Childcare Bill

I warmly commend the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for wanting to bring much more informality into our proceedings. I hope she does not restrict the use of first names to her husband and that we could use them more widely in the House. But if I follow that route, I might get into serious trouble, so I shall become formal very quickly. We strongly welcome the contributions of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and hope that they will not in any way be diminished. If taking on more than one can cope with were a disqualification from rising in this Committee, I do not think anybody would be allowed to rise—I would be banned from setting foot in the House. These amendments seek in different ways to add to the Bill groups to which local authorities must have regard when securing sufficient childcare. Before I deal with the specific amendments, which have very different purposes, I shall explain the intentions behind the childcare duty as set out in the clause. Our aim is to give parents real choice about work or training. Without suitable childcare that meets their needs, they may not have that choice. We have focused this duty on the needs of parents either in, or seeking to take up, employment, education or training, because our ultimate aim is to lift all children out of poverty and improve their outcomes. Concerns have been expressed that the duty focuses only on the childcare requirements of parents and does not explicitly refer to the needs of children. However, this duty in Clause 6 is only one part of a package of provisions aimed at improving the life chances of children and reducing inequalities, and it is important that we do not view the clause in isolation. On the type of childcare to be promoted, because of our particular focus on improving outcomes for groups that currently have difficulty accessing childcare, we have included a specific requirement on local authorities to secure childcare that is eligible for the childcare element of the working tax credit and that is suitable for disabled children. Families on lower incomes and those with disabled children face the most acute difficulties in accessing childcare that meets their needs; that is why it is important to address those difficulties upfront and give them such priority in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 15, 18, 19, 21, and 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would alter the focus of the duty so that local authorities, as well as securing childcare to allow parents to take up or remain in employment, education or training, would be required to secure sufficient childcare to improve the well-being of young children, regardless of the working status of their parents. I have already mentioned the importance of considering the childcare duty alongside other provisions. I shall highlight two. First, there is the duty on local authorities in Clause 1, which already requires them to improve the well-being and to reduce inequalities in the outcomes of all young children in their area. Secondly, there is the existing duty to secure sufficient free nursery provision as a universal entitlement for all three and four year-olds, regardless of the working status of their parents. The current entitlement to 12.5 hours a week for 38 weeks a year will increase to 15 hours by 2010, with a longer-term aspiration of 20 hours a week for 38 weeks each year. We are also developing a pilot programme to provide free early years provision to 12,000 disadvantaged two year-olds, which will have a central focus on inclusion for those who may not otherwise access free entitlement at the age of three. These amendments would also replace the requirements of ““parents”” with the requirements of ““families””. We of course agree that childcare must meet the needs of children as well as those of their parents. That is why the assessment duty in Clause 11 is crucial in enabling local authorities to plan and facilitate the childcare market. It is important that, if a child has a particular need, it is taken into account when local authorities work with their partners to secure childcare. Our statutory guidance supporting that duty will help local authorities to identify those needs. Let me also stress in this context that, where the Bill refers to ““parents””, we are talking about biological parents and anyone with parental responsibility or care of the child as set out in subsection (6). In addition to the child’s father and mother, this can include other family members, such as a grandparent or foster carer. So, whoever is caring for the child will be able to expect the same service from their local authority as a natural parent. There is nothing to be gained—indeed, we think it might be rather confusing—from replacing the ““parents”” with ““families””. The terms ““parents”” and ““parental responsibility”” are legally defined and capture anyone who is caring for a child. Amendment No. 29 concerns the needs of non-working parents. We have taken specific measures to ensure that the Bill helps all families. We have specifically included a requirement, as part of the childcare duty for local authorities, to secure childcare to enable parents to take up work, not simply to ensure sufficient childcare for those in work. For many workless households, particularly those headed by lone parents, the availability of suitable childcare can make a key difference to the decision whether or not to return to work. I have already spoken about the duty in Clause 1 to promote outcomes for all children and to narrow the gap between those with the poorest outcomes and the rest. Regardless of the working status of parents, local authorities will have to work with their partners in the health field and Jobcentre Plus to ensure that services are joined up and reach out to the most vulnerable and deprived families. In addition, the duty in Clause 11 to assess the sufficiency of childcare will require local authorities to look at the complete picture. In order to ““mind the gap””, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, put it, in respect of obstacles to employment, authorities will be required to consult parents as part of the assessment. The policy paper that I circulated to the Committee on this issue confirms our intention that statutory guidance will make clear to local authorities the importance of including unemployed parents. Clause 8 provides local authorities with all the powers necessary to support childcare provision in any way necessary to fill any gaps—whether they relate to workless families or others. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of disabled children, who are a priority group in the Bill. But, in addition, existing legislation—Section 17 of the Children Act 1989—places a general duty on local authorities to secure appropriate services for children in need, regardless of the working status of their parents. Under the 1989 Act, local authorities are required to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need by providing a range and level of services appropriate to their needs. Such services may include childcare, counselling or access to other activities. Amendment No. 29 is not necessary, but it is also inappropriate, because including, in effect, all parents within the scope of Clause 6(2) would reduce the special focus that local authorities should have on childcare for parents who are working and training, and those with disabled children. For the same reason, we do not support Amendment No. 17, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel,whichwould require local authorities to secure sufficient childcare to meet the needs of all parents, regardless of whether they are working or training to work. That would have the same impact as the earlier amendments. Amendments Nos. 20 and 61, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, would amend the childcare duties on English and Welsh local authorities to make it clear that ““work”” includes unpaid voluntary activities. I share the noble Baroness’s belief in the importance of voluntary activities. The duties to secure sufficient childcare as they currently stand will include the needs of parents for childcare to enable them to undertake many forms of voluntary activity. The Bill uses the term ““work””, which will include those engaged in voluntary work. ““Work”” is not defined in the legislation and therefore takes on its ordinary meaning, therefore it does not specifically have to be paid work. The term ““work”” does, however, imply a continuing commitment rather than a one-off activity. Someone who worked voluntarily in the Salvation Army shop two days a week could be said to be working and fall within the duty, whereas someone who occasionally mowed their neighbour’s lawn would not. That is not to say that mowing a neighbour’s lawn is not a thoroughly worthwhile and appropriate activity to engage in, particularly if a parent is at home and looking for another occupation. A person doing one-off activities can, of course, use childcare—no one is disputing the importance of that—but a local authority would not be required to secure that childcare to enable them to do that, which is the point of this amendment. ““Work”” also suggests something over and above people’s general life commitments or familial duties. Someone looking after their own children and cleaning their own house would be unlikely to be considered as undertaking work in that sense. Again, I refer to the wording of the Bill and am not suggesting that it is not extremely hard work to undertake those activities in their own context. I hope that the noble Baroness considers that a reasonable position. On the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, the guidance issued to English and Welsh local authorities will indicate how to incorporate into the assessment parents’ need for childcare to enable them to undertake unpaid work and voluntary activity. My department will work with the Home Office to ensure the guidance conforms to best practice in volunteering in particular. The guidance will also indicate, however, that when planning interventions to secure sufficiency, the main focus should be on the needs of parents for childcare to enable them to undertake or move into paid work, which will do the most to lift their children out of poverty. Amendment No. 23, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and to which other noble Lords spoke, would explicitly include participation in a pre-school playgroup—for example, as manager or carer—under ““education or training””, for the purposes of the childcare duty. We are entirely with the noble Earl, my noble friend Lady Massey and the other Members of the Committee who spoke in wanting to encourage the involvement of parents in pre-school playgroups because of the potential benefits for both parents and young children, and in encouraging such playgroups to train and recruit parents into the childcare workforce. Playgroups are not defined legally and might include parent and toddler groups, which would not be required to register, or more formal childcare that would. We wholeheartedly agree with encouraging parental participation in these areas, but those concerns are met in the Bill. Any parent formally involved in organising a playgroup or looking after other people’s children, whether paid or unpaid, would already be counted as undertaking work under Clause 6. If they were just looking after their own child, however, this would not count as work in the Bill’s meaning. By the same token, however, parents who are only looking after their own children at a playgroup would not need childcare for those children. Under the scope of the outcomes duty, local authorities might consider support for playgroups an effective way of raising outcomes or reducing inequalities, particularly if the playgroup benefits children from disadvantaged groups. Our children’s centre guidance recognises the value of encouraging parental involvement in activities as a stepping stone to building skills and confidence to prepare for employment, whether through playgroups or other activities, such as leading parents’ forums or representing parents’ views on governing bodies. Local authorities will, of course, be required by the Bill to provide information, advice and training to registered childcare providers, which will include most playgroups. Local authorities can also provide financial or other support for parent and toddler playgroups under their general powers in Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000. In summary, I stress that this duty is just one of a wide range of reforms and investments that we are making in early years and childcare. We are confident that, together with the duty to improve outcomes, reform of the regulation and inspection system, the free entitlement to all three and four year-olds, and the information duty, the clause will improve the lives of all families, regardless of their employment status, income, ethnic background and disability.