Childcare Bill

The noble Lord will forgive me; I am coming to schools in a moment. There is a separate consultation regime set out for them. We are demonstrating our firm commitment to developing and maintaining diverse and high-quality childcare by investing the £250 million—I keep coming back to that, but it is indeed 250 million real pounds—over the next two years, through the transformation fund, to raise qualification levels in the private, voluntary and independent sector workforce. That is another indication of our commitment to see that this sector is properly supported, not merely in its capacity to make provision, but in the training of its workforce so that it has the quality needed, without having to pass those costs on to the parents. We are confident that the steps we have taken in the Bill, and will continue to take through guidance, will safeguard the valuable role that the private and voluntary sectors play in maintaining a diverse and responsive childcare market. As I say, the evidence on the ground of what is already happening in the Sure Start children’s centres can give the sectors involved confidence that that will be the case. Amendment No. 36, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, would require local authorities to have an appeals procedure in place specifically to handle the concerns of childcare providers. Of course, we are sympathetic to the concerns behind this amendment, because it is essential that local authorities can demonstrate the fairness of the decisions they are taking under this clause, and that they have proper procedures for ensuring that complaints are adequately attended to. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, and I am glad to say we have provisions for this elsewhere. Local authorities have existing complaints procedures. Good practice guidance already encourages authorities to maintain a transparent and fair process for handling complaints. A new system would not add value to this existing one. In fact, a statutory requirement over and above existing requirements would add confusion to providers and the public, and impose unnecessary burdens on local authorities. In view of the concerns raised in the Committee this afternoon, however, I feel under a duty to write another letter, I fear, to Members of the Committee setting out the nature of existing complaints procedures, the obligations on local authorities and the means of redress that the providers would have in more detail. I am anxious that Members of the Committee are satisfied that I am not simply producing warm words, but that the current obligations would meet these concerns. Amendment No. 37, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, seeks to define the criteria that may influence a local authority’s decision about whether it is, in all circumstances, appropriate for the authority to provide childcare. It says that local authorities should take account of the ““suitability and type”” of childcare in deciding whether it would be appropriate to make provision. These are, of course, perfectly legitimate considerations which the local authority should take account of in making those decisions. However, there are many others which might come into play. Although the quality or type of childcare might, in some circumstances, be the most important criteria in determining whether particular private, voluntary or independent provision meets parents’ needs in one context, the location of childcare might be important in other contexts; that might be a particular factor in rural areas. In other contexts, the cost of the childcare might be a factor, as my noble friend Lady Crawley mentioned earlier. In another context, whether the childcare caters for the needs of particular children might be equally important—taking up the concerns rightly expressed in this Committee about disabled children; and by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about children of black and minority ethnic families. For this reason we do not believe that we should define in the Bill what may be appropriate. That must necessarily take account of particular local factors. We should trust local authorities, as elected bodies, to make those decisions, subject to their having adequate complaints procedures and, of courses, subject to their clear duty under the clause to ensure that their interventions are those of a last resort. That is clearly set out when one reads the clause. So, they would have to demonstrate that they were acting reasonably if they were seeking to make additional provision above what the private, voluntary and independent sectors were providing. However, we do not want to prevent local authorities from ever making provision simply because a private, voluntary or independent provider operates nearby, for all the reasons that I have just given as to the nature, type, diversity, cost and so on, of provision, which they might need to take account of adequately to meet the needs of their local communities. Guidance will indicate that local authority decisions to provide childcare should be made in an open and transparent manner, allowing private, voluntary or independent providers to challenge them. Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 concern the role of maintained schools as providers of childcare and early years services. In response to concerns raised about consultation, I should stress that other legislation ensures that schools develop their childcare in co-ordination with other local provision, which is the intention behind Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. When exercising their powers under Section 27(1) of the Education Act 2002 to provide community facilities or services for the pupils at the school or their families, the governing body of a maintained school is already required by Section 28(4) to consult the local authority. If the local authority disagrees with a proposal to develop childcare by a school, it can register this during the consultation period. If a school persists in its plans to which the local authority is not in agreement, the local authority could decide not to provide funding to support the development of that childcare. These provisions already impose greater controls on schools when developing childcare than those in place for competing private and voluntary sector providers. Private providers are not subject to any constraints of this nature. In addition, Clause 35 of the Education and Inspections Bill, soon to be before the Chamber, will amend Section 21 of the Education Act 2002, so as to introduce a new duty for maintained schools to have regard to the children and young people’s plans of each local authority. That clause will require governing bodies of maintained schools in England and Wales to have regard to the children and young people’s plans when exercising their functions in relation to the conduct of the school and in the provision of extended services, including childcare, for the wider community. We want to encourage joint working between schools and the private or voluntary sectors to make the best use of school facilities and sites, particularly in view of the fact that these sites are being so significantly enhanced with public funds. It would of course be ridiculous for these sites not to be properly integrated into the provision of childcare since they will in many communities be by far the best equipped and maintained facilities, which, alas, has not always been the case in respect of school sites. Many schools already work with private and voluntary sector providers to deliver childcare in this way. We anticipate that many more schools will wish to do so, and to collaborate with local children’s centres, many of which we expect to be located on school sites, and drawing on local private and voluntary sector provision. The private and voluntary sectors have critical experience and skills that both schools and, of course, children’s centres can benefit from when developing childcare. But we believe that we need to strike the right balance in this area, and that part of that diversity of local provision which we want to see will include provision either made by or enabled by schools and children’s centres. In that respect, we do not agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the Bill’s objective of ensuring proper diversity of provision will be undermined by giving schools that right. On the contrary, we see schools as part of a proper diversity of local provision, both in the provision they make themselves and in the provision they enable to be made through their own management of sites and of the schools and children’s centres themselves. On Amendment No. 40, Clause 9 is closely based on the existing provision in Section 153 of the Education Act 2002 in relation to nursery education. Clause 8, which is linked to Clause 9, requires local authorities to have regard to guidance made by the Secretary of State when entering into contracts with non-maintained settings to develop childcare provision for children of any age. That guidance will require local authorities to ensure that the contracts provide for the repayment of any financial assistance from those settings where contractual requirements are not met. The amendment would enable local authorities to extend that requirement to the governing body of a maintained school. It is not our intention to place schools in a more advantaged position than other childcare providers. Maintained providers, including schools, are already subject to detailed requirements both in relation to the quality of the services that they provide and their management of delegated budgets. Local authorities already have in place well-established monitoring and accountability arrangements for budgets in schools and other maintained settings. It follows that any financial assistance for childcare in schools will be monitored in this way through those rigorous procedures that are already in place for monitoring expenditure by schools. Any funding supporting childcare provision will only be released to schools following the consultation process that schools are required to undertake, as I set out earlier. Local authorities will release funding only if they are satisfied that the provision is needed and will not duplicate existing high-quality provision. I hope that meets the concerns raised by the noble Baroness. On Amendments Nos. 54 and 55, I share the confidence expressed by the noble Baroness in best value as a performance management framework for local government. But there is no need for a separate statutory code, because all functions carried out by a local authority, including the provision of childcare, are  automatically covered by best value and by the guidance that has already been produced about the principles and application of best value. Under Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999, best value authorities have a statutory duty to secure continuous improvement in all their functions, which will include their childcare functions under this duty, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The amendments would result in  different duties of best value operating in respect of childcare provision to those which apply for other local authority functions.  That is unnecessary and is likely to lead to real confusion in respect of both the principles of best value  and their  application.