Childcare Bill

: My Lords, as the Minister said in his introduction, parents face difficult choices in our competitive society. Whether you are a single mother or father, struggling to care for your child and remain independent, or a two-parent working family trying to give your children a good start, or another type of carer, how do you give your child that good start? Most parents and carers want the best for their children. When they hand them over to the care of others, they want to be sure that they have chosen well. But how much choice do they really have? The question of choice is one we should dwell on. Day nurseries or day centres are often parents’ most popular choice of childcare, providing as they do care and learning for hundreds of thousands of children under five. How easy is it, if you are poor or vulnerable, or find it difficult to make contact, to actually achieve a place? I speak from personal experience of working with young women who often simply cannot get into the system because of their very serious difficulties. I know there are still those who would have parents—usually mothers—stay at home, but the world has moved on. The social benefits of work and the economics of family life mean that most people must look elsewhere to ensure much of the daily care of their young children. This is why I welcome the aspiration of the Bill, even if I have concerns about its implementation and spread. There are significant questions to be asked of a Bill with such vision, set out so eloquently and with such enthusiasm by the Minister. It reflects the Government’s concern to provide accessible, affordable and flexible childcare, as outlined in the 10-year strategy. It seeks to ensure that from 2008 local authorities will be required to secure ““sufficient””—whatever that means—childcare places within their area by facilitating and managing the provision. There is no doubt that for many this has been an aspiration for decades. What has prevented these ambitions being realised are the same factors that will dog the Government’s attempt to reach their goal, unless addressed at an early stage. Perhaps I may put some questions to the Minister. Under the financial cost heading the Explanatory Notes state:"““The proposed duties on local authorities in England will be financed within the resources which have already been made available to them for childcare and early childhood services””." They continue:"““The Bill will have comparatively little effect on public services manpower””." What do those statements mean? As an aside, given that childcare staff are mainly women, would it not be more progressive to refer in documentation to ““the workforce””? I thought ““manpower”” went out of the window long ago. There is little doubt that meeting the requirements of the Bill in the spirit in which it is written will need both highly trained, valued and well-paid workers, and considerable resources. I simply emphasise what others have already said. The third key to success is management of the programme. I worked in local government for many years. I have great admiration for all that local authorities achieve, but I have some concerns about the way some are taking this issue forward. In developing the childcare market, the Government appear to have an enthusiasm for a mixed economy, building on the sound foundation created by private, voluntary and independent nurseries. In Clause 8(3) the Bill specifies that the local authority may not provide childcare unless it is satisfied that there is no other person willing to do so. Research by the National Day Nurseries Association reveals a mixed picture of the ways local authorities are already expanding their own daycare services. There is a real question as to whether provision has increased or simply that ideology and the label of ““provider”” have changed. I will not repeat the figures already given by the noble Baronesses. I understand that the current plan is to roll out some 3,500 new family centres across the country in three waves. Will these be new provision, or will they simply replace existing places? I have been long enough in the service to remember that when the original Sure Start programme was put in place, many well run, much loved local family centres lost their funding and closed. And what happened to playgroups when schools started having under-fives provision? A recent Written Answer about the opening and closing of places shows a huge turnover. Apart from the loss of value for money through poor sustainability, high turnover means a lack of consistent care and of development of workers, which cannot be in the best interests of our children. I understand that the National Audit Office will publish a report in the autumn looking at some of the issues. Will the Minister expand on how the Government see local authorities developing their role, not principally as direct providers, but as commissioners and overseers of the programme? Will the Audit Commission report provide a clear evidential base which will be used by the Government to ensure the proper development of an integrated and well managed mixed service? I turn to my concerns about commissioning. This has been a real problem for much of the private, voluntary and independent sectors across the whole of childcare provision. The Bill could provide an opportunity to improve commissioning practice. Of course there are model commissioners, but much of the sector experiences unequal treatment when tendering for contracts. The Minister for children has introduced a commissioning framework in other childcare services, and although the Bill sets a general framework, the National Day Nurseries Association believes that draft guidance is needed urgently, as a good few local authorities have not followed existing recommended practice. Legislation might also allow for penalties on local authorities neglecting partnership opportunities in the interests of increasing provision rather than replacing one set of places with another. What PVI providers require is a level playing field which is transparent and frees up time from interminable contract meetings and complex bureaucratic procedures, which get nowhere and simply put money in the pockets of lawyers. In addition, many local authorities do not allow other providers at the tendering table when they are tendering. This seems extraordinarily unequal. On the topic of a level playing field, why is provision in local schools outside the local framework outlined in Clause 8? If the local authority is seen as the strategic leader and commissioner of childcare rather than the provider, why is it excluded from making a judgment about childcare provided in schools? That simply increases the inequalities between local providers. My particular concern, with which the Minister is all too familiar, is that this again sets schools apart from the main thrust of local planning—education knows best again and is set apart. This will not allay the fears of all of us who believe that the education takeover will lose the focus on the whole child, despite the assurances in the Bill, and on safeguarding, leaving only its learning. The Local Government Association has similar fears. To that is added the concern that setting targets centrally will not improve outcomes or a holistic approach to outcomes. Will the Minister concede that there is a real danger of targets hampering the delivery of child-centred, personalised services? Is it really appropriate to measure whether a four year-old is making ““a positive contribution””? Can we not let children be children for just a few short years? That does not mean that we should not consult them. I have considerable experience of working with very small children and finding out what they think, but you do not do it by measuring what kind of contribution they are making. Time does not permit me to raise the issues of the speed of change, the importance of a well trained, remunerated and valued workforce and the plans that one has for them, or how this all fits into the Every Child Matters agenda. No doubt we will return to these issues during the passage of the Bill. But to quote Naomi Eisenstadt talking about the whole children’s programme:"““Creating the conditions for improvement and change across this huge agenda depends on the stability of its parts, it is not rocket science, it is far more difficult than that””." I would simply add that the Bill is a significant and important part and we have a duty to ensure that it is stable and the best that it can be for the future of our children.