Adoption and Children Act Register (Search and Inspection) (Pilot) Regulations 2014

Debate between Baroness Tyler of Enfield and Baroness Hughes of Stretford

Monday 7th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly just to make a couple of comments on the regulations, and register my interest as chair of CAFCASS. In principle I am very supportive of this pilot. There are a number of good reasons for adopting this sort of approach, and I am aware from my work that a number of innovative programmes such as adoption activity days, which have been instigated to increase the number of adoptions and get a better matching process, have proved successful.

My first point is that it is of course of great importance to us all in this House to ensure that vulnerable children are properly protected and safeguarded. I listened with a lot of attention to what my noble friend said about the stringent safeguards that have been put in place to ensure that those data are protected. It is good to hear that but we are all aware of some things that have happened in recent times, however stringent the safeguards around data protection and IT systems have been. Can my noble friend reassure me just once more that he feels that every possible safeguard has been put in place?

As to my second point, I know that the evidence from the adopter-led matchings that we have seen so far has led more adopters to take a greater sense of ownership for what they are doing and to consider a wider range of children. I know that there are early signs that adopter-led matching enables adopters to think perhaps in terms of a broader group of children, rather than the just the nought to two year-olds who adopters so often feel they still want. Has the Minister any more information about the number of adopters involved in this and similar processes who have shown that they are happy to adopt slightly older children, or perhaps sibling groups? This, again, was one of the issues that came up when we were considering the then Children and Families Bill.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)]

My Lords, I too welcome in principle the regulations, which will enable access to the register by prospective adopters. As the Minister has said, we debated the principle of this extensively in the course of the Bill, when it was a Bill, and I do not intend to spend time on that. It is worth experimenting further to see if this will improve the timescales within which children can be successfully matched, provided that there are sufficient safeguards, as the noble Baroness has just said.

The safeguards as regards access by prospective adopters, and the identities of the children outlined in the arrangements, are satisfactory and robust. The issue is the one identified by the noble Baroness opposite: data security. I agree with her that we want to be as clear as possible about this.

I know the register will be separated into Part 1 and Part 2, the latter for those children who could be placed in a fostering-for-adoption placement, which is sensible and important. I simply want to make two points. One is about the consultation. Although the Minister said it was a full public consultation, there were only 41 responses to this. Given the importance of this measure, that is a very low level of response. I wonder if that is because, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has pointed out, there were only six weeks for this consultation over a very busy bank and public holiday period from the end of February through to April, taking in Easter and so on. That is important, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment as to why it was only six weeks, when the normal period of 12 weeks might have got more responses and more helpful pointers from respondents.

My second set of points concerns the pilots. This is extremely important, as the Minister said, not only to ensure that the systems work, but to see if we can garner any further information about the outcomes for children from this approach. Nine months is not a terribly long period to see what happens to children as a result of adopter-led access to the register. I do not know, but there may be unintended consequences of adopter-led adoption. Surely we would want to know, for instance, if—relatively—more of these matches instigated by adopters either failed or were more successful. I have looked carefully at the explanatory notes that set out the scope of the pilot, which I think should be made a little wider, looking not just at the actual matches but at what happens to the inquiries by adopters in relation to particular children. How many of them actually lead to a match, and how many are stopped in process by social workers for whatever reason? Can we extend the remit of the pilot, so we get under the skin of what is happening before the whole facility for access goes live nationwide?

Thirdly, I have a thought. I have great respect for both the Department for Education and for the BAAF, but I wonder if there was merit in this pilot being evaluated independently, and not by either the department or the BAAF, which are obviously responsible for its administration. But I broadly very much welcome the measure, and look forward to seeing the results of the pilot.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Baroness Tyler of Enfield and Baroness Hughes of Stretford

Monday 18th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to propose that Clause 76 should not stand part of the Bill. I have considerable concerns about the clause as it stands and wish to probe the Government’s thinking. In technical terms, Clause 76 removes Section 11 of the Childcare Act 2006, which places a statutory duty on local authorities in England to assess the sufficiency of childcare. Section 11 supports the Section 6 Childcare Act duty on local authorities to provide sufficient childcare for working parents as far as is reasonably practical.

I am aware that the Government’s view of this is that the childcare sufficiency assessment is simply a bureaucratic burden which can be removed with no drawbacks and, indeed, that this would allow local authorities to spend more time on securing sufficient childcare provision. I do not think it is that straightforward. The assessment was not introduced simply as a bureaucratic process designed to divert time and resources; it had a clear purpose. In practice, Section 11 sufficiency assessments are the mechanism through which local authorities meet, and are held accountable for, the Section 6 sufficiency duty. My key concern is that repealing Section 11 and the associated regulations without an effective replacement will effectively revoke the Childcare Act sufficiency duty altogether in many areas.

Would not a better solution to concerns about excessive prescription in the Section 11 regulations be to maintain the Section 11 duty itself but to simplify or revise the regulations? Evidence suggests that statutory guidance is not likely to be an effective alternative to a duty in primary legislation if it leads to a duty having a lower financial priority or not happening at all. On top of this, the Government have reduced statutory guidance on the sufficiency duty from 70 pages to a single page—you could say that is going from the sublime to the ridiculous—which removes important guidance on what is meant by sufficient childcare. There are concerns that this will lead to lower-quality assessments.

We all know that there are substantial gaps in access to high-quality affordable childcare. For example, just one-fifth of local authorities believe that there is sufficient childcare in their area for the under-twos. In particular, there is a chronic shortage of high-quality places in disadvantaged areas, for parents working atypical hours, often on low incomes, and for children with additional needs. We all know how this undermines what I think we all want to do in terms of promoting social mobility and reducing education inequalities. Therefore, it remains my contention that an effective Childcare Act sufficiency duty remains an important tool in social policy. Of course, I accept that some assessments do not assess sufficiency robustly or reliably, not least because every local authority ends up having to reinvent the wheel. Tellingly, the consultation on removing the Section 11 duty did not show support for removing Section 11 itself as distinct from the outdated regulations. This is where the nub of the problem, and my concerns, lie. Crucially, in their responses, 60 local authorities explicitly requested more detailed guidance on sufficiency assessments than the Government had provided. Surely some publication of good-practice guidance to support local authorities in developing their assessments and their action plans would be helpful.

If this clause remains in the Bill, local authorities will be obliged to provide only an annual report on levels of local childcare to elected members. I am not convinced that this more light-touch approach will provide the same level of incentive for local authority investment in ongoing support, and indeed challenge, from early-years teams, which currently work to ensure that childcare provision is not only sufficient but of high quality. I think we all consider that to be very important, and it is also vital to meeting the needs of young children with special educational needs and disabilities.

In March 2013 the National Children’s Bureau—of which I am president and therefore declare an interest—surveyed local authorities’ early-years teams and parents to gauge views on the removal of the duty to carry out childcare sufficiency assessments. Only 20% of respondents were confident that their local authority would be able to secure sufficient childcare if the local authority duty to carry out the sufficiency assessment were removed. Given such low levels of confidence, on what does the Minister base her confidence that removing the duty to assess sufficiency is the right way forward?

In conclusion, looking at the big picture, local authorities in England receive £3 billion to £4 billion of early-years funding annually. Public investment on this scale should be matched by a legislative framework to guide effective investment and ensure accountability. Like other noble Lords present, I was actively involved in the Care Bill currently before Parliament. The Care Bill was introduced with a new sufficiency duty for adult social care, modelled on the Childcare Act, including a duty in primary legislation to understand the supply and demand of services. It is difficult—even a little odd—to explain the removal the same duty in early-years provision at exactly the same time. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jones and myself I oppose the proposition that Clause 76 should stand part of the Bill. I will also speak to Amendment 240S in our names, which is an amendment to government Amendment 240R.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, Clause 76 would repeal the duty of local authorities, under Section 11 of the Childcare Act, to undertake and publish regular assessments of the sufficiency of childcare in their area. In so doing—I entirely agree with the noble Baroness —it would effectively neutralise the general duty, under Section 6, to ensure sufficient childcare for working parents.

The Government carried out a very inadequate consultation on this proposal, and produced findings which can be described, at best, as one-sided. Contrary to the Government’s claim, the consultation did not show support for removing the Section 11 duty, but rather for the need for revised guidance and a real effort by the Government to help all local authorities implement that duty as well as the best authorities are already doing. I agree that some action is necessary: where practice is variable; where there are shortages of childcare, as in many areas; and in relation to specific needs, for example parents who work unsocial hours or have disabled children,

This nurturing of the role of local authorities in driving up supply and continuous improvement in childcare is important. While some local authorities are doing it very well, they use different definitions and different methodologies, and many have poor action plans. As the noble Baroness said, this could and should be addressed, not by repealing the duty to assess sufficiency, but by providing guidance, developing a consistent measure of childcare demand, and a framework model for the action plans that need to come through—something the five-year review of the Childcare Act in 2009 showed was necessary. The Government may say they have revised the guidance, but they have not changed it in a way that addresses any of those issues. They have reduced 70 pages of guidance—and there is an argument that that is far too long, and practice shows it is the case—to less than two pages of sketchy, top-level, vague requirements, sending a clear message to local authorities that this duty does not matter to the Government any more.

I think it is worth reminding ourselves of why the Childcare Act 2006 substantially strengthened the duties of local authorities to ensure sufficiency of childcare: first, to stimulate the local market to increase the supply of good-quality childcare; secondly, to enable working parents and those aspiring to work to access childcare; and, thirdly, through that to support economic growth in those areas—something that is very much to the fore now. Indeed, there is a very strong business case for seeing childcare not only as important for child development and parental choice but as an increasingly essential part of the infrastructure to support people getting into work, which was never more important than now, when many families are suffering the brunt of the recession.

The Family and Childcare Trust has undertaken detailed analysis of local authority performance under the sufficiency duty. It shows that some have done well, suggesting that the problem is not fundamentally one of legislation but of good practice and the level of capability of individual authorities. Repealing that duty under Clause 76 will drive a coach and horses through the sufficiency duty itself, as the position in Scotland has demonstrated. There, there is no duty—just statutory guidance, similar to what the Government now propose for England. A third of Scottish authorities do not collect adequate data, and Scotland has only half the proportion of private and voluntary providers because local authorities do not do the work to stimulate the market and promote new childcare providers in the way that the best English local authorities have done. A much better alternative would be to replace the three-year assessment with an annual assessment, to simplify the guidance and to include frameworks for consistent supply and demand measures, to require local authorities to produce an action plan and to monitor local authority performance against those plans.

Finally on Clause 76, perhaps the Minister will explain why the Government are effectively neutralising the sufficiency duty in childcare while at the same time bringing in a new sufficiency duty in the Care Bill in respect of local authorities’ duties to ensure that there is sufficient adult care in their area. That seems a contradiction; I wonder why it exists.

Government Amendment 240R is extremely important in its potential ramifications. It introduces, at a very late stage in the passage of the Bill, significant changes to the way local authorities have to secure publicly funded, free early-years provision for three and four year-olds, and potentially has serious implications for the quality of the provision purchased, especially for the most disadvantaged children, including those two year-olds who now qualify. The Government consulted on these proposals, and the overwhelming view of local authorities was that they would have a negative impact on childcare. The proposed regulations will mean that a local authority can no longer apply its own quality assessment when deciding which providers it will commission the free places from. Local authorities will instead have to accept the most recent Ofsted judgment. Furthermore, the local authority will no longer be able to attach any conditions about quality or anything else to any provider that is rated good or outstanding.

On the face of it, I understand that in the interests of reducing duplication, requiring the local authority to accept the Ofsted judgment and not to do its own makes some sense, but I have some very specific concerns. First, the latest Ofsted inspection may be very out of date. It can be up to four years old. There may have been significant changes of leadership which have affected what is happening in a particular nursery. In short, the latest Ofsted judgment may not be a reliable indicator of current quality. If it was given a rating of good or outstanding, even four years ago, the local authority will not be able to look at the quality of that provider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, I know that other noble Lords want to speak, but perhaps because my noble friend and I have amendments in this group it might help if I speak to them first and we can get everything on the table.

I shall speak to Amendments 265 and 266, which would make a small but significant amendment to Amendment 264, which was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Faulkner. I also have a great deal of sympathy with Amendment 263. The arguments in favour of standardised packaging for tobacco are now self-evident and hardly need to be rehearsed. Similarly, there are no credible arguments against implementing standard packages for cigarettes that are not just plain but which, as we have seen in some of the briefings, are such that they may deter take-up of smoking and convey in stark terms the dangers of doing so.

The effects of smoking are well known. It is the largest preventable cause of cancer, causes 100,000 deaths a year and is a big factor in heart disease, cardiovascular illnesses, strokes and so on. Despite progress in reducing smoking, one in five adults still smokes. My noble friend Lord Faulkner has just reminded us of the fact that it is often in childhood and teenage years that people take up smoking; a significant number of youngsters aged between 11 and 15—an estimated 200,000, as he said—take up smoking. It is therefore a significant issue, and the more young people we can deter from taking up smoking in the first place and becoming lifelong addicts the better. We have to take seriously anything that makes smoking less attractive.

Especially since the advertising ban, cigarette packaging is the most important opportunity for tobacco companies to do exactly the opposite: namely, promote smoking as a cool, attractive and grown-up thing to do. That is why they spend millions on developing their packaging by testing its attractiveness to potential new customers and adding novel or gimmicky features that will attract interest. It is patently obvious that the companies believe that packaging is crucial to promoting their products and giving themselves a market edge. Indeed, research among young people by Cancer Research UK and other charities confirms the positive impressions conveyed by packaging in the minds of young people. One view was, for example, “It looks too colourful to be harmful”. We therefore have to use any means possible to protect young people from tobacco and deter them from taking up smoking. That is of course why the industry is resisting standardised packaging.

Like my noble friend, I could say more but I will not do so. This is essentially an issue of child protection. The public support standardised packaging. Children and young people find standardised packaging less attractive, more of a deterrent and more effective in conveying health warnings. Health professionals across the disciplines support standardised packaging. Other Administrations in the UK, and other countries abroad, are moving in this direction. I very much support Amendment 264, which sets out very well the detail that regulations on standard packaging should include, and I congratulate my noble friend and other noble Lords on bringing forward the amendment. However, our Amendments 265 and 266 would strengthen it by requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations rather than simply allowing them to decide whether to do so.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 263 and 264. I want briefly to say why I feel so strongly that they are extremely important.

Like other noble Lords, I see smoking in cars primarily as a child protection issue. As we have heard, children’s lungs are smaller and they have faster breathing rates. That makes them particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke, especially within the confines of a car. As we have heard, very often children are not able to stop adults smoking in their presence. Adult members of the public are protected by smoke-free legislation on public transport and in the workplace, but large numbers of children remain exposed to high concentrations of second-hand smoke when confined in family cars. I just do not think that is right.

My second point is that we simply cannot afford to wait any longer. We know that roughly one in five children reports being regularly exposed to second-hand smoke in cars. It has catastrophic health consequences. Finally, we know that there is very strong public support for this. In a recent survey, 80% of the public and 86% of children supported a ban, as do many health organisations.

Turning very briefly to standardised packaging, there is a very clear reason why people in the tobacco industry are always so opposed to amendments such as this. It is very straightforward. They know that the designer cigarette packet is a very effective advertising tool. Most worryingly, it is particularly effective on young people. I had many examples I was going to give; I shall reserve them for Report.

The other argument I would like to address is the one about the nanny state poking its nose into the lives of individuals. We are told that people know the risk and make an informed choice regarding whether or not to smoke. Of course, the problem is that the choices made by young people are not always informed. I am sure that we know from our personal experience how impressionable young people can be. I certainly do.

I remember going into a sweet shop aged about 14 or 15. There was a pack of cigarettes there. I will not give the name because I do not want to advertise it. I thought it was terribly elegant and glamorous and that if I bought that pack—which I did—I would be very elegant and glamorous. I do not think either of those held up, but really strong messages are coming across in that packaging. I have looked at the most up-to-date evidence. It is absolutely clear that standardised packs are less attractive to young people and improve the effectiveness of health warnings.

We have a duty to the children of this country to move on this issue once and for all. The time for talking is over and the time for action has arrived.