Column Number: 103
Standing Committee D
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairman:
†Mr. Joe Benton
Mr. David Amess
†Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab)
†Brooke, Annette (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
†Cawsey, Mr. Ian (Brigg and Goole) (Lab)
†Coffey, Ann (Stockport) (Lab)
†Eagle, Maria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills)
†Gibb, Mr. Nick (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
†Goodman, Helen (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
†Greening, Justine (Putney) (Con)
†Hesford, Stephen (Wirral, West) (Lab)
†Hughes, Beverley (Minister for Children and Families)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie (Bromsgrove) (Con)
†Loughton, Tim (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
†Miliband, Edward (Doncaster, North) (Lab)
†Riordan, Mrs. Linda (Halifax) (Lab)
†Russell, Christine (City of Chester) (Lab)
†Selous, Andrew (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con)
†Williams, Mr. Roger (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Mark Egan, Sîan Jones, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 105
Thursday 8 December 2005
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]
Clause 6
Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents
Amendment moved [this day]: No. 279, in clause 6, page 4, line 7, after ‘must’, insert ‘using all appropriate resources.’.—[Tim Loughton.]
1.30 pm
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No.d ¤224, in clause 6, page 4, line 7, leave out
‘, so far as is reasonably practicable,’.
Amendment No. 89, in clause 6, page 4, line 8, after ‘of’, insert
‘good quality, accessible and affordable’.
Amendment No. 90, in clause 6, page 4, line 8, after ‘is’, insert ‘, and remains,’.
Amendment No. 76, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, at end insert
(c) to assist with children with disabilities or other special needs.’.
Amendment No. 232, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, at end insert
(c) to sustain caring responsibilities.’.
Amendment No. 3, in clause 6, page 4, line 15, after ‘authority’, insert
‘(aa) must actively monitor the demands from families to ensure that provision is responsive to their needs,’.
Amendment No. 230, in clause 6, page 4, line 16, leave out paragraph (a) and insert
‘(a) must have regard to the needs of parents in their area—
(i) who are eligible for the childcare element of the working tax credit,
(ii) who are eligible for the maximum entitlement to the child tax credit,
(iii) for the provision of childcare which is suitable for disabled children, and
(iv) from black and minority ethnic communities’.
Amendment No. 79, in clause 6, page 4, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
Amendment No. 195, in clause 6, page 4, line 20, at end insert
‘(iii) the provision of a diverse range of childcare, and
(iv) the provision of childcare which is accessible to black and other minority ethnic groups.’.
Amendment No. 83, in clause 6, page 4, line 22, at end insert
‘and to the affordability of such childcare’.
Amendment No. 84, in clause 6, page 4, line 22, at end insert
‘and to the sustainability of such childcare’.
Column Number: 106
Amendment No. 99, in clause 6, page 4, line 22, at end insert
‘(e) must have regard to existing childcare operated by private and voluntary independent providers.’.
Amendment No. 100, in clause 6, page 4, line 22, at end insert
‘(f) must establish an appeals process for providers who wish to challenge the basis on which the provision of childcare is deemed to be sufficient in this section.’.
Amendment No. 125, in clause 6, page 4, line 22, at end insert
‘(g) must have regard to the quality of any childcare provided.’.
Amendment No. 126, in clause 6, page 4, line 22, at end insert
‘(h) must have regard to childcare provision for workless households, pursuant to its duties under section 1(1).’.
Amendment No. 4, in clause 6, page 4, line 22, at end insert
‘(2A) In carrying out research to comply with subsection (2) above, local authorities shall ensure compliance with guidance provided by the Market Research Council and the British Polling Council.’.
Amendment No. 127, in clause 6, page 4, line 24, at end insert
‘, which will set out the factors that local authorities may consider in assessing—
(i) whether local childcare provision is sufficient, and
(ii) what constitutes reasonably practicable steps.’.
Amendment No. 239, in clause 6, page 4, line 33, leave out ‘16’ and insert ‘18’.
Amendment No. 80, in clause 6, page 4, leave out lines 35 and 36.
New clause 9—Appeals mechanism—
‘An English local authority must establish an appeals mechanism to enable parents unable to access childcare under the terms set out in section 6 to require the local authority to reassess the sufficiency of the provision of sufficiency.’.
Amendment No. 249, in clause 22, page 11, line 6, after ‘of’, insert
‘good quality, accessible and affordable’.
Amendment No. 250, in clause 22, page 11, line 6, after ‘is’, insert ‘and remains’.
Amendment No. 253, in clause 22, page 11, line 11, at end insert
(c) to assist with children with disabilities or other special needs.’.
Amendment No. 254, in clause 22, page 11, line 13, at end insert
‘(aa) must actively monitor the demands from families to ensure that provision is responsible to their needs.’.
Amendment No. 255, in clause 22, page 11, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
Amendment No. 261, in clause 22, page 11, line 22, at end insert
‘(c) must have regard to existing childcare operated by private and voluntary independent providers.’.
Amendment No. 262, in clause 22, page 11, line 22, at end insert
‘(c) must establish an appeals process for providers who wish to challenge the basis on which the provision of childcare is deemed to be sufficient in this section.’.
Amendment No. 257, in clause 22, page 11, line 22, at end insert
Column Number: 107
‘(2A) In carrying out research to comply with subsection (2) above, local authorities shall ensure that relevant guidance provided by the Market Research Council and the British Polling Council is complied with.’.
Amendment No. 263, in clause 22, page 11, leave out lines 35 and 36.
Amendment No. 200, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert
‘(aa) an order under section 6,’.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): The Government Whip told me that I was about to sit down when the Committee adjourned this morning, but on checking my notes I seem not to have made it quite halfway through. We had reached amendment No. 99, which would require local authorities to
“have regard to existing childcare operated by private and voluntary independent providers.”
I mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) would elaborate on that, so I do not have to deal with all 30 amendments in one go.
Amendment No. 100 is on a slightly different subject. We want to add a new provision to the clause so that the Bill establishes
“an appeals process for providers who wish to challenge the basis on which the provision of childcare is deemed to be sufficient in this section.”
We have had and will have some debate on the definition of sufficiency and the role of the local authority in determining whether it has overseen the sufficient provision of child care in its area.
Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether clause 11, which places a duty on local authorities continually to assess provision, meets his need for ongoing review and continuing questioning of whether places are available?
Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making my job even harder by zipping on to another clause. She raises a point that I mentioned earlier and that is inherent in some of the other amendments that we propose, which is that the situation is dynamic. We should assess and plan for child care not only on the basis of the position today, but on the basis of what the position will be over the next few years. Clearly, a constant review of that will be necessary.
The amendment addresses how an outside body can challenge the judgment, and it is a judgment, particularly in the absence of quite strict criteria for what satisfies sufficiency. There are concerns among the various independent nursery groups that local authorities are not paying sufficient heed to existing nursery provision and are going ahead and setting up their own nursery provision, as they are allowed to as a last resort. That will be detrimental to existing provision. Much of the provision in this country is provided by private and voluntary independent nurseries. It seems right that there should be some mechanism to empower those existing, recognised, established and registered quality providers to challenge the decision made by a local authority.
Column Number: 108
Much legislation that we scrutinise has a system of checks and balances whereby the body being regulated or the industry being overseen is entitled, through a recognised mechanism, to challenge a judgment, particularly when it has a material effect on their business. I do not have the details of how such a system should be set up in this respect, but a form of appeals process should be inherent in the Bill, for use by an existing or an independent provider that is investing in an area, if it thinks that it is not being given the opportunity to work properly in partnership with the local authority.
The terminology of much of the Bill is rightly about partnership between the local authority and a whole host of other providers, but if a private and voluntary independent provider feels that it is getting a raw deal, what can it do? It can make a fuss, it can criticise the local authority, but what can it achieve? I cannot see any other provision for such a situation, except that the provider can make representations to the local authority, which is judge and jury in determining the sufficiency within the criteria that are set down by the Secretary of State. It is also judge and jury for reviewing those criteria and how they are panning out in practice over whatever period of years the reviews will take place. I cannot see a formal mechanism whereby a private and voluntary independent provider, or any other sort of provider, independent of the local authority, can challenge the basis on which the authority seeks to define some of the rather indeterminate phrases in the Bill.
Amendment No. 100 therefore simply calls for some form of appeals mechanism to be put in place. Obviously we would want to see the details of that mechanism, and one would hope that the Secretary of State, if she were minded to take the amendment on board, would publish proposals.
It should also be made clear what sanctions should apply when the local authority is found not to be acting in accordance with the statutory requirements and, in this case, not acting in true partnership with the other potential providers that are involved in producing child care places. That is the basis of the amendment, and the principle applies to much of the other legislation that we have scrutinised.
I will defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on amendment No. 4, which again tries to tease out further detail of how a local authority can carry out fair and balanced research to come to the conclusion that it is overseeing the provision of sufficient levels of child care in its area. There are some strict criteria on which he will elaborate if he catches your eye, Mr. Benton.
Amendment No. 239 again refers to the subject of disabled children. The principles behind the amendment, which my hon. Friend and I have been happy to take on board, come from Mencap. It says in support of the amendment:
“Disabled children are likely to be less independent than non-disabled children, and to require childcare for longer, as the Bill recognises by securing childcare for non-disabled children up to the age of 14 and for disabled children up to the age of 16. However, while it is reasonable to suppose that a 14 year old non-disabled child will be sufficiently independent not to require
Column Number: 109
childcare, there is no good reason to suppose that a disabled child’s need for childcare will end at the age of 16. This amendment would ensure that childcare is secured for all disabled children, whatever their age.
Securing childcare for disabled children only up to 16 years leaves a crucial gap for 17 and 18 year olds, who may not be able to access adult services but are too old to access childcare. Half of all families with a disabled child are living in poverty or on the margin of poverty. Childcare costs twice as much for parents of disabled children compared with parents of non-disabled children.
Parents of children up to the age of 18 have the right to request flexible working hours in order to meet their care needs. The recognition elsewhere that disabled children have particular care needs up to the age of 18 should be reflected in the Childcare Bill.”
I have a great deal of sympathy with that intention. Hon. Members mentioned the extra costs and attention required in looking after disabled children. The amendment recognises that disability does not become different at the age of 16, and that while such children are still classified as children up to the age of 18, the special measures should pertain.
Amendment No. 80 goes back to not limiting the availability of child care to those receiving the child care element of the child tax credit. I shall not reopen that at this stage as we shall come back to it when we debate the relevant clauses.
We then come to the amendments that I can group together because they all refer to the Welsh section of the Bill in clause 22. They mirror those that we tabled on English authorities and would apply in relation to the powers that are available in the Bill, rather than those that are held by the Welsh Assembly. Without going into further detail, that covers amendments Nos.d ¤249, 250, 253 to 255, 261 to 263 and 267.
Amendment No. 200, which will be dealt with by my hon. Friend, relates to statutory instruments.
New clause 9 relates to my earlier point about appeals. It states that an English local authority must establish an appeals mechanism to enable parents who are unable to access childcare under the terms set out in clause 6 to require the local authority to reassess the sufficiency of provision. The new clause contains a typing error, as it repeats the word “sufficiency”. It is intended to be probing.
Just as other providers should have a mechanism for challenging the judgments of the local authority, surely so should the customers, namely the parents. If a local authority declares that it has done enough to provide sufficient places, but a parent is still having difficulty accessing child care despite the criteria set out for sufficiency, there should be a mechanism by which parents can complain that they are not receiving the service that the authority is obliged, under the statutory duty in the Bill, to provide. I am not advocating a highly prescriptive system for setting up such an appeals system, but, just as there is an appeals mechanism on access to schools, there should be a system whereby parents can question the judgment of a local authority on the sufficient and appropriate provision of child care places.
We must secure proper checks and balances for alternative providers who feel that their livelihood is being challenged unfairly and for those parents who
Column Number: 110
feel that the legislation has not achieved its aims. We do not seek a highly prescriptive system with people making challenges at every juncture, but there must be a fall-back position if parents are still having problems accessing the child care that the Bill is intended to provide.
That is a rather long tour d’horizon of the 30 amendments and one new clause that I have pleasure in recommending to the Committee.
1.45 pm
Annette Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I shall endeavour to organise my remarks so that I do not continue for too long. I wish to identify the key issues and then to refer specifically to the Liberal Democrat amendments.
The key points are the meaning of “as far as is reasonably practicable”, the meaning of “sufficiency”, the related matter of quality, and whether all children in disadvantaged groups are included. There is also the issue, which were picked up on this morning, of those parents who might not be in work, but might be in great need of child care. I appreciate the title of the clause, but, nevertheless, those are important points that need to be made.
I am fairly optimistic that, if we apply the law of averages, the Minister might accept one of the 31 proposed changes. I shall start by going through our amendments in the hope that I might be the lucky person this afternoon.
Amendment No. 224 would leave out
“so far as is reasonably practicable”.
It is a probing amendment. I know that that was an important insertion as far as the Local Government Association was concerned. What concerns me is the lack of definition and how measuring and monitoring would take place.
I also have a concern related to the local area that I represent. When some areas are so far ahead of the game in providing child care, an authority that is not so far down the road might provide a great deal less. If we are not careful, we will end up with something approaching a postcode lottery. At the very least, we are looking for guidance on how local authorities are meant to interpret the phrase. I accept that we will not achieve the ideal provision of quality child care overnight. I understand that it is important to have some caveats, but the phrase is unclear and different local authorities will respond to it in different ways.
Amendment No. 232 is compatible with Conservative amendment No. 76. It strays into the subject of parents who might not be at work. They may be at home because their caring responsibilities for the family, or perhaps for one child in that family, are so great that it would be impossible for them to be in full-time work. However, those parents, of all parents, need good quality child care to help them. That is an important principle.
We need to give support to families before the real crisis occurs. We spend a lot of money sorting out problems when there has been a breakdown in a family. For all sorts of conditions that parents or their children might have, that preventive aspect—
Column Number: 111
providing good quality child care—is all important. I am enthusiastic about straying outside the title of the clause to ensure that we pick up that special group. We have had representations from the National Autistic Society, which were similar to those from Mencap, about the pressures that such families face.
Amendment No. 230 picks up on an intervention made this morning. I do not think that any Opposition Member is suggesting that the Bill should apply to the whole of child care provision, but amendment No. 230 tries to go beyond parents receiving the child care element of the working tax credit and to pick up on the 1.2 million families who are not in work. It also touched on the issues raised by the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) about black and minority ethnic communities, which, equally, will need specialist child care. I am really pleased that we are mentioning disabled children, but we must accept that other disadvantaged groups need to be covered as well.
Amendment No. 195 duplicates that point, but says it differently. We keep trying to phrase the amendments in an acceptable way, and this amendment deals with diversity of provision. It is important that the local authority has a duty to provide a choice for parents. In the same way that there is a choice agenda to drive up quality, there are many different types of nursery provision with different philosophies, and parents have a right to choose along those lines.
Among amendments Nos. 125, 126 and 127, I regard amendment No. 125 as the most important. When we talk about sufficiency, we must ensure that we make it clear that we mean not only quantity but quality. Given the amount of time we are taking without making rapid progress, I hope to talk at a later stage about quality assurance, because along with quality in this clause, we need in guidance references about quality assurance schemes and how we address the issue of quality.
Amendment No. 126 rephrases the same point and relates to households without work. Amendment No. 127 is important because it gives objectivity to “sufficiency” and “reasonably practicable”, setting out the factors that local authorities could consider when making an assessment.
That concludes the Liberal Democrat amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) will deal with the amendments to clause 22, as they apply to Wales.
Some of the Conservative amendments are similar. I have a slight problem with including the duty that relates to good quality, accessibility and affordability. Although I agree with that duty, local government’s response would be, “How can we do that?” in whatever timeframe was given to achieve it, and it would need a time frame. However, we must have ideals.
On how the private and voluntary sectors and the local authorities work together, it is important to have a level playing field. There were several references to that in the Conservatives’ amendments. I live in an area where the expansion that was propelled by the Labour Government from 1997 onwards could not have happened without close work between the private
Column Number: 112
and voluntary sectors. Nevertheless, as chairman of education, I pushed for a nursery on a maintained-school site when there was a local playgroup nearby. It was a difficult decision, but in those circumstances, it happened to be right.
I am with the Conservatives on the need for a level playing field, but my mind is not set in any particular direction. I want to be sure that the local authority does not go down an extreme route, becoming more of a provider than the Bill intends. However, there will be circumstances in which a local authority has to step in. We need safety checks to ensure that good partnership works consistently throughout the country.
I said that I would be brief and will let my hon. Friend mop up any further points.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab): I should probably raise this point in a clause stand part debate, but as we are not having that debate, I am sure that it relates to one of the amendments, which I do not support, incidentally.
I want to draw something to the Minister’s attention which comes under the heading of “sufficiency of child care”. In Stockport, a third of jobs are provided by the retail sector and hon. Members will be aware that that involves shift work, often over a 24-hour period. Most child care is based on a model in which people work during the course of the day, and most of it takes place between 8.30 in the morning and 6.30 in the evening. It is very difficult for those who want to work different hours to find suitable child care, particularly for young children, who they do not want to shift out of someone else’s bed at 10 o’clock to take them home.
At the moment, if parents with young children want to work, there are jobs available. Tesco is providing about 600 part-time jobs near a large area of housing that has high levels of unemployment and high levels of single parents on benefit. It is fortunate that the jobs are based there. Those parents tend to use informal care—relatives, friends and so on. I entirely take the point of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about ensuring that quality child care is available. The big problem is that we cannot impose quality on informal care. The second huge disadvantage for such parents is that they have to pay cash for such care because it cannot be registered. They cannot claim back the child care component of the working tax credit.
We have a marvellous opportunity to deal with that problem. As I understand it, a child minder, in order to registered, is registered in their own home. She is not registered to mind children outside her own home, so if a parent wants to use a registered child minder, she has to take the child to that person’s home. I understand that there is an exemption to that rule for nannies and babysitters, who do not have to register, and their services can be paid for through the child care tax credit because of the exemption.
Will my right hon. Friend consider how we can enable an exception for registered child minders, or for people who have taken a similar local course to that of child minders, to allow them to register to mind a child in the family home? That would be of huge benefit because it would ensure equality of care. It would be
Column Number: 113
a particularly useful and flexible form of child care in relation to the problems of finding such care for children with disabilities. Often it is more helpful to provide support to a disabled child in their family home than to take the child elsewhere.
I realise that I should more properly raise that point when we discuss clause 33, and perhaps when we get there I will raise it again, but I thought I would raise it now in case we did not get that far.
2 pm
|
