhaps I may deal first with a number of questions as well as enlightening the Committee about the e-mail exchanges that my officials have had with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Then I should like to set out, as I think I need to, the Government’s approach to issues of quality and affordability, in the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked how many endorsed quality assurance schemes are being run by local authorities. I am advised that of the 50 quality assurance schemes endorsed by the Government’s Investors in Children scheme, 37 are individual local authority schemes. My right honourable friend the Minister for Children has also indicated her intention to await the results of the further work we are funding the National Children’s Bureau to undertake before making a decision on the future of the Investors in Children scheme. However, as soon as a decision is made, we will inform noble Lords. The noble Baroness, resorting to her dictionary, asked for the meaning of ““sufficiency”” for the purposes of Amendment No. 58. I am told that you cannot divorce the word from its context. That is always the problem with dictionaries—they never give you sufficient context. In Clause 6, the duty is to ensure that provision is sufficient to meet the needs of parents; it is more than simply about the provision of numbers of places. Does Ofsted take account of membership of a quality assurance scheme in its inspections? Ofsted will indeed take note of where a setting is following a recognised quality assurance scheme, but the inspector must form an independent judgment of the standards of provision and report solely on the basis of that assessment, irrespective of the type of setting—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who has consistently raised the important issue of quality in his concern about how quality can be maintained in a context of expanding provision and increased requirements, has engaged in e-mail correspondence with my officials on this matter. As he referred to it, it may be helpful to set out for the Committee the response we gave to a number of the points that he raised before I set out the wider case. We have no reason to believe that the new duty in Clause 6—the clause which sets out the duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents—will lead to a sharp increase in the overall number of childcare places. There will, however, need to be an increase simply to meet demographic trends. Population projections from the Government’s actuary show the 0 to 4 population increasing from 2.86 million in 2004 to 2.99 million in 2008, and increasing beyond 3 million in the longer term. The noble Earl also asked about the qualifications of staff in daycare settings. Our latest survey of childcare providers, conducted last year, is due to be published within the next two months. I therefore cannot give the precise figures in advance of publication, but I am able to say that the survey is likely to show some improvement in qualifications at all levels, including the number and proportion of staff who are graduates. That will be welcomed by the Committee and it is part of a trend towards upskilling this important profession. But we are the first to recognise that there is still a long way to go before we have the well qualified, skilled and motivated workforce that we all wish to see, including quality in early education and care. Our objective is to ensure that by 2015 all full daycare settings employ graduates with early years professional status to lead work with children and parents. The £250 million transformation funds, which have been referred to several times, have a vital role to play. The money will help to raise the qualification standards in private, voluntary and independent settings without compromising affordability for parents. It will support the growth of a cadre of graduate-level early years professionals who will use their specialist skills and knowledge to lead change in childcare settings. We also plan to use the funds to invest in skills development below graduate level and increase the training available to staff working with disabled children and those with special educational needs. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, does not like me reciting large figures but I hope she will forgive me for saying that the £250 million is in addition to the flexibility which local authorities have in the distribution of the £2.7 billion of general Sure Start grant being made available over the next two years. Local authorities have the flexibility to use the revenue element of this grant on workforce development and training. Previously, as the Committee will know, there was a ring-fenced element of that fund specifically for training—I think it was about £70 million a year. We have removed the ring-fence so that local authorities have more discretion in how they use the revenue elements, including in training. So, although I accept that there is always more that could be done and always more that needs to be done, we are moving in the right direction, and I believe the surveys of the workforce will show that the skills and capacity are increasing. Beyond the issue of training qualifications and what we are seeking to do, I draw attention to the national standards for childcare, the Birth to three framework and a foundation stage curriculum, which set common expectations of quality across the country. Quality is central to all those elements, and we are building on them by introducing the new early years foundation stage, which will create a single reference point as to what good-quality provision for children aged from nought to five will look like. That is replete with references to quality and definitions of provisions that meet acceptable quality standards. We are also ensuring quality through the regulation and inspection reforms in Part 3 of the Bill. They will ensure that childcare settings meet consistent quality standards and that settings are independently assessed by Ofsted against those standards. We feel that putting a separate requirement on local authorities, as set out in a number of the noble Earl’s amendments, could take us back to the position before 2001, when responsibility for inspecting childcare was transferred from local authorities to Ofsted as part of a significant reform. The situation before 2001 was that each of the 150 local authorities had their own interpretation of what the minimum quality standards should be, resulting in significant variations across the country and between neighbourhoods, which was thought undesirable. That was part of the reason that we moved to the national Ofsted system. A childminder working under one authority’s standards could be operating against a different quality threshold compared with a childminder in the next street who happened to be in a different local authority. We were seeking to move beyond that unsatisfactory situation by giving responsibility to Ofsted at a national level. Clause 6 also requires local authorities to have particular regard to the need to secure sufficient childcare that is eligible for the childcare element of the working tax credit. I stress to the Committee that childcare would be eligible for tax credits only if it was judged by Ofsted to be operating to the required standards, either against the requirements of the early-years register or the Ofsted childcare register, depending on the age of the children using the provisions. That is a significant further guarantee of quality. Furthermore, Clause 11 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment of the sufficiency of childcare provision in their area. That will not just be an assessment of parents’ requirements regarding the quantity of childcare but also of the types and features of childcare. The type of childcare is one element of quality so far as parents are concerned and, to that extent, separate from the regulation of essential standards, the Bill gives local authorities an important role in regulating quality in the decisions that they take about the type of childcare that is needed to be provided and commissioned in their own area. The department’s regulations and guidance underpinning the duty under Clause 11 will make it clear that local authorities must consider the types and features of childcare that parents require. I turn now to the specific amendments. Amendment No. 11 would have the effect of leaving it to the Secretary of State to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a particular local authority should be under a duty to secure sufficient childcare. Our view is that the amendment would be a significant weakening of the Bill, and we hope the noble Earl will not press it. It would give a discretionary role in the provision of childcare where we wish it to be a requirement for local authorities to see that it is provided. All the provisions of the Bill, and all that we are seeking to do through Sure Start children’s centres and the other elements I have set out, ensure that, as provision is extended, it is on the basis of high quality. We do not believe there needs to be a separate assessment before a local authority is empowered to secure sufficient childcare, which would be the effect of Amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 24 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that making this requirement of a local authority would not diminish the quality of childcare before placing that duty on it. For the same reasons, we do not believe that that amendment is necessary. Since 1998, we have invested heavily in childcare and Sure Start. We have put in place all the measures I have set out to underpin quality, and the new duties in the Childcare Bill have been framed in a way that reflects our view that local authorities are best placed to lead in the next phase of development within the framework set by national government. Amendments Nos. 13, 25 and 33 would shift the requirement on local authorities from one that is based on securing sufficient childcare to one that would require them only to ensure that, whatever childcare is available, it is of sufficient quality. I hope I have made it clear to the Committee, through the steps we have already taken, that the quality of childcare is indeed crucial to us. However, these amendments seek only to address the issue of quality, not of availability, and therefore deal with only some of the problems parents face in assessing childcare. They therefore do not meet the objectives of the childcare duty that we believe are central: that availability and quality need to go hand in hand. Amendment No. 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, introduces the issue of affordability. It seeks to ensure the Clause 6 duty of local authorities to ensure that childcare is of good quality, accessible and affordable. Similarly, Amendment No. 28, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seeks to ensure that local authorities have regard to the quality of childcare and the suitability of that childcare for the community living in those areas. In both cases we agree with the objectives—improving quality, accessibility and affordability—that are at the heart of the Government’s drive to improve early years and childcare services. All three are crucial to building and sustaining a childcare market that not only is responsive to the needs of parents, but also continues to improve the outcomes for children. I have dealt with the issues of quality. I shall address specifically the issue of affordability, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. Our latest survey evidence suggests that there has been some overall improvement in affordability but that problems remain, particularly for lower income families who are working or seeking work. That is why the Bill requires local authorities to secure childcare that is eligible for the childcare element of the working tax credit. In 2005–06 the level of investment in the childcare element of the working tax credit topped £800 million, benefiting 356,000 families. That is a very significant investment. Tax credit levels increased again this year, meaning that the maximum proportion of childcare costs that parents can claim rose from 70 to 80 per cent, whatever those costs are, up to a maximum of £175 a week for one child and £300 a week for more than one. That goes a significant way to meeting the affordability issues the noble Baroness raised. In addition to subsidising the cost of care through tax credits, the Government also provide twelve and a half hours a week of free early years education and care for all three and four year-olds, irrespective of the employment status of their parents, for a period of 33 weeks a year, which has just risen to 38 weeks from the beginning of this month. That provision will rise to 15 hours a week by 2010, with the aim of 20 hours a week in the long term. This free entitlement to all three and four year-olds goes a long way to helping parents with the cost of childcare. On accessibility and suitability, I particularly draw the Committee’s attention to Clause 11, which is the duty on local authorities to assess the sufficiency of childcare. It is important to understand how closely that assessment relates to the duty under Clause 6 to secure sufficient childcare for working parents. The policy paper on the assessment duty that I made available to the Committee makes it clear that local authorities will have to assess parents’ requirements for childcare and compare that to the current availability and suitability of childcare in order to identify what gaps need to be filled. Whatever the make-up of the local community, whether there are different ethnic groups, lower income families or families that work atypical hours because, for example, there is a nearby airport that employs many local residents on shifts, local authorities will have to assess their childcare requirements. It is from the findings of that assessment that local authorities will be able to respond effectively to local needs. Our guidance on Clauses 6 and 11 will help local authorities to identify specific needs and plan childcare so that it is built around those local needs. What is accessible or indeed affordable will therefore vary from family to family, and we do not think that putting criteria on the face of the Bill will achieve the objectives we are seeking. We think this is better left to guidance and the discretion of individual local authorities. Amendment No. 60, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, repeats Amendment No. 12 for Wales placing the same requirements on local authorities in Wales. I have assured the noble Baroness with regard to Amendment No. 12 for England. Similarly, the quality, accessibility and affordability of childcare in Wales are assured by the Bill as currently drafted, by the Welsh Assembly Government’s childcare strategy and by the role of the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales. We therefore believe that the issues relating to quality are fully covered in Wales. Amendments Nos. 48 and 31 raise the issue of quality childcare in relation to the assessment. Amendment No. 48 would require local authorities to have regard to the quality of childcare provision when preparing and reviewing its assessment. Amendment No. 31 would require local authorities to ensure that those providers commissioned by the authority participate in a quality assurance scheme recognised by the Secretary of State. Putting such a requirement in the legislation would add an extra layer of quality assurance, duplicating the measures that we are proposing in Part 3 to establish a comprehensive quality framework for early years provision, and the very valuable role of Ofsted in assessing and reporting on quality. To take up the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the early years foundation stage will clearly state that every child should be allocated a key worker who takes the lead in ensuring the child’s welfare on a daily basis, and who plays a significant role in working positively with parents to meet the child’s individual needs. I assure the noble Earl that the importance of attachment will feature strongly in the early years foundation stage material, as it currently does in the Birth to three matters framework. We agree that quality assurance schemes can add value if they secure a culture of continuous quality improvement within a childcare setting and encourage practitioners to reflect on their practice and engage in continuous professional development and training. As I said earlier when answering specific questions, we believe that they can be taken account of in Ofsted inspections, However, although the investment of time and effort by local authorities and others in developing quality assurance schemes has been recognised, not all schemes have proved effective in securing real improvements in quality across a wide range of provision. Some of them have tended to focus unduly on administrative processes and become an end in themselves or simply a marketing tool for providers. For that reason, we are looking at the endorsement arrangements that have been operated by the departments under the investment in children scheme, as I indicated earlier. Amendment No. 58, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, would add quality to the definition of early years provision for Part I. Early years provision is referred to in Part 1 in Clauses 2 and 7. Clause 2 defines the key services, including early years provision, which local authorities must use to deliver their duties in Clause 1 of improving the outcomes of the young children in their area and reducing inequalities between them. These clauses have a deliberate focus on the vitally important outcomes that children are achieving rather than inputs such as the quality of services. While we share the noble Baroness’s belief that quality services will support improved outcomes, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is the outcomes themselves that are important. The amendment would be a departure from this approach. The early years foundation stage, which must be delivered by providers delivering the free entitlement under Clause 7, will be subject to monitoring arrangements by Ofsted to ensure that the provision is of the desired quality. I hope that I have been able to explain effectively to the Committee that the issues of quality, affordability and accessibility are central to the Bill and that it deals with those issues appropriately and effectively. Requiring local authorities to secure sufficient childcare that is eligible for tax credits and the requirement to assess the needs of local parents and then respond to those needs, and the regulation and inspection system, setting clear standards through the early years foundation stage, are the best methods of achieving the goal of sustained improvements in quality. Taken together, they fully meet the concerns that have been voiced.