Childcare Bill |
|
Annette Brooke: I am supposed to add to the list of hon. Members supporting amendments Nos. 9 and 199 myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). I did submit it independently rather than signing up to it and I saw it as a probing amendment, because it seemed odd that the governing body of a maintained school should be excluded instead of being alongside all the other players. We give governing bodies a great deal of independence now and I thought that they would be embraced by the local authority within the general commissioning role and the general duty to achieve sufficiency. Column Number: 179 The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) made an interesting intervention, and I can think of an excellent example of a school in my constituency. The private providers in that school have been dependent on financial assistance from the local authority, so I am not sure why subsection (4) is necessary to protect an arrangement of that kind. I would have hoped that it would all be part of the general partnership. Amendment No. 199, to which I have added my name, relates to the same point of principle. As members of the Committee will be aware, I do not have a hang-up about private being best and public being not so good. I am enthusiastic about partnership working and I see it working well, but I cannot see why the governing body of a maintained school cannot submit plans alongside any other plans in the area, with the local authority making a judgment. I do not see why there should be almost an assumption for a preferment. I agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster, North, who made the point that many parents will choose, particularly for three and four-year-olds, to have nursery provision on a school site, because it creates a good transition to the school and is convenient when they are dropping other children off at the same school. We are offering parents choice, so I do not see why we should be constrained in any way. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on the amendments, because I cannot see the point of singling out one set of providers: all the providers could be part of the competition, choice and local authority commissioning as appropriate. Maria Eagle: I hope that I can explain the distinctions that are already in the Bill, with which the amendments seek to deal. Overall, the amendments would place maintained schools within the restrictions of local authority powers in relation to the provision of funding and charging for child care. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made clear, amendment No. 9 would remove the exemption of governing bodies of maintained schools from the restrictions in subsection (3) on local authority provision. In practice, that would mean that maintained schools could not provide child care unless the local authority determined that no other provider was willing to provide it, or that it would be appropriate for the maintained school to provide child care itself. Amendment No. 97 would require that the circumstances set out in regulations in which schools are able to charge for early years provision would have to be “transparent and equitable”, but the effect of the amendment is unclear. That is quite something for an amendment that is trying to promote transparency. Obviously, some good drafting was involved, and, as a result, I am not completely convinced that I know what it would mean in practice. Amendment No. 199 would give local authorities in England the power to claw back funding allocated to maintained schools to provide child care. Amendment
We do not want wars between providers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North said earlier. All members of the Committee—certainly the Government—value the work of private and voluntary independent providers. They already assist in the work of many schools in maintained settings, and they have an important role to play in the development of child care that is accessible through schools. There is no doubt about that. We want to encourage child care that is provided by private or voluntary independent sector providers, perhaps using a school site and making the best use of school facilities that otherwise would be closed. Alternatively, providers might work with schools to put in place supervised transfer arrangements to nearby venues. Many schools already do such work with the sector to deliver child care in that way. We anticipate that many more schools will wish to do so. We all know that the private and voluntary sector has good experience and skills that schools can benefit from when they develop child care. The hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole commented on amendment No. 9. The general concern appears to be that we are creating an uneven playing field that in some way disadvantages one provider against another. I want to give some reassurances in that regard. There are already checks in the system to try to ensure that there is no bias against private, voluntary and independent sector providers as opposed to maintained settings and provision in schools. For example, when exercising its powers under section 27(1) of the Education Act 2002 to provide community facilities or services for pupils or their families at the school, the governing body of a maintained school is required by section 28(4) to consult the local authority. If the local authority disagrees with the school’s proposal to develop child care, it can register that during the consultation period, as can anybody else. Therefore, if a local private or voluntary sector provider has such concerns, it too can register objections. If the school were to persist in its plans against the objections and without some kind of resolution, the local authority could decide not to provide funding. It is not forced to provide funding for provision if it does not believe that it will fill a need, or if it believes that there is some duplication. That is one system of checks and balances in the system. We have also said recently that we would introduce legislation to require schools to have regard to their local children and young people’s plan, which covers
I come now to amendment No. 97. Clause 17 amends the Education Act 1996 to enable schools to charge parents for the delivery of any early years provision over and above that already paid for by public funding and which takes place during school hours. The amendment requires any such circumstances to be transparent and equitable, which has left me in some difficulty in working out how we could possibly do that. The hon. Gentleman wants the local authority to behave in a way that is open and accessible for those who have an interest in this. That is commendable and we can all agree with the spirit of that, but we certainly do not want parents or anyone else in a local area to be confused by charging powers or treated unfairly as a result of clause 17. We know that enabling parents to purchase additional early years provision for their children over and above their free entitlement helps families, many of whom are working families. We also recognise that charging in schools is a very sensitive matter and parents would not want to think that it is being expanded beyond bounds that are clearly and easily understood. We know that it needs to be handled carefully, and we can give an assurance that it will be. Pretty robust guidance will be issued as part of our guidance to schools on sustaining extended services to make it clear when such services can be charged for and when they cannot. Therefore, even if the amendment were clear in its operation and practical impact and were not technically defective, it would not be right to include it on the face of‘ the Bill. However, we can all agree across the Committee that parents and people in the local area need to be clear about when they can be charged and upon what basis. They also need to be certain that that does not extend into something undesirable. If that is the concern that the amendment sought to address, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be thoroughly and robustly addressed in the guidance. I hope that that is enough to persuade him not to press amendment No. 97. I turn now to amendments Nos. 199 and 267 to clauses 9 and 24. Those clauses are closely based on the existing provision in section 153 of the Education Act 2002 in relation to nursery education. The amendments seek to give the local authority powers to claw back funding allocated to maintained schools to provide child care in the same way as they have the power to do in respect of other providers. Some concern was expressed that this might be unfair on those other providers and that there was not a level playing field. Column Number: 182 The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made a point about a private provider in a maintained school and whether clawback would still operate under the Bill without the amendment if there were some lack of compliance with requirements. The exemption as it exists in the legislation applies only where a school governing body directly provides major provision. The situation that the hon. Gentleman suggested of a PVI provider not meeting requirements even though the setting was within a maintained school would still enable clawback to take place. 12.30 pmA point was made about implications for children under three with statements of special educational needs. The Bill should not disrupt existing arrangements in respect of children under three where such children are placed in maintained provision. There are small numbers of such children in school placements, and they will continue to receive the provision set out in their statement without there being any implications for that from the changes that we are suggesting. Mr. Gibb: I listened carefully to the wording of that assurance and the Minister said that the Bill should not disrupt “existing” arrangements. Can she assure the Committee that future arrangements will apply in the same way and that the Bill will not affect future arrangements for future children? Maria Eagle: That is certainly what we envisage. We do not anticipate that those arrangements will be changed in any way by the legislation. The hon. Gentleman expressed concerns about why there is clawback for one sector and not for another. I hope that I can give him some reasons as to why there is, on the face of it, a different approach. Clauses 9 and 24, with which his amendments Nos. 199 and 267 deal, require local authorities, when entering into contracts with non-maintained settings to develop child care provision for children of any age, to have regard to guidance made by the Secretary of State. The guidance can include a requirement to ensure that contracts provide for repayment of financial assistance from those settings if contractual requirements are not met. The key to all this is that we are talking about contractual arrangements. The amendments would enable local authorities to require repayment of financial assistance from schools and other maintained providers for the development of child care if the conditions set were not met. However, there is already a significant array of stringent requirements in relation both to quality of service and to the management of delegated budgets, through which money to make the provision is made available to maintained settings. Those measures give local authorities significant power to ensure that they are getting value for money. They are not contractual arrangements, but they are extremely stringent and effective. Local authorities already have in place detailed and well established monitoring and accountability arrangements for budgets in schools and other maintained settings, which ensure that local authorities can get value for
The purpose of a clawback power in respect of contractual arrangements is to try to ensure that there is robust accountability and value-for-money levers. That will enable the local authority to satisfy its auditors and the Audit Commission, which consider whether public money that has been handed out is being used for the purposes for which it is meant. Funding that supports child care provision will be released to schools by the local authority only following the consultation process that schools are required to undertake. Local authorities will release funding only if they are satisfied that the provision is needed and will not duplicate existing high-quality provision. I have explained why there is a particular arrangement for PVI providers and why the way in which we deal with maintained settings is envisaged to be different. That is not because the arrangement is less stringent. In fact, a local authority chief executive might tell us that it is much more stringent. A school might tell us that it is much more stringent to have to cope with the local authority descending on it to see how it is managing its delegated budgets. The arrangement is different, but no less stringent. That is why we do not agree with the amendments, which the hon. Gentleman thought were irresistible at the beginning. I do not necessarily expect him to agree that his amendments are resistible, but I hope that he will at least understand the argument that I have used to resist them and that, in view of the explanation that I have given him, he will consider withdrawing amendment No. 9 and not pressing the other amendments. Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive response. I take her point on amendment No. 97. My drafting skills were not at their best while I was drafting it. I am also reassured by her assurance that there will be robust guidance on the services for which schools can charge. It will be helpful when we see that guidance in due course. I am also happy with the Minister’s response to the point raised by the National Union of Teachers about existing and future arrangements for children with a statement of special educational needs who are in a special maintained school, and that there is no possibility of charges being imposed on those children by the provision. I am partially convinced by the Minister’s comments on amendments Nos. 199 and 267—local authorities already have the power to claw back or deal with maintained-sector schools that do not provide the quality of child care that they have agreed to provide—given that they are all within the state sector. Where I am not convinced is in response to amendment No. 9. The Minister’s responses were weak. That is not her fault; she is able to put the best
The Minister basically said that checks were in place. She gave the example that a governing body is required to consult the local authority before the body sets up pre-school child care provision within its primary school. That is not a safeguard. Of course it is required to consult, but then what? She said that if the local provider wants to, it can register an objection. If the school persists in going ahead with the provision, despite the objection, the local authority can refuse funding. The question is: will it? By removing subsection (4), the amendment would make it a duty of the local authority to take into account the availability of local existing child care provision when deciding whether a school can establish its own child care provision. The existing so-called checks are weak. The Minister’s arguments in resisting the amendment are weak, too. The Minister also says that schools must have regard to the children and young person’s local plan. Again, it is a weak argument for resisting the amendment— particularly given its irresistibility. She must come up with much stronger arguments than the one that she provided. The Minister then made the extraordinary comment that private providers are not subject to the various constraints of having to consult local authorities and receive local objections. Of course they are not. People operating child care provision in the private or voluntary sectors have the market place for their accountability. Of course they do not have to go through those various processes. Their accountability is to people who want to pay to send their children to attend child care provision. In view of the weakness of the Minister’s argument, I feel inclined to push amendment No. 9 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9 [Division No. 6] AYES Brooke, AnnetteGibb, Mr. Nick Greening, Justine Kirkbride, Miss Julie Loughton, Tim
NOES Blackman-Woods,Dr. Roberta Cawsey, Mr. Ian Coffey, Ann Eagle, Maria Goodman, Helen Hesford, Stephen Hughes, Beverley Miliband, Edward Russell, Christine Question accordingly negatived.
Question agreed to. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 Arrangements between local authority and childcare providers Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Gibb: I thought that this might be an opportunity to get a little more detail from the Minister about financial assistance. The clause concerns arrangements between a local authority and the provider of child care which involve financial assistance from the former to the latter. Clarity on the Government’s intentions would be helpful. Will that financial assistance help with the capital cost of providing child care places or will it subsidise the running costs of child care places, or will it be a combination of both? In paragraph 5.1 on page 34 of “Choice for parents, the best start for children: a ten year strategy”, it says:
Paragraph 5.2 says:
What does that mean in practice? The child care strategy goes on to say:
My understanding of that is that the principal means by which the Government intend to make child care affordable is through the child care element of the working tax credit. Moreover, they intend for all three and four-year-olds to receive a full 38 weeks of free early education and child care from 2006. The Minister alluded to that. That means, according to page 51 of the 10-year strategy,
The Government have said that the principle behind financial assistance—indeed, behind their entire child care strategy—is what they call “progressive universalism”. That is probably the first time that that phrase has been uttered in this Committee, and that surprises me. What does it mean, Mr. Benton? It means help for all and additional support targeted on
The increased number of child care places is as a result of the working tax credit, which is a demand-side subsidy funded by central Government. Furthermore, supply-side subsidies, through the neighbourhood nurseries initiative, have provided for about 45,000 child care places. Central Government funds those also, as they do free places for three and four-year-olds in schools and nurseries. Other initiatives include the new opportunities fund subsidies for out-of-school child care and the Sure Start programme. The Government’s position is summarised in paragraph 7.4 on page 52 of the 10-year strategy. It says:
Paragraph 7.5 continues:
12.45 pmI set that out, Mr. Benton, in an attempt to understand what financial assistance local authorities are being given the duty to provide to child care providers. Is it a supply-side subsidy, in which case is it a capital subsidy to help establish more child care places, or is it a revenue subsidy to help to keep the costs down for parents? If it is the latter, will it be universal or will it be targeted at those who need it most? If the assistance is meant to be a demand-side subsidy, how will that work in practice? Finally, can the Minister set out how the new duty is fully funded? What elements of the support to local authorities are earmarked and covered by the new duties? Maria Eagle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading out chunks of the 10-year strategy, and not even opposing any of them. That is good because it means that we are all together on the Committee in our aspiration to improve child care provision across England for our youngest children, which the Government greatly welcome. Clause 9 relates to the funding arrangements that local authorities make with child care providers. Authorities may make payments to providers in two ways: first, for those who supply the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds under clause 7; secondly, under the powers to grant financial assistance under clause 8. We have debated those, but the hon. Gentleman asks now for detail about the power in clause 9 that allows local authorities to place conditions on funding. He asked a number of questions about whether it is demand-side, supply-side, revenue or capital. It is many of those things; it could be revenue or capital. The hon. Gentleman
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that we have plans to extend the provision of children’s centres. Perhaps he will think of those as Sure Start centres, but they will in future be children’s centres. We expect to have 2,500 by 2008 and 3,500 by 2010. The extra funding that will go to local authorities to establish and run children’s centres will be capital and revenue, through various spending grant streams. On the demand-side and supply-side subsidy, he referred to the child care element of the working tax credit. He was right to quote the Government: that is how we envisage making it affordable for those at the lower end of the income scale. We might call it progressive universalism. I do not know who invented that term, but it seems to be a good way of ensuring that those who did not have access to child care in the past have such access, hopefully with the laudable and—across the Committee—welcome consequence of giving every child a great start in life. That, after all, is what child care is mainly about. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, there will be financial support, in the form of both revenue and capital, for the establishment and running of the children’s centres. Through tax credits, we are already seeing £2 million a day going into the tax credit subsidy for those at the lowest end of the income scale, to ensure access for those who would not otherwise have it. It is a combination of all the matters that he raised. The power to make all that available is contained in clause 9. I hope that members of the Committee will agree that it is important that it stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 14 December 2005 |