Childcare Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Touhig and Lord Nash(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very short debate. In response to Amendment 2, the Minister agreed that local authorities were best placed to deliver the additional childcare. It begs the question why the first four words in Clause 1(1) were ever in the Bill in the first place—but that is another matter. I received some reassurance on Amendments 14 and 16, although I am still not entirely convinced. However, we have done our very best to try to improve the Bill on these matters and it is time to cede responsibility for improving the Bill—certainly as far as Amendments 2,14 and 16 are concerned— to those who legislate in the other place. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very helpful meeting he held yesterday, when we had the opportunity to explore a number of issues that have exercised us throughout the passage of the Bill, in particular, the outline of the funding review.
Amendment 11 in this group was much in my thoughts after our meeting and the presentation. I fear that the funding review’s progress and the conclusions it will reach may well be a threat to the existing staff- child ratios, which would be a retrograde step were it to happen. Of course, because the Government, sadly, seem determined to put the cart before the horse—passing legislation through your Lordships’ House and telling us afterwards how it will be funded—I feel I have every reason to be concerned.
Amendment 11 goes to the very heart of the standard of education and childcare that parents can expect, especially those with special educational needs children. While I am the first to recognise that there are many good educators in the childcare education sector who themselves have no formal level 3 qualification—a point well made yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland—that does not mean we should not seek to do something about that and ensure that everybody has the appropriate qualification. The simple fact is that no one leaving education today will have a job for life. Everyone will have to retrain and upskill in their working lives. If we do not recognise that by ensuring that the first learning and educational experience a child receives in its life is delivered by someone who themselves has been well trained, we start at a disadvantage.
We must be bold in our ambition for our children, and Amendment 11 is surely the foundation of that ambition. That is why we on this side strongly support it.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 3, 5, 11 and 23 regarding the quality of childcare to be delivered under the Bill, staff to child ratios, the workforce, and provision for children with special educational needs. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey, Lady Tyler and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for highlighting the importance of high-quality childcare and, in particular, the skills and qualifications of the early years workforce, including for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
I reassure noble Lords that we all want childcare that meets the needs of working parents and their children, including those with special educational needs. I have listened carefully to the debate this evening and I completely agree with the points that have been made about the importance of the quality of childcare and its impact on child development. I reassure the House, and particularly all those who have contributed to this debate, that the quality of early education and childcare and the welfare of children remains paramount.
All childcare must be delivered in a safe, secure and welcoming way that contributes to a child’s welfare and their development. The Government believe that the extended entitlement needs to supplement and complement the current early education entitlement. It will need to provide positive and stimulating experiences for children, and staff will need to have the right skills and knowledge to deliver this care. There are a number of aspects to these amendments, each of which I will address in turn.
First, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, seeks to extend the existing ratios for the current 15-hours early education entitlement to the 30-hours childcare entitlement and to set these out in primary legislation. All early years providers registered on the early years register must meet the early years foundation stage framework requirements for welfare and well-being, including ratio and qualification requirements.
The English childcare system has some of the tightest adult-child ratios in the world. For three and four year-olds in group provision there must be one adult for every eight children. Or, where a person with a suitable level 6 qualification is working with the children, a 1:13 ratio can be used. The existing ratios have been set out in the EYFS since 2008 and we are committed to keeping them. I would like to place on record that there are no plans to change the ratios to deliver the new entitlement. I am very clear about this. The Government consider the current approach of using secondary legislation to be the right one for ratios, as was discussed in Committee. Ratios for all providers are already set out in secondary legislation, and this allows for a quick response if changes are needed to keep children safe and well cared for. I hope I have reassured noble Lords on this point and urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Nash
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the regulations made under the Bill, which will be key to setting out the detail of the new entitlement, including who will be eligible and how it will be delivered. Therefore, I understand noble Lords’ concerns about ensuring that they have a proper opportunity to scrutinise this detail.
There was much interest in the regulations in our earlier debates in this House and in the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee concluded that the scope of the delegations and powers under Clause 1 as drafted were too wide. Given the importance of secondary legislation to the Bill, I am in complete agreement with noble Lords and with the committee’s report that it would be appropriate for regulations to be approved by a debate in both Houses. That is why I have brought forward these amendments, which would require regulations made under Clause 1 and extended entitlement regulations to be laid and approved by each House using the affirmative procedure. I hope this will reassure noble Lords that we have listened. I hope the Government’s amendments will be welcomed.
Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would ensure that a statutory instrument containing regulations in exercise of any power in the Bill would not be made unless a draft of the instrument had been laid and approved by each House; in other words, it would subject regulations to the affirmative procedure each time the regulation-making power was exercised. We believe it is right that initially we should deal with the regulations under the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative procedure as originally planned. However, we do not believe it is necessary to make them affirmative each time.
We need to strike the right balance between the mechanics of the affirmative process—for example, the need to find time in the parliamentary timetable for debates in both Houses, no matter how small the change—and the ability of government to respond efficiently and effectively to support delivery of the new entitlement, should this be necessary. That is why the government amendments in this group envisage that regulations made under Clause 1 and regulations made for the purpose of discharging the Secretary of State’s duty will be subject to a debate the first time the powers are exercised but that subsequent regulations made under the Bill would be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The exception to this would be in any instances where regulations seek to amend or repeal primary legislation, or in the case of regulations seeking to update the maximum level of any financial penalty set out in the Bill, which would be subject to the affirmative procedure. This follows the precedents of parliamentary scrutiny adopted in childcare legislation or comparable education legislation. The regulations that underpin the current Section 7 entitlement have been subject to the negative procedure since they were introduced in 2008. These have been amended only four times, and each time the changes were subject to a public consultation.
We believe that our approach is the right one. As noble Lords have already heard, we have made great progress since Committee to narrow the scope and clarify the detail of what we will include in the regulations. I also reassure noble Lords that feedback from parents, providers and employers will be taken into account in the development of the draft regulations, and we will wish to draw on the expertise of noble Lords. Furthermore, we have committed to providing a full impact assessment on the extent of the free entitlement, which will be published when we undertake a formal public consultation on the draft regulations in 2016. Following the consultation, we will lay the draft regulations before the House for a full debate before they can be approved and added to the statute book.
I hope noble Lords agree that by the time they are laid, these regulations will have undergone a significant amount of close scrutiny. Therefore, I am confident that we will be able to present a set of regulations to the House that are fair and workable and remain true to the spirit of the Government’s commitment to support and reward thousands of hard-working families. I beg to move.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I regret very much having to put Amendment 27 before the House but, frankly, the Government leave us no choice. We have seen throughout the passage of the Bill the cavalier attitude the Government have taken—not by the Ministers who have represented the Government in this House, I hasten to add, but by the Government as a whole. In support of that assertion, I quote from the 2nd Report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published on 26 June, which says at paragraph 10:
“We note that the Minister said that ‘the introduction of the Bill, with a strong duty on the Secretary of State, sends a clear message to parents and providers about the Government’s commitment’. That is not, in our judgment, a proper use of legislation: the purpose of an Act is to change the law, not to ‘send a message’”.
Earlier, in paragraph 8, the committee says:
“In our view, the Government’s stated approach to delegation is flawed. While the Bill may contain a legislative framework, it contains virtually nothing of substance beyond the vague ‘mission statement’”.
Finally, in paragraph 9 of the report, the committee states that:
“We do not accept the Government’s attempt to dignify their approach to delegation by referring to a need to consult. We of course acknowledge the need for consultation as a precursor to the formation of policy; but this should in our view have followed the well-established sequence of a Green Paper setting out proposals, followed by a White Paper containing the Government’s legislative intentions, and finally the presentation of a Bill”.
There we have it—that spells out quite clearly how the Government should be presenting legislation to Parliament.
Creative Sector: Educational Provision
Debate between Lord Touhig and Lord Nash(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, if the Minister walks through the Members’ Cloakroom he will see a bag—I think it is on the peg of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn—emblazoned with the words, “Music makes the world a better place”. The Secretary of State for Education seems to agree because in a recent speech she revealed that she used to sing with the City of London Choir. In the same speech she said that every young person should,
“have the opportunity to discover how the arts can enrich their lives”.
Given this enthusiasm for culture, why are the Government deliberately excluding study of the arts from the English baccalaureate?
Lord Nash
All the evidence from around the world is that pupils need a core suite of academic subjects to engage their intellect and curiosity, so that they will then want to study a broader and more cultural range of subjects. We are investing heavily in music hubs, and I go back to my point that the take-up in EBacc is driving a much richer and more cultural curriculum in schools.
Children’s Centres
Debate between Lord Touhig and Lord Nash(9 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, every farmer in the House will know the phrase, “Do not eat the seed-corn”. If you do, you will survive this year, but next year you will starve, because nothing new has been planted. That is just what the Government are doing by cutting funding to children’s centres: they are eating the seed-corn. For short-term financial gain they are storing up problems for the future. The closure of children’s centres is a malign act and, frankly, very stupid. Therefore—patience, patience; the noble Lord’s time will come—can the Minister say whether the Government will accept that investing in our children’s future by funding children’s centres should be a national policy objective, not left to the whims and vagaries of local councils, many of which have huge financial budgetary problems?
Lord Nash
I accept the importance of the matter, and I was delighted to see the ECCE survey, which showed that 98% of parents were “happy” or “very happy” with the services provided by their children’s centre. I know that the Labour Party likes to hark back to a golden age of Sure Start, but in 2009 the National Audit Office reported that children’s centres then were failing to reduce inequality and many were unviable, and Ofsted reported at the same time that half were not reaching out to vulnerable families. It is essential that we reach out to vulnerable families and that the facilities are tailored in the most flexible way to reach the families who need them.
Schools: Health and Well-being
Debate between Lord Touhig and Lord Nash(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness raises an excellent point, particularly in relation to schools for special educational needs. I know that caring for animals and growing plants can be very helpful. The School Food Plan refers to all schools being encouraged to have plant-growing programmes. I can assure her that across the country there are many other examples of what she has talked about.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will have heard the wake-up call from the head of NHS England, Simon Stevens, last week when he told us that one in 10 children are obese when they begin primary school, and that that rises to one in five when they leave. Currently we spend more on obesity-related healthcare than we do on the police, the Prison Service, the fire service and the criminal justice system. Does he agree that child obesity cannot be tackled in isolation? What do the Government propose to do across all departments so that we have a proper strategy to respond to what Mr Stevens now calls the new smoking?
Lord Nash
I agree entirely with the noble Lord about the seriousness of this issue. We are doing what we can in schools. As I said, this is a key focus for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health. Many of my department’s priorities are designed around the need to reduce childhood obesity. However, despite our programmes, it still seems to be an issue. We will be publishing our plan on this shortly.
Children and Families Bill
Debate between Lord Touhig and Lord Nash(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I will just add a few words. This multilayered system of appeal is absolutely insane and crying out to be altered. In Wales, we have a word, “dwp”, which means stupid or daft in the head. If a Nobel prize were awarded for daft bits of red tape, this would get it. Surely the Government must see the common sense and logic of reducing this down to one system of appeal and stopping all the battles that people who have children with special educational needs or disabilities, or children who are autistic, must have to appeal a decision that they think is not just, right or in the interests of their child.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns appeals and mediation. I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I begin with Amendment 181, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Low.
As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, noble Lords will know that the Bill is designed to bring education, health and social care together, for the first time, in a joint enterprise to commission and make appropriate provision for children and young people with special educational needs. The child or young person and their family will be at the centre of the new arrangements and have an enhanced role in deciding what is in the EHC plan. That will improve the experience of children, their parents and young people, and the Bill will give them a more active role in agreeing the provision that should be made and ensuring that it is made. This is the joined-up system that the Green Paper talked about creating. We believe—and certainly hope—that this will make the system less adversarial and mean that fewer people will want to appeal to the tribunal.
This improvement in parents’ experience of the system is being borne out in the pathfinders. For example, in Hartlepool, the new process of assessment is wholly transparent, with children, parents and young people fully involved at all stages and able to contribute to the content of the EHC plan alongside professionals. It also includes a simplified complaints and comments procedure to help parents and young people seek redress across all areas of the process locally, if it should become necessary. That is just the sort of innovative local arrangement that we want to see, improving the relationships between parents, young people and local authorities, and facilitating local resolution of disputes. However, it would be silly to deny that, despite the improvements the Bill will bring, there will continue to be people who are unhappy about the provision set out in EHC plans. I quite understand that for those among that cohort who want to complain about two or more elements in the EHC plan, it would seem simpler to be able to appeal to one place, the tribunal, so having the tribunal as a single point of redress initially sounds attractive. However, there are reasons why I think this would be the wrong course to take.
It would not be right to expand the tribunal’s remit to cover all health and social care provision set out in EHC plans. We have already debated at some length, when dealing with earlier clauses, why it would not be right to create an individually owed duty for the social care provision in a plan. That could lead to the marginalisation of other children in need under Section 17 of the Children Act and harmfully affect local authorities’ ability to make the necessary social care provision across all children in their areas. Extending the tribunal’s remit so that it could deal with social care appeals could potentially mirror that unwanted consequence even if there was not an individually owed duty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said, we have rehearsed these arguments and I do not wish to go over them again, but I am sure that we will return to this issue on Report and I am very happy to discuss it further with noble Lords in the mean time.
I say that it would “potentially” mirror that unwanted consequence because including appeals about social care in the tribunal’s remit as the Bill is currently drafted would change the nature of the decisions the tribunal could take. Whereas the tribunal would be able to tell local authorities what special educational provision must be set out in a plan, without an individually owed social care duty the tribunal would be able to take judicial review-type decisions only about social care provision. That is, the tribunal would have jurisdiction to review only the local authority’s decision, with powers to quash and remit it for further consideration—consideration which might result in the local authority making the same decision.
Your Lordships may well be saying to yourselves, “There’s an individually owed duty in health under this Bill, so at least you should extend the tribunal’s remit to cover health”. However, that individually owed duty in health is a duty to make the health provision set out in a plan following clinical judgments taken in the light of the wider duties of clinical commissioning groups and the NHS to secure services to meet all the reasonable health needs of all children. Widening the tribunal’s remit to cover health would undermine these commissioning arrangements. It would establish unequal treatment of children with serious health needs by giving a privileged position to those with SEN. It would be difficult to justify children with SEN and health difficulties having stronger rights of redress than, say, children with cancer, neurological conditions, long-term conditions such as epilepsy or diabetes and mental health conditions who do not have SEN. To avoid creating these inequalities between children and young people, it would be better if the existing and well established routes of complaint in health and social care were used rather than the tribunal.
In social care, Section 26 of the Children Act 1989 provides the framework for the complaints procedure for those under 18 which local authorities must establish. In health, the relevant legislation prescribes that a responsible body must acknowledge the complaint within three days and they must offer the complainant the opportunity to discuss the timing and procedure for resolving the complaint. Once that has been agreed, the complaint must be investigated and, “as soon as possible” after completing the investigation, a written report must be sent to the complainant explaining how the complaint has been considered, the conclusions of the report and any remedial action which has been taken or is proposed to be taken. This procedure could cover both what provision is set out in a plan and complaints about delivery of the plan. Of course, it is vital that the parents of children with EHC plans and young people with plans, particularly the smaller group who want to complain about more than one area of the plan, know how to do so. The Bill makes provision for parents and young people to be given information about the routes of complaint that are open to them. Clause 26, headed “Joint commissioning arrangements”, requires local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to work together to offer joined-up advice, information and responses to families and to establish a clear complaints procedure relating to education, health and care provision. The outcome of that work will be available through the local offer.
The new code of practice will require that impartial information, advice and support should be commissioned through joint arrangements and should be available through a single point of access with the capacity to handle initial phone, electronic or face-to-face inquiries. It will also encourage clinical commissioning groups to ensure that relevant information is available at this single point of access as well as to include information on their local health offer on their own website. A one-stop shop will be simpler and much more parent and young person-friendly than potentially having to go to more than one place for advice on a range of issues, including how to complain.
My noble friend Lord Storey made the point that the system may be confusing. I reassure him that we are looking carefully at the best ways of achieving a single point of access to address this, and I would be happy to discuss this further with noble Lords. We share noble Lords’ concern to ensure that parents can find their way to the right route of redress easily.
Amendment 182 was tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones. When this amendment was debated in another place, it was pointed out that some of the information requested by it is already published by the Ministry of Justice on its website, including the number of appeals registered against each local authority. We are happy to explore with the Ministry of Justice the idea of jointly publishing data on the SEND tribunal and, as part of this work, whether the information could be expanded.
However, some of the information that is being asked for by this amendment, such as the amount local authorities spend on defending each case, would just increase contention in the system rather than reduce it. Highlighting how much money was spent on legal representation could create real tension between parents and local authorities. We know, anecdotally, that each party often says that they engaged legal representation only because the other side did. If this amendment is designed to highlight poor practice by local authorities and to provide a basis for improving it, I believe the Bill already provides other avenues for doing so. Children, parents and young people will be able to highlight what they feel is inadequate provision through their role in the local offer. Local authorities will be jointly commissioning services with clinical commissioning groups to make sure that the right provision is available. The Bill is promoting better assessment arrangements, which, as I say, will mean that fewer parents and young people will want to appeal to the tribunal and the mediation will offer the chance to resolve differences before appeals are registered. In view of what I have said, I urge the noble Baronesses not to move the amendment.
Amendment 272, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, relates to a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I reassure noble Lords who may be concerned that we have preserved the grounds for appeal and extended them to young people over compulsory school age. The appeal regulations set out clearly and in one place for the first time the mechanics for notices related to appeals, the powers the tribunal has when deciding appeals, time limits for compliance with tribunal decisions and what happens with unopposed appeals. We are currently consulting on these regulations and will take account of responses when we finalise them. They will be laid in the House for approval by negative procedure.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that the tribunal’s powers when deciding appeals should be in the Bill rather than in secondary legislation and asked for an explanation of why this approach is being taken. Alternatively, it suggested that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure, as Amendment 272 seeks. We have put the tribunal’s powers in regulations to make them simpler for the reader of this legislation. Instead of having the tribunal’s powers to determine appeals scattered over the legislation, as they are in the Education Act 1996, we want to bring them together in one place, along with the mechanics for how we expect an appeal to proceed. Given that this is what we are seeking to achieve by these regulations, I believe that the negative resolution procedure is proportionate.
Government Amendments 183 and 184, regarding mediation, are in this group. It is important that the whole of the mediation process set out in the Bill is seen by parents and young people to be independent of the local authorities. There are two stages to the mediation process. First, the parents or young people contact a mediation adviser to be given information about the mediation process. Currently, the Bill makes clear that the mediation adviser cannot be someone who is employed by a local authority. If the parent or young person decides to go to mediation, the local authority must arrange it within 30 days. Currently there is no parallel provision in the Bill to make clear that the person who conducts the mediation must also be independent of the local authority. These amendments make the necessary changes to the Bill to ensure that mediators will be independent.
I hope that my response on all the issues that noble Lords have raised reassures them and that they will feel able not to move their amendments.