Childcare Bill

My Lords, we now begin the process of winding up this debate, which has been an interesting and good one. Its spirit was captured by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, when she said that we welcome the aspirations of this Bill; to make accessible, affordable and flexible childcare available for every child and parent who wants it. This is one of two related Bills currently before your Lordships’ House. The Work and Families Bill is concerned with making it easier for parents to take time off from work and spend it with their families. Meanwhile, this Bill is primarily concerned with providing that accessible, affordable and flexible childcare in terms of both its educative quality and, in a substantial underlying theme, enabling parents to go back to work. It is part of the child poverty campaign because those who can go back to work tend to have better incomes. It also provides respite care—not least, for the disabled. We shall pick up on that later. The Government’s proposals, under their Choice for Parents, The Best Start for Children: A ten year strategy, are ambitious indeed. The Minister referred to some of them in opening this debate, but it is worth pondering on this; for the 2.9 million children under five in this country, we currently have 600 Sure Start centres. The aim is that by 2008, or in two years, we shall have 2,500 and that by 2010 we shall have 3,500. In addition, the Government are committed to providing free pre-school education for three to four year-olds—or the early years foundation stage, if you prefer, for three to five year-olds—on a part-time basis. That is currently for 12 and a half hours for the 38 weeks of school terms; but next year, in 2007, that is to increase to 15 hours a week, with the long-term aim of being able to provide 20 hours a week for three to five year-olds whose parents want to participate in it. It is thus an extremely ambitious strategy with which many of us concur, while having some reservations about it. Those reservations have come very much to the fore during this debate. Above all, perhaps, there is that reservation which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, picked up: that we are trying to run before we can walk, and perhaps concentrating too much on quantity and not enough on quality. We started from a very low base among European countries in 1997. Then, we had possibly the lowest provision of childcare and are now trying to reach the Scandinavian levels—a splendid ambition, yet there are, as I say, reservations. First and foremost, in what has emerged from this debate regards resources. It is really rather extraordinary to note in the Bill the provisions on what local authorities are required to provide, and yet to read in its Explanatory Notes that,"““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””." We know that the Sure Start budget is due to grow to £1.7 billion by 2008, when we are to have 2,500 such centres. That is a considerable amount of money, although perhaps not just for Sure Start. The Explanatory Notes suggest that by 2007–08 there will be funding of something like £1.7 billion for Sure Start and similar educational programmes. We should however bear in mind those 2.9 million children; £1.7 billion is only slightly over £500 per child, so it has to go a long way. One key issue here is clearly that of staffing and staff training. My noble friend Lady Walmsley noted the transformation fund and the funding allocated to it for training staff. Currently, many have a level 1 nursery nurse qualification; they need to move upwards to something well above that. We still have a long way to go to reach the Danish requirement of being a graduate to be involved in childcare. Here, we are looking at rather less than £500 per person for training over the next three years. So, it is an ambitious programme and I do not know that we will be able to fulfil it with those resources. Perhaps the Minister can give us some reassurances on that issue. Second among the issues that have come up in our discussion is the question: who benefits? Clause 6 puts the duty firmly on the local authority,"““to secure sufficient childcare for working parents””." That picks up on the Government’s commitment and priority of ensuring that childcare is available to parents so that if they wish to work they can. Yet there has been, throughout our debate, a feeling that it needs to be available to those parents who are not working for one reason or another. We have talked at considerable length about those parents with children who have disabilities—84 per cent of whom are at home because the burden of childcare is so huge. There are parents who choose to stay at home to look after their children. We all have sympathy with that, knowing that the bonding between mother and child is extremely important, particularly in early years. In addition, we should recognise that the poorest parents are often those who are not in work but on benefit. Given that the Government have also put on local authorities the duty to ““reduce inequalities””—it is bang in front of us, in Clause 1—it seems slightly strange that we have to provide a sufficiency of childcare facilities for working parents yet, if we are to reduce the inequalities, it is often the parents who are not in work who need that help. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford raised that point. What we really need to see, in assessing childcare needs, is that local authorities must take account not just of parents who are working or studying but also those who are not in work. A third issue that pervaded our discussions was that of quality as well as quantity. Within the Bill, quality assurance comes in Part 3 via regulation, registration and inspection. The clear message is: quality is important. Yet there is considerable variation in quality. That, again, was brought up by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, who talked of variations between the quality of different local authorities’ provision and how some adhered to current regulations on recommended practice, yet some did not adhere at all. The noble Baroness said how necessary it was to have a commissioning framework, so that we can lay down the standards required of local authorities. Here again the problem comes back to the quality of the workforce. There seems to be a gap in linkage between the workforce strategy and the 10-year strategy. I do not understand why the Government have withdrawn from the Investors in Children programme, for example. It is vital that continuous professional workforce development is written into the programme, not one-off training. There is an enormous backlog that needs to be thought about and addressed. The fourth issue that has cropped up, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, is the voice of the child. The Bill puts emphasis on the five outcomes within the context of the Children Act. I remember that during our debates on that Act we talked at considerable length about those outcomes being the result of a lengthy survey of what children wanted. Yet, in developing this strategy, the voice of the child seems strangely absent. In Clause 3, for example, a duty is placed on the local authority to secure an integrated strategy and to involve in its development,"““parents and prospective parents . . . early years providers . . . and . . . other persons engaged in activities which may improve the well-being of children in their area””." But there is no mention of the children themselves. Again, in Clause 11, local authorities are to undertake,"““assessments of the sufficiency of the provision of childcare””." Clause 11(6) states that local authorities must,"““consult such persons . . . as may be prescribed””." But local authorities must take account of the views and experiences of young children. One of the features of the Children Act, in relation to that survey, was that it showed that even young children of 3, 4 and 5 years old had views that were worth taking into account. They may express them in different ways, but they had voices which should be heard. That is even more important in this provision for extended schooling for 5 to 8 year-olds. Please let the voice of the child be recognised in the Bill. The fifth issue that many noble Lords have mentioned is in the final part of the Bill regarding learning and development. Most people welcome the integration of provision for the 0 to 5 year-olds and the foundation stage at school. It makes a lot of sense to look at the development of that learning process. But how much should they be taught? There is an awful phrase in Clause 41(2)(b), which refers to,"““the matters, skills and processes which are required to be taught to young children””." They learn through play, and we shall be bringing forward amendments to that, which will have much support in the House. My noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, mentioned the need for inspectors in this sector to be aware of what is required. Both of the stories that we heard about inspectors in the foundation stages did not reflect well on those inspectors. It is vital that such people recognise the need to ask: what are the ambitions at those stages and what do we want to do? Finally, there is the question of regulations. This Bill, like so many that we consider these days, leaves much to regulations that shall be laid down by the Government—not least in relation to the final clauses, Clauses 99 to 101, which were added to the Bill only on Report in the other place. They require local authorities to provide detailed information about the range of provision in their areas. But because the regulations have not been published, it is unclear precisely what data will be required, who will collect it, who will store it and who will use it. Can the Minister say whether we are likely to see any of those regulations before we complete our consideration of the Bill? How far will the regulations regarding information relate to last night’s debate on the information sharing index? Every child will have a unique number and be listed under that by its name, age, sex, parents, address and so on. There will be much overlap in the information that will have to be collected. In conclusion, there is much in the Bill and in the Government’s ambitions that we on these Benches support. The issues that have been raised in this debate are to some extent niggles, but reflect bigger issues of principle and we shall debate them. On the whole, we share the Government’s view on the need for comprehensive and integrated provision and, in some sense, we congratulate them on the degree to which they have begun to roll out such provision. But there are caveats. Quality is important; listening to children and young people is important. Whereas the Bill sums up the term ““nanny state””, it is also important that its provisions are not too ““top down”” and are a little more ““bottom up””.