Childcare Bill |
|
Clause 4 Duty of local authority and relevant partners to work together The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Maria Eagle): I beg to move amendment No. 130, in clause 4, page 3, line 36, leave out ‘are’ and insert ‘may be’. It is a pleasure, Mr. Amess, to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, keeping us in good order. You are very sharp this morning, as we have already noticed. I did not have a chance to welcome you on Tuesday, although I thought about sending you a note. Clause 4 enables local authorities and their partners to share their resources and to pool budgets, allowing them to deliver the fully integrated front-line services that we all agree have huge benefits for young children. That is in keeping with the existing operation of section 10 of the Children Act 2004, under which the arrangements for children’s trusts are made. Column Number: 88 The amendment will allow funds pooled by a local authority and its partners to be spent in ways other than just on the functions of the authority and their relevant partners when they are jointly exercised. The current wording allows funds to be used only if they are spent on the functions of the authority and its partners which are jointly exercised. That is more prescriptive than we intended, so I bring the happy news that the amendment will correct a drafting error and allow the local authority and its partners more leeway to pool resources as fully as they decide is necessary. The amendment is permissive. It changes the power given to local authorities from a prescriptive one to a permissive one. I hope that the Committee agrees that that will maximise flexibility so that local authorities and their partners can work together to achieve the ends that we have repeatedly said we want. I also hope that without too much ado I can persuade the Committee to agree to the amendment. Tim Loughton: That was a long explanation for the addition of two words and the subtraction of one. The amendment seems amenable and we support it. Perhaps the Government will reciprocate on one of our amendments in future. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 Power to amend sections 2 and 4 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Tim Loughton: The clause is short and I want to probe its meaning. I hate clauses such as this that give enormous powers to the Secretary of State to change his or her mind at a whim, but at least the clause is subject to an affirmative motion of the House, if I understand correctly the reference in clause 98, which refers specifically to clause 5. It takes a little working out. Why would the Secretary of State want to change the definition of early childhood services? It is not one little part of what we are talking about; it is virtually all of it. Will the Minister give us some examples of why and in what circumstances she envisages the Secretary of State wanting to redefine the whole subject? I hate such phrases as
Again, that seems to give the Secretary of State enormous powers. We have had long debates on the details, but we seem to be changing the assumptions on which those debates were based. Will the Minister give some examples of why the clause is necessary and what is likely to be achieved by it that is not out of keeping with the aims and objectives that we have already debated? Column Number: 89 Justine Greening: I support what my hon. Friend said about this catch-all clause. In many respects, it could undermine the Bill that we are debating. Things could change dramatically. I ask for clarification. The clause states that the Secretary of State may
Does it mean only services, or could it be extended to the provision of goods and assets? We need clarification of what “services” means in this context. Beverley Hughes: I shall preface my comments by saying that the first five clauses are important to the “Every Child Matters” programme. In practice, their combined effect is to give Sure Start services statutory underpinning, with statutory guidance explaining how the duties are to be achieved through the children’s centre way of working. It is important to appreciate that. Clause 5 allows the Secretary of State to alter by order the definition of “early childhood services” in clause 2 and, if necessary, to make consequential changes to the relevant partners who have to work together under clause 4. We recognise the potential importance of such changes. Clause 98 therefore requires that any order made under clause 5 is made by affirmative resolution. That will allow Parliament a full opportunity to debate such changes. Clause 2 defines “early childhood services” for the purposes of clause 3 and sets out how those services must be delivered. Those services must be integrated, they must reach out to excluded families and they must involve parents and providers. The clause focuses on those key services relating to young children, parents and prospective parents that are essential to delivering the Sure Start children’s centre model. The model is for parents, from the moment they know that they are expecting a baby; it will give them a coherent pattern of child health, integrated child care and education, family support services, some free at the point of delivery and some subsidised according to income. We are defining those services because research has shown that they are vital to improving outcomes, which is at the heart of part 1. We obviously do not have any plans to use the power to make changes, but we recognise that we may need to amend, remove or add to the services to which the clauses apply. Having the power to do so will give us the flexibility to recognise and respond to the changing needs of families over time. 9.45 amThe hon. Gentleman asked for some examples. Changes may be needed for a variety of reasons: to reflect new policies, alterations in how services are configured, or legal changes. For example, emerging research or evidence of best practice might require us to refine or take a different approach to child care and early childhood services. We want to create a framework in which it is possible to respond, with appropriate safeguards through an affirmative procedure, to any emerging issues. Column Number: 90 Justine Greening: One of my concerns is about the suggestion that there may be an opportunity for the Government to redefine early childhood services. Local authorities will be reticent about putting in the investment to provide them, in case suddenly at some point in the future—the Minister said that there are no plans at the moment—the goalposts are moved. My concern is that the measure will hinder rather than help the provision and improvement of early childhood services, because there will be an uncertainty in the minds of local authorities, particularly given the concerns expressed in the original debate about the lack of additional funding to provide the services. It is a real concern, as local authorities will hold back to find out whether changes come forward in future months. Beverley Hughes: I am not sure about the hon. Lady’s comments about additional funding. The massive new funding from this Government during the past seven years has marked a significant change from the situation before 1997. We have made a commitment to continue it, and that is why we are able to bring forward those proposals. As I said, we do not envisage any changes, but it is right to allow for the framework that we are defining not to be massively changed, but to be refined in light of any emerging evidence. Given the Government’s history and commitment to this area, it is not our intention massively to change the framework. Another example is that there might be changes in the organisation of Departments. Although we have specified in the Bill two other big public service organisations along with local authorities, we might need to refine that later to reflect other changes in departmental structures. We may need to incorporate other pieces of legislation into the framework in the Bill. With emerging evidence and research about what is best practice for children, and departmental and legislative changes, it would be sensible for the Bill to include a facility that meant that those changes could be made flexibly but with the appropriate scrutiny of Parliament. We accept the starting point of the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Putney (Justine Greening). We would not want to make changes unless they were absolutely necessary. Changes could be significant, and they should at least be debated and decided by Parliament. That is why we have proposed the affirmative procedure. Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): Will the Minister remind the Committee about the Standing Orders for such a parliamentary debate, and how long each House of Parliament would have to debate the significant changes about which she talks? Beverley Hughes: It is some time since I took part in such a debate, but from recollection I think that it takes an hour and a half. That is the convention, as I remember it. I am not sure about whether there is any flexibility; I am not a Committee Clerk. Column Number: 91 Mr. Gibb: I did not raise the point to test the Minister’s knowledge of Standing Orders, because I am sure that she is significantly more knowledgeable than I am about those issues, but to quiz her about whether she thinks the procedure allows a significant amount of time to debate the issue. We spent considerably more time than that debating clauses 1 to 4 on Tuesday. In all honesty, does she feel that that is sufficient time to debate significant changes to the purpose of the legislation? Beverley Hughes: Those are really matters for the House, rather than for me. I am constrained by the rules of the House and the conventions in these matters. The decision that the hon. Gentleman has to make is not whether the time for a debate under the affirmative procedure is long enough, nor is it a matter of not being prepared to agree with the proposals if he feels that the time is not long enough. The decision is whether—given the pioneering legislation that hon. Members have been kind enough to acknowledge that we are making—it is sensible to have a provision with the proper safeguards to enable us to reflect further emerging knowledge in an area in which our understanding of what helps young children to develop has accelerated very much over recent years. Should we have a provision that enables us to continue to reflect any emerging evidence and changes in our legislation? I propose that we should. Justine Greening: The Minister’s comments concern me. The original definition of early childhood services in clause 2 is very broad. It refers to what aspects of services will be brought together under a local authority and to the broad provision of services. The Minister’s comments suggest that potential changes in the future could be far more prescriptive and could be top-down changes from national Government. It concerns me that, although I am happy with things in their current form, in the future there could be a far more top-down, prescriptive approach to nursery and early childhood services provision in local areas, when what may be wanted is a far more flexible, grass-roots way of meeting needs. I thought that that was what the Bill was about. Beverley Hughes: I appreciate that the hon. Lady has recently arrived in the House, but when we are making legislation, we must ensure that we do so in ways that reflect the law that is already in place. That is what the list in clause 2 does. Similarly, if there were any amendments, we would have to ensure that the changes were consistent with current or even—I made this point—emerging legislation that has not yet been passed, but which may be passed and which may be germane to the Bill. It seems only sensible to have a provision that, with the proper scrutiny, enables us to take future changes into account to ensure that they are incorporated in our aspirations for young children. Question put and agreed to. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 92 Clause 6 Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents The Chairman: A large number of amendments have been tabled, so there will not be an opportunity for a stand part debate. Hon. Members should bear that in mind and make their points as we discuss the amendments. Ann Coffey: I am not sure whether this is a point of order, but most things in this place qualify as one. The document giving notice of the amendments is helpful because it gives the amendments in numerical order so that one can find them, but I cannot find the document that follows on from the one that I had on Tuesday, which ends with amendment No. 234. Am I totally confused? Tim Loughton: It is on the Table. Ann Coffey: Thank you very much. The Chairman: That was a point of order. If, when we adjourn at 10.25 am, the hon. Lady would kindly quietly have a word with the Clerk, he will be able to help her. Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 279, in page 4, line 7, after ‘must’, insert ‘using all appropriate resources.’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 224, in page 4, line 7, leave out
Amendment No. 89, in page 4, line 8, after ‘of’, insert
Amendment No. 90, in page 4, line 8, after ‘is’, insert ‘, and remains,’. Amendment No. 76, in page 4, line 13, at end insert
Amendment No. 232, in page 4, line 13, at end insert
Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 15, after ‘authority’, insert—
Amendment No. 230, in page 4, line 16, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
Amendment No. 79, in page 4, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (i). Amendment No. 195, in page 4, line 20, at end insert—
Column Number: 93
Amendment No. 83, in page 4, line 22, at end insert
Amendment No. 84, in page 4, line 22, at end insert
Amendment No. 99, in page 4, line 22, at end insert—
Amendment No. 100, in page 4, line 22, at end insert—
Amendment No. 125, in page 4, line 22, at end insert—
Amendment No. 126, in page 4, line 22, at end insert—
Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 22, at end insert—
Amendment No. 127, in page 4, line 24, at end insert
Amendment No. 239, in page 4, line 33, leave out ‘16’ and insert ‘18’. Amendment No. 80, in page 4, leave out lines 35 and 36. New clause 9—Appeals mechanism—
Amendment No. 249, in clause 22, page 11, line 6, after ‘of’, insert
Amendment No. 250, in page 11, line 6, after ‘is’, insert ‘and remains’. Amendment No. 253, in page 11, line 11, at end insert
Amendment No. 254, in page 11, line 13, at end insert—
Amendment No. 255, in page 11, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (i). Amendment No. 261, in page 11, line 22, at end insert—
Amendment No. 262, in page 11, line 22, at end insert—
Column Number: 94 Amendment No. 257, in page 11, line 22, at end insert—
Amendment No. 263, in page 11, leave out lines 35 and 36. Amendment No. 200, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert—
Tim Loughton: Halfway through that diatribe I shouted “house”, but it went unnoticed. I had hoped, Mr. Amess, that in your announcement before the list of amendments you would say that the grouping was a complete nightmare and that you had decided to reorder the amendments. With the greatest respect to the Chair and the Clerk, it is not easy to deal with a group of amendments that includes no fewer than 30 amendments and a new clause, and which covers different clauses and different subjects. There is a great deal of commonality between some amendments—clearly, they should be grouped together—and some provisions that pertain to Wales mirror those that pertain to England, but many others are on a different subject. It would have been easier for the Committee if they had been separated out. Annette Brooke: I concur with the hon. Gentleman. It will be difficult to structure the discussion, as five or even six major issues are contained in the group. I hope that we will be able to work together to facilitate the discussion. The Chairman: Order. I have heard what both hon. Members have said and will reflect on their points as we progress further in the Bill. However, I have no doubt at all that they will be able to cope more than adequately with the challenges that they face. Tim Loughton: You spoil us, Mr. Ambassador, as they say. I will try to keep some semblance of order and go through the amendments as they appear on the list. I would like hon. Friends to elaborate on certain amendments, so I will deal in detail with some but leave the others for them. I shall just touch on some of the Liberal Democrat amendments, as I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will go into them in more detail. Amendment No. 279 is not of particular import but just happens to come first in the group. There are others that I want concentrate on more. This probing amendment, which would insert the phrase “using all appropriate resources”, goes to the heart of the dilemma that we and the Local Government Association raised in respect of proper and sufficient funding of the provisions. The Secretary of State made it clear on Second Reading that, in her view, there were no unfunded commitments in the Bill. We do not agree. Given the complexity of new duties and structures that local authorities will be responsible for, and all the other competing obligations, duties and structures that they must undertake as a result of the Children and Adoption Bill, the 2004 Act and the
Justine Greening: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will be expensive to implement successfully in some areas? My constituency includes Southfields, which has been termed locally “nappy valley” because of the high proportion of families with young children. The Bill will have a huge effect on the local authority of Wandsworth. Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Her constituency and that part of south-west London have transient populations. The demographics of particular areas must be considered. She is in an area that is growing younger. I represent Worthing, which used to be an area that was growing older. I am happy to say that it is now growing much younger as new developments and new families come in. It is difficult to ascertain, on the basis of long-term projections, whether local authorities will have sufficient resources. There is a question mark over the placing of a clear duty on a local authority that it “must secure”. The provision needs a rider; we have proposed “using all appropriate resources”. 10 amStephen Hesford: I know that the hon. Gentleman said that this is a probing amendment, but if it were taken at face value, would it not be a get-out clause for local authorities that do not do their duty? They could simply make up some story about not having enough money. I do not accept his opening gambit that the provisions are unfunded. Tim Loughton: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but there are all sorts of other checks and balances concerning how the local authority accounts for itself that would make that difficult. We do not want to give local authorities an excuse for not doing something that they should be doing and that the Bill intends them to do. However, by the same measure, representatives of local authorities and the Local Government Association would say that if they do not have the resources, various things will have to give. The LGA, for example, wants to highlight that
It is not an either/or option. If the resources are not there, it will not happen and, despite the best endeavours to institute every dotted “i” and crossed “t” of this Bill, it still may not happen because cost pressures have increased. That is particularly true in south-east England because demographic changes have meant that the constituency those measures are aimed at has increased in size all of a sudden. Despite best endeavours, if the resources are not there, child care is either not going to happen or quality, affordability or various other factors are going to have to give. I want a rider so that local authorities
Amendment No. 224 deals with the phrase “reasonably practicable”. That is a big concern: what on earth is “reasonably practicable”? We need more finely honed definitions because that phrase could be more of an example of the sort of get-out clause mentioned by the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) than my proposed safeguard. However, I shall not steal the thunder of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole by going into detail about her amendment. Amendment No. 89 is key because it goes to the heart of the issues of quality we were debating earlier. The amendment would add the proviso that child care should be good quality, accessible and affordable. We have said this before, but it is no good simply creating a lot of additional child care places for the sake of it if they are not very good places or they are not sustainable. In doing so, we might actually drive out some better quality ones. I cannot see how the Government can object to such helpful additions. The Minister mentioned that quality is important; we want “quality” included in the Bill rather more than it is. Accessibility is key. It is no good setting up a structure if parents from certain backgrounds or areas cannot access it. It is one thing to be able to say that child care places exist, but if people cannot access them for a whole host of reasons, that is not much good to those who are missing out. Affordability is also key. There is nothing to say that local authorities have not achieved their responsibilities if they produce child care places that are beyond the pocket of an awful lot of people. Again, that would be entirely self-defeating, given what the Bill is trying to achieve. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 9 December 2005 |