| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his assiduity in securing this amendment and for listening so well to all the concerns. I very much welcome the amendment. It will please a great number of people, including the very many children's organisations that have worked over many years in support of the voice of the child and the views of young people. The Government have established a good reputation for encouraging listening to young people. For example, the views of young people were paramount in Every Child Matters, which has ended up being a very good document that will be useful to us all for years. Listening to the voice of the child and the young person strengthens legislation, policy and all our work with children. Again, I thank the Minister for taking that into account.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, from these Benches I, too, thank the Minister for his introduction to the amendment and for his commitment to work towards this following our excellent debates at all stages of the Bill. I am happy that the Government have worked with the National Children's Bureau towards the inclusion of the voice of the child in the Bill. We all agree that there is a fine balance between consulting children and burdening them with decisions beyond their years, but in this amendment we believe that the Government have struck the right one.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I certainly join everyone else in congratulating the Government on having responded so effectively. However, can the Minister give me a little reassurance on a question that I asked last week: will the same powers regarding children be available in the Education and Inspections Bill?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, in a Delphic passage of my Second Reading speech on the Education and Inspections Bill, I said that issues would be raised by this amendment for that Bill. I meant that, and we are considering the implications. However, the issue is not entirely straightforward. For example, almost all secondary schools and an increasing proportion of primary schools have schools councils, a development that we thoroughly welcome and to which we have given strong encouragement, including in the Education Act 2002. Geoff Whitty, director of the Institute of Education at the University of London, is conducting a review to look at how we can develop further our guidance in respect of schools councils, so there are other issues which need to be considered that
26 Jun 2006 : Column 1013
are distinct from those related to provision for the under-fives. However, I recognise that we need to consider the implications of one Bill for the other, and we will do so.
On that basis, I seem to have managed to unite the House at least at the beginning of our proceedings. I hope that that continues throughout our consideration of the later amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents]:
Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 2:
"( ) must have regard to the quality of childcare provision and its suitability for the communities living in their area, and"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during the deliberations on this Bill in this House and in another place, we have all agreed that quality is a very important issue. EPPE research has, along with all the other reputable researchers, found incontrovertible evidence that quality childcare is in the child's best interests; poor-quality childcare is not and can even do harm. Several noble Lords tabled a range of amendments seeking to include the word "quality" among the duties being laid on local authorities by this Bill. Clause 6 provides a duty on local authorities to secure sufficient childcare for working parents, and Amendment No. 2 would add to that, so that in doing so local authorities would have to have regard to the quality of childcare provision and its suitability for the communities in their area.
On 12 June, in responding to a similar amendment of mine, and to those of other noble Lords, the Minister confirmed in many of his comments that the Government are seeking to improve quality by ensuring that,
He referred to the early years foundation stage, which,
"sets out clearly the quality standards that we expect providers to meet and against which Ofsted will inspect. For provision for children over the age of five, the Ofsted childcare register will also require providers to meet specific quality standards, including staff qualification levels and adult-to-child ratio requirements".—[Official Report, 12/6/06; col. 39.]
I salute all this, but it seems to cut out the local authority. Clause 11 puts a duty on local authorities to assess childcare provision and, while it does not mention the word "quality", the Minister made it clear at col. 40 that the guidance will require them to assess the quality as well as the quantity of provision. One might think that this assessment should actually come first in the Bill, since you must do an assessment before you are able to see where there are gaps, and then carry out your duty to secure sufficient childcare if there are any gaps in provision.
The Minister relies heavily on Ofsted inspections as a guardian of quality. However, I believe that around 90 per cent of early years settings achieve
26 Jun 2006 : Column 1014
"satisfactory" or better in their inspection. This must tell us that there is a range of quality above the level of satisfactory. If local authorities have a duty to secure in their areas provision that has "quality" in its description, that must be a driver for them to seek ever better provision. There is a flaw in the logic that requires Ofsted to inspect quality without putting a duty on local authorities to secure it.
3.30 pm
The Minister said that my earlier amendment,
"would not only duplicate the existing role of Ofsted . . . but return us to the position before Ofsted took on the role of childcare inspection in 2001, when each local authority made its own judgments on quality and standards were not consistent around the country".—[Official Report, 12/6/06; col. 39.]
But I am not seeking to remove the duties of Ofsted in this respect, so there is no way that I am seeking to return to the situation before it took over its role. Nor am I seeking to duplicate its role. The Minister cannot have it both ways. I cannot both duplicate it and take it away in one fell swoop.
Instead, I am seeking to ensure that the local authority makes some judgment about the quality of settings in its area during the process of making its assessment of sufficiency. In doing so, it will take into account the views of Ofsted on each of its local settings. It will look at the Ofsted reports. A few of them may not be satisfactory; some of them will be just satisfactory; and some of them will be excellent. Should not the local authority, armed with that information, be seeking to make all of them excellent? Should it not also be consulting parents and children as well as staff in making its own assessment? You cannot ask a local authority to assess quality during its sufficiency survey and then not put a duty on it to secure quality in all the local provision.
The Minister relied on the link between Clauses 6 and 11 and said that,
"only childcare that adheres to the standards for registration by Ofsted will be eligible for tax credits".—[Official Report, 12/6/06; col. 40.]
But not all parents will receive tax credits and the Minister has assured us that provision must also be made for unemployed families. So that argument is not valid, either.
I shall say only a few words about the second part of my amendment. There are many different localities in our country, some of which have a particular ethnic or cultural group represented heavily within them. Children need to have their culture considered in the provision of childcare; that is very important as regards their sense of self. I believe that recognising that on the face of the Bill as an important duty for local authorities will send out the right message to all our communities. Quality is the key to this country moving forward in childcare provision—we all believe that. I believe that as a matter of principle it should be put on the face of the Bill and not only in guidance. It is that important. I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley,
26 Jun 2006 : Column 1015
said, we have had long and detailed debates surrounding the issue of quality throughout the passage of the Bill. Gillian Pugh, in the book Contemporary Issues in the Early Years, states that the issue of quality has been discussed in every book on early childhood services during the past decade and has to be seen as a complex process rather than a tidy set of outcomes.
However, just because something is complex does not mean that we should shy away from it. In Grand Committee, I attempted to define a measure of quality by referring to a 2004 National Audit Office report that identified the following indicators of quality: adult/child interaction that is responsive, affectionate and readily available; well trained staff who are committed to their work with children; facilities that are safe and sanitary and accessible to parents; ratios and group sizes that allow staff to interact appropriately with children; supervision that maintains consistency; and staff development that ensures continuity, stability and improving quality. In addition, of course, we have Ofsted, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has covered in detail.
But, whatever measure is used, I find it quite extraordinary that a Government who are always talking about high-quality childcare fail to put the word "quality" anywhere on the face of the Bill. The acceptance of the amendment would do much to allay the fear of many that the provision of sufficient and appropriate childcare by local authorities is in danger of becoming a tick-box activity.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |