Childcare Bill

moved Amendment No. 35:"Page 5, line 8, at end insert—" ““( ) The Secretary of State must provide an assessment of the sufficiency of childcare provision by local authorities at an interval no greater than every two years.”” The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 35, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 42. Both amendments are about assessments. Amendment No. 35 implies that the Secretary of State will have been provided with the information by the local authorities. It will make local authorities accountable to the Secretary of State on their adherence to the duty to ensure sufficient provision of childcare and should ensure greater consistency of provision between local authorities. It will give the Secretary of State the information needed to inform future policy and revise guidance or anything else that needs to be changed. There is not a lot more to say about this amendment. Amendment No. 42 ensures that the new duty on local authorities to carry out regular childcare assessments consists of an assessment of parents’ demand for childcare, both met and unmet demand, as well as the supply of local childcare available. There is an implication that the affordability of childcare is assessed in relation to that demand. Ensuring that local childcare assessments consider both supply and demand is crucial to supporting the local authority to effectively plan and manage the local childcare market and to shape local provision to meet parents’ needs. Under Clause 12(5), the local authority will be under a very welcome new duty to reach out proactively to families who do not traditionally use childcare services, but this is about creating demand to meet parents’ needs as well as meeting existing demand. It is a crucial aspect of the market-management function that local authorities will increasingly adopt. Therefore, making specific reference to both supply and demand in Clause 11 will assist councils in fulfilling their strategic leadership role. The policy note on Clause 11 indicates the Government’s desire for local authorities to control childcare fees in their area. That is in paragraph 12 of the note. Control could occur indirectly. If a local authority deems that local providers are charging fees at a rate that is unaffordable to local parents, they could perceive the famous ““gap”” in provision, despite the presence of non-maintained providers. The council might then fill that gap with more places in the maintained sector or by directing parents to childcare it considers more affordable. It may not be of such good quality, but it may be affordable. Under those circumstances, it would be extremely helpful to be able to clarify precisely how the assessment process would function. We have been approached by the National Day Nurseries Association which is particularly interested in having answers to the following questions that relate to how the law would operate. Since it is an important provider in the sector, it is reasonable to ask these questions. First, what will be the criteria by which local authorities and central government will judge affordability? Secondly, while flexibility between regions is important, is there a risk that we could end up with perhaps 150 different interpretations of affordable, one for each local authority in England? Thirdly, are the Government taking steps to co-ordinate a definition of affordability in local authorities across the country—to avoid what I have just suggested—containing bureaucracy for providers and producing clarity for parents? Fourthly, does the Government’s understanding of affordability fully appreciate that good quality childcare providers will need to invest further in training and facilities to maintain and improve their service which will have an effect on the affordability of their places? Finally, will local authorities’ understanding of affordable fully reflect the cost to day nurseries of providing childcare in a particular area, for example, land rent, staffing costs and business rates? I am particularly referring to London and the south-east where the costs of providing childcare are notably higher than they are elsewhere in the country. I would be most grateful if, when responding on this group of amendments, the Minister could give me some answers to that group of questions or could at least write to me. Also in this group there are some amendments under the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about qualifications and experience, specifying what the regulations must cover with regard to the qualifications. I am very much attracted to those amendments because it is important that we are aspirational in terms of the level of qualification that we specify in childcare settings. So although I am not au fait with whether the actual wording of the amendments would be acceptable to the parliamentary draftsmen, I support the spirit of what the noble Earl is trying to highlight in his amendments. I beg to move.