Childcare Bill

moved Amendment No. 36:"Page 5, line 24, at end insert—" ““( ) A local authority must establish a complaints procedure for existing or potential childcare providers who have been disadvantaged by local authorities who choose to provide childcare and related services themselves.”” The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 36, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37, to which I have added my name, and Amendments Nos. 39, 54 and 55. Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 go to the heart of issues that I raised at Second Reading. Subsection (3)(b) will enable the local authority, in simple terms, to provide childcare, even if childcare is already available, as long as it considers it appropriate. ““Appropriate”” in this context is open to subjective interpretation. What the local authority may argue is appropriate may be the opposite in the eyes of the voluntary and private providers. The wording of this subsection flashes like a neon warning sign. Surely, that goes against the assurances that the Government have made about working with the private, voluntary and independent sectors to ensure that no time and resources are wasted on duplication of provision—duplication that could be detrimental to those private and voluntary providers. The amendment standing in my name does exactly what it says. It would ensure that the local authority sets up a complaints procedure for existing or potential childcare providers who have been disadvantaged by local authorities who choose under this section to provide childcare and related services themselves, despite there being existing provision. That would force the local authority to lay out its reasons for why it considered such a move to be appropriate in the first place. The amendment tabled in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, comes at this problem from another angle. It neatly clarifies the definition of ““appropriate”” in this context; namely, that provision is appropriate only if it is of a suitable quality and type of childcare that would otherwise not be available. While this amendment would save the local authority from putting in place a complaints procedure, it may need further qualification in terms of a definition of quality to make it more watertight. Sure Start and extended schools do not suit the needs of all parents. It is of even more concern that government provision has led to the closure of private and voluntary childcare services that offer smaller groups and flexible care. In order to be viable, as we have mentioned today, childcare organisations need an occupancy rate of at least 80 per cent. In January 2004 it was 85 per cent. It has since fallen to 75 per cent. That worrying trend should not be indirectly encouraged by the drafting of subsection (3)(b). This is an example where one word, if we are not careful, can create a vast loophole which goes against the grain of what the Government have stated is their intention. I hope the Minister can accept either my amendment or that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, or, if not, say that he will return with one of his own on Report. I turn to Amendment No. 39. This replaces subsection (4) in Clause 8 with the aim to place a duty on maintained schools to seek relationships with existing private and voluntary independent childcare providers before opening nursery facilities or out-of-hours’ care for under-fives. Various groups, including the NDNA, 4Children, the National Childminding Association and the Local Government Association have raised concerns about the exclusion for maintained schools in the current drafting of subsection (4). They argue that they would like to see schools operate on a level playing field with other PVI providers and fully engage with local authority childcare planning arrangements. The Daycare Trust highlights that. It says that,"““it is very important that schools play their full and vital part in local childcare planning arrangements—as well as in the wider Every Child Matters process of which childcare is a key part””." The Early Childhood Forum warns us that a failure for schools to account for other provision in their area,"““could adversely affect the viability of private and voluntary sector providers and childminders as well as restricting choice for parents””." Again, that is the opposite of what the Government hope to achieve in the Bill. My honourable friend in the other place, Nick Gibb, described the Minister’s reply as weak. I sincerely hope, and I am sure, that the Minister’s answer in this Chamber will be anything but. On Report in another place the mood remained one of concern that there remained a strong feeling that the playing field was not level and that we would seek more detail and reassurances. I hope that by replacing subsection (4) with a duty for schools to consult with the PVI sector instead of a straight removal of subsection (4) we will have given the Minister at this end a chance to reconsider the position outlined in another place. This issue clearly sits within the wider debate currently taking place over the relationship between schools and local authorities in the Education White Paper, as well as longer term childcare strategy—I should have said the Education Bill. Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 insert two new clauses after Clause 17. Amendment No. 54 will ensure that local authorities act in a fair and transparent way in delivering best-value obligations regarding childcare provision by having due regard to any relevant statutory code of practice that the Secretary of State must provide by the start of next year. Amendment No. 55 underpins Amendment No. 54 by directly placing a duty on local authorities to act in such a fair and transparent manner. The overarching aim of both these amendments is to probe issues of stability and certainty by increasing contestability. In its excellent report Children first, published in January, the CBI highlights that,"““there are already . . . examples of best practice in children’s services, but this good practice needs to spread. It requires the government to act.””" It goes on:"““The excuse of complexity is not a reason for delay””." The CBI fears that the impetus behind the initiative to establish contestability in the provision of LEA services has slowed. I hope that the Minister can build on the passing comments made in the other place and provide us with the Government’s response to the various CBI recommendations on this issue. The concerns over stability and contestability link into the debates we have had regarding sustainability and sufficiency of childcare. Those concerns have only been heightened by the figures which confirm that, roughly, for every five places that are opening three are closing. I have taken time to outline the various interlinking strands of this broad debate. I very much hope that the Minister can take the time the Committee permits to address each section in detail. I beg to move.