UK Parliament / Open data

Childcare Bill

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 9 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Childcare Bill.
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s concern and I know that it is genuine; she raises these issues because of her regard for such people. We are trying to frame a duty on local authorities to provide sufficient child care, and it is important that in doing so, we strike a balance. It is not that the groups whom the hon. Lady mentions are not important; they are, but we are talking about requiring, in law, local authorities to ensure that sufficient child care is available for certain groups. They will be judged accountable according to where we draw the line for that duty, and the Bill proposes that it should be drawn for working parents and the parents of disabled children. In fulfilling that duty, local authorities will generally make good-quality child care more available across the board, and I have no doubt that it will be available for people outside the groups to which I have referred. We have to decide what we should require local authorities to guarantee, as far as they reasonably can, and the criteria against which we should judge them. The Bill strikes a reasonable balance in that respect, ensuring that there is more child care for other groups, but not imposing a very high threshold of duty on local authorities. Amendment No. 35 would place an explicit duty on local authorities to have regard also for the requirements of disabled parents when securing sufficient child care. I agree that the needs of disabled parents must be taken into account and accommodated, although not necessarily by this Bill. A new disability equality duty will come into effect in December this year, requiring all public bodies to ensure that disabled people are treated equally. Obviously, that duty will play a part in what local authorities must provide in connection with this Bill, and that is why the amendment is not necessary. Amendment No. 59 would include on the face of the Bill the groups that local authorities should consult when carrying out their assessment duty. During the Committee stage, we published a paper outlining our intentions in that regard, and that is still available in the Library of the House. It states clearly that local authorities should consult with parents, carers, providers, employers and local organisations to ensure that the provision meets their needs. As I said in Committee, we will require local authorities by means of regulation to take account of the views of children. I hope that the hon. Lady will be happy with that, as it will give us a quality system for assessing sufficiency. Other amendments deal with the relationship between the private voluntary sector and schools, the two parts of the sector that will provide child care. As part of the level playing field argument, amendment No. 7 would require local authorities to set up an appeals process to handle the concerns of child care providers. We discussed the matter very thoroughly in Committee, and the arrangements in the Bill will safeguard the very valuable role that the private and voluntary sectors play in maintaining the diverse market that we want to exist.However, as I said in Committee, if local providers still feel that they have been treated unfairly, processes are in place to ensure that they can complain to the local authority. Secondly, we have said that any complaints received by the local authority must be referred to Ofsted for consideration as part of the joint area review. Thirdly, guidance will make it clear that the authority must inform Ofsted about issues raised in complaints in respect of its analysis of sufficiency and other matters. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 deal with the role of maintained schools, and once again are similar to amendments tabled in Committee. I still believe that amendment No. 31 is not necessary, as clause 35 of the Education and Inspections Bill will introduce a new duty for maintained schools to have regard to the children and young persons plan. That will take care of the objective contained in amendment No. 31. Amendment No. 32 is similarly unnecessary. Maintained providers are already subject to quite stringent requirements in respect of the quality of the services that they provide and of the management of their delegated budgets. Local authorities already have to have in place detailed and well established monitoring and accountability arrangements for budgets in schools and other maintained settings. It follows that financial assistance for child care in schools will be closely monitored in that way. Therefore, the amendments are not necessary. The hon. Lady rightly pursues the issue of the quality of child care. I hope that she did not feel crushed in Committee, because that was not my intention. I would never seek to do that, especially to the hon. Lady because I know that her sentiments are generally benign, if sometimes a little misguided in terms of how we get where we want to be. I tried to stress in Committee that a substantial part of the Bill—part 3—is about quality, because we are instituting a new regulation and inspection regime, and a new framework for the early years foundation stage as a basis for that regime. That Ofsted framework is the appropriate way to achieve a national consistent standard of achievement. In addition, clause 6 requires local authorities to have particular regard to the need to secure sufficient child care that is eligible for the child care element of the working tax credit. Child care will be eligible for tax credits only if it satisfies the standards set by Ofsted. It does not make sense to require local authorities to duplicate 150 times what we have already established, which is a national organisation that parents trust and that works to consistent standards across the country. That is the way to proceed. Clause 11 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment of parents’ needs for child care. That will not be just an assessment of parents’ needs regarding the quantity of child care but of the quality and flexibility of that child care. Our regulations and guidance underpinning that duty will make it clear that local authorities must consider the types and features of child care that parents require. We have to allow local authorities to exercise leadership in the way that they think best for their area. They are doing so in significant numbers, but that is different from placing them under a requirement that would potentially conflict with or duplicate Ofsted’s role. I am the first to agree with the hon. Lady that the quality of child care is crucial, but I do not agree that the amendment is the way to achieve it. I am afraid that I cannot give hon. Members much comfort in terms of accepting their amendments, but I hope that the reassurances that I have tried to give show that what they seek to achieve is either encompassed in the Bill or in other legislation or regulations. I ask the Opposition to withdraw the new clause and not to press the amendments.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

443 c1001-3 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top