Childcare Bill

moved Amendment No. 34A:"Page 5, line 6, at end insert—" ““( ) Regulations under this section must allow for private, voluntary and independent providers of childcare to provide childcare free of charge for between— (a) two and a half or three hours per day at the choosing of that provider, and (b) thirty-three or thirty-eight weeks per year at the choosing of that provider.”” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 34A would insert a new subsection into Clause 7 to specify that regulations outlining the prescribed description in subsection (1), regarding a local authority’s,"““Duty to secure prescribed early years provision free of charge””," must allow for a degree of flexibility and choice for the private, voluntary and independent sector with regard to the number of hours and total weeks that they may provide as a minimum free entitlement. Paragraph (a) of the new subsection addresses the number of hours a day to be provided and paragraph (b) addresses the number of weeks to be provided. The aim of the amendment is to discuss the interests of real parental choice and the diversity of childcare provision, and to explore the details between free places and subsidised places. We decided to table this amendment because a number of organisations contacted us. Currently, some local authorities are giving flexibility and are not enforcing the period of 38 weeks as long as parents are informed that some childcare providers may offer up to 38 weeks and that funding would be pro rata. However, growing pressure is being placed on providers to extend their provision. Clearly, this current flexibility is temporary. PVIs would like the choice of how many weeks of nursery provision they offer above the statutory 33 weeks. They convincingly argue that this will provide for diversity and will not put unnecessary financial stress, as well as personal stress, on the settings at the choosing of that provider. I shall take a little time to outline the situation that small PVIs face. Most seasonal nurseries rent shared premises and could not extend their hours or weeks in those shared premises. Suitable accommodation is difficult to find and is often extremely costly. Those that are able to extend the provision have to take into account the cost implication of increased salaries and rent, the cost of lawyers for changing working contracts and extra daily expenses, which all add up, often to a not insignificant sum. Montessori has expressed fear that there will be a huge loss of experienced mothers who combine home life with a few hours’ work in term time. These women, who choose jobs for a certain number of weeks to have time with their families, do not want or need those changes. They have genuine fears that there will be declining staff morale and a loss of both jobs and business. They believe that,"““it is not the child who is being considered but the obsession of getting mothers back to work and not considering that children need to experience some home life and also life within the community with friends””." That is an issue that we have already discussed. As Members of the Committee will know, the free entitlement will be extended to 15 hours per week; namely, it will rise from the current two and a half hours a day to three hours a day. At the moment, many nurseries offer the additional half-hour for a top-up fee that reflects the cost dependent on the area. It is possible for many providers to provide only the two and a half hour daily grant-funded sessions free and maintain a high quality of care because they subsidise those free sessions with the top-up fees received from parents for three-hour sessions. Many providers fear that, once the free entitlement is extended, without the flexibility of choice for PVIs, as indicated in the Sure Start guidance document published in February, they will not be able to subsidise grant-funded sessions. Therefore, many sessional settings will no longer be sustainable and will have to close. The result is that there will not be sufficient high-quality places for three and four year-olds, which is the exact opposite of what the Government claim they are trying to achieve. Sessional care is the bulk type of care for many nurseries. That is where the heart of nursery schools began, with a few hours every morning. An increasing number now offer longer than three hours, with older children possibly staying for lunch on some days, but that is still fewer hours than a full-day nursery, which is classified as running from 8 am to 6 pm. The other common alternative is a nursery that offers two separate three-hour sessions in the morning and afternoon. Providers such as these are classed as day care. It is arguably one of the most favourable arrangements for part-time working mothers who may work only two or three times a week. There would be a great loss of such sessional and day-care provision, because it is unsustainable, and a reduction in choice for parents regarding the timing and type of care that they would like for their children. Enabling parents to have real choice by allowing childcare providers the flexibility to continue to subsidise free places will help to support only a diverse range of provider participation in the early years partnership scheme. The fear is that they will not be able to remain in the scheme due to the inability to compete with fully funded places. As I have already said, that can only limit parental choice. The National Day Nursery Association and Montessori have not been the only organisations to highlight that there is a form of price control emerging from several aspects of this Government’s childcare policy, one of which I mentioned earlier. Such restrictions would be another nail in the coffin of the personalised service that the Prime Minister claims this Government wish to deliver. Removal of choice for parents and the undermining of the PVI sector is just another step towards a radical change in the balance of authority between parents, children and the state, and what analysts, such as Jill Kirby, have called the nationalising of our country’s childcare. That aside, the long and the short of it is that local authorities will have powers to ensure that all providers do not charge a top-up for places funded by nursery education grant funding. Indeed, it seems that Clauses 99, 100 and 101, added by the Government at Report stage in the Commons, reinforce such an approach—the details of which we will address in later debates. Within this, there are no guarantees that the level of NEG funding will cover the cost of providing a good-quality early years experience. The fact that parents may choose to pay a top-up, should they be confident that this will provide them with a good quality childcare place, must only enhance the aims of diversity and choice that we wish to promote. I am fully aware that this may not be the most perfectly drafted amendment. As I readily accepted in yesterday’s Report stage of the Work and Families Bill, I have never pretended to be a parliamentary draftsman. If the Minister cannot accept this amendment today, I ask that he will at least give the commitment to look at this issue between now and Report, and come back with an answer that will help to ensure the continued provision of good-quality, longstanding care, and to address the genuine concern of many providers in the private, voluntary and independent sector. I beg to move.