---

Childcare Bill

My Lords, we are completely at one with the two noble Baronesses on the importance of quality childcare. In fact, the Bill makes explicit provision for that; the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is quite wrong to suggest that it does not. Clauses 25, 50 and 61 all specifically mention the world ““quality”” and the structure, of the early years foundation stage has quality running all the way through it, so it is not correct to say that quality is not central to what we are seeking to achieve. Our argument against this amendment, which is why we will continue to resist it, is that there is no point in having one quality regime in place only to duplicate it and have another quality regime running alongside. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, must have misunderstood me when she said that I was seeking to argue on the one hand that there was duplication and on the other that we were taking the role away from Ofsted. I was not for a moment suggesting that we should take the role away from Ofsted; it will stay with Ofsted. That role was given to Ofsted and taken away from local authorities, which had their own separate quality regimes until a few years ago. Therefore, if it stays with Ofsted, it will by definition be duplicated under the amendment. I am particularly surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, supports the amendment, because we believe that it will impose two quality regimes on providers, which will place a big set of new, additional burdens on them, particularly on private and voluntary sector providers, who may be less well equipped to meet additional burdens than state providers. Yet the noble Baroness says all the time that she is concerned about the degree of burden and the cost of enforcement obligations that we are placing on these providers. We cannot have it both ways. Either we want only the level of bureaucracy and red tape that is essential to maintain quality, or we go down the road of putting superfluous and duplicated obligations on providers, which will add to red tape. Once they are aware of it—they are not aware of it at the moment but they will become only too well aware of it if this regime is put in place—substantial concern will be aroused among the very private and voluntary sector providers about which the noble Baroness claims to be concerned. So far as quality is concerned, Part 3 of the Bill sets out the requirement on providers caring for children under the age of five to deliver the early years foundation stage. The Early Years Foundation Stage, the consultation document which I have circulated to noble Lords, sets out very clearly the quality standards that we expect all providers to meet and that Ofsted will inspect against. Its opening words in paragraph 1 say that,"““the framework aims to increase coherence, provide a flexible approach to care and learning and raise quality throughout the Early Years Sector””." Ofsted’s duties could not be clearer in respect of quality in the Bill. Clause 31 says:"““The Chief Inspector has the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about . . . the quality and standards of regulated early years provision in England””." Clause 50 states that individual reports on early years provision must include a,"““report in writing on . . . the quality and standards of the early years provision””," and Clause 61 states that, in respect of reports regarding later years provision,"““the Chief Inspector may make a report in writing””," on matters that he considers appropriate, including ““the quality and standards”” of that provision. Quality is mentioned throughout the Bill directly in those clauses and in the early years foundation stage, which has its force under the Bill. For provision for children over the age of five, the Ofsted childcare register will also require providers to meet specific quality standards, including qualification levels and adult-to-child ratio requirements. For providers not required to register, the requirements for receiving income from tax credits and the Ofsted endorsement which parents recognise and value will be major incentives in encouraging registration and quality. In respect of tax credits, Clause 6 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. Childcare will be eligible for tax credits only if it is operating to the standards set by Ofsted. Ofsted will be able to inspect all such provision to ensure that it is meeting those required standards. Furthermore, Clause 13 gives local authorities the powers and duties to provide information, advice and training to any providers or potential providers to help them to improve the quality of their care and meet the set requirements. This will include training on how to deliver the early years foundation stage, health and safety information and advice on how to ensure that care is accessible and inclusive. So if a provider is not delivering the high-quality care that parents expect, the local authority will be able to help them to improve. Similarly, with reference to the second half of the noble Baroness’s amendment, if quality means suitability, Clauses 6 and 11 work together to ensure that the childcare needs of parents are understood and assessed and that action is then taken to meet those needs. By assessing the market through their Clause 11 duty, local authorities will be able to gain a good understanding of the standard of local childcare provision and the views and satisfaction of local parents. They will then be able to use this information to plan and secure sufficient childcare that responds to the needs of parents. As I said repeatedly in Grand Committee and on Report, care will not be deemed sufficient to meet the needs of parents if it is not suitable. By this, we mean suitable for all who need it in a locality, including black and minority ethnic families, disabled children, lower-income families or those who live in rural areas. We have considered this amendment very carefully, but there is no avoiding the fact that putting this duty on local authorities would inevitably require local authorities to assess the quality of provision, which could well lead to a duplication of the existing role of Ofsted. Worse, it could lead to two different inspection regimes operating on the same providers, which could particularly adversely affect the independent and voluntary sectors. Therefore, we do not feel able to accept the amendment.