---

Childcare Bill

My Lords, I was very surprised by the noble Baroness’s contribution because I thought that she would join us in not wanting to see a two-tier system where there were some settings that people could go to only if they could afford to pay a substantial fee. We are seeking to ensure that free provision is free provision. If we enable this essentially wrecking amendment to be made to the Bill, we will have a two-tier system where the free provision of 15 hours a week, 38 weeks of the year is available to some parents who are able to pay a fee but not to those who are unable to pay where a fee is imposed for some elements of that free provision. We on this side of the House stick by our commitment that the provision should be free. We are working with the private and voluntary sectors to deal with all the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, raised, but we see a fundamental point of principle here. We have given a commitment that the provision should be free for up to 15 hours a week, 38 weeks of the year in settings which offer that level of provision. But we are not prepared to see a dual regime of free provision in some settings and top-up fees in others, which may be precisely the settings which are most relevant and accessible to parents who cannot afford to pay the fees. So I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who I thought was with us on this issue, does not allow charging to be introduced into the Bill, as we believe that that would go to the heart of the regime for an increased free entitlement for all parents in the country. We recognise that there is a duty on the state to see that this system is properly funded. We have put a substantial sum of money into extending the provision to 38 weeks a year, and we have given a firm commitment in the comprehensive spending review that we will look at how we raise it to 15 hours a week. That will be done over a number of years; this is not, in any case, an immediate reform. The Pathfinder authorities are also looking at precisely this issue of sustainability. If we allow two different regimes to be established, let us be absolutely clear that we will not be talking about a free entitlement to provision for 15 hours a week, 38 weeks of the year but about a two-tier system whereby the wealthy will be able to get into some settings and the free entitlement will be restricted to other settings. That would go against the fundamental principle of what we have been seeking to achieve—that is, a substantial and increased level of universal provision. We do not find that an acceptable situation, so we will continue to resist the amendment. None the less, it is a matter for providers to decide what they charge for hours outside the free entitlement. There is nothing to stop a provider deciding to charge over and above that free entitlement and, once this regime is fully in place, it will be entirely free to do so over the 38 weeks and over the 15 hours. Providers that offer some element of the entitlement that we are describing as free must be prepared to offer it all if they are open for the 15 hours a week, 38 weeks of the year. There is no requirement on providers to do that—they are entirely free to operate outside the state-subsidised system. If they wish to go entirely private, they can do so, but they cannot claim to offer a free entitlement when in fact they are offering only part of it and are therefore disadvantaging the very parents who are most vulnerable, who will not be able to pay the fees and who may well be faced in their localities with providers that will not offer the 38 weeks and the 15 hours but will do so only if parents are prepared to pay what could be, in many cases, a substantial fee. We are absolutely at one with the need for flexibility in allowing suppliers to open for fewer than 38 hours a week, particularly at the beginning of the phased introduction of the longer entitlement. We are certainly prepared to accept flexibility. We are also working on the Pathfinder projects at the moment, and it will be a number of years before we get to the full 15 hours in any event. However, we do not think that it is acceptable to put in legislation a two-tier system that enables charges to be introduced. That goes to the heart and principle of the Bill—which is that there should be an increased universal free entitlement to under-fives provision.