Universities: Nuclear Energy Sector Skills

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

There is plenty of time for everybody, if we show the normal courtesies and go round the Chamber.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that a memorandum of understanding has been signed with the United Arab Emirates to provide it with nuclear technology; if we do not provide it with that technology, the Russians most certainly will. The technology will be of no use unless there are trained personnel to mediate it. Do we intend to train those UAE personnel? If so, where and when should the training begin?

Child Hunger in Schools

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

If I may, I will point out that we have heard only once from the Liberal Democrat Benches; others have been heard twice.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, of course no child should go starving. Would the Minister not consider extending the coalition’s policy of giving free school meals to all key stage 1 children to key stage 2, and at secondary school—key stage 3—ensure that every pupil whose parents are on universal credit gets a free school meal?

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Listowel]

The noble Baroness makes an eloquent and persuasive case for what the Government are proposing. I only wish that voices like hers were made available to those who will be affected by this legislation at an early stage so that they can digest and reflect and think that possibly the Government might have some reason for this proposal. Very sadly, the paper that introduced this notion came out when this Bill was in Committee in July, so there has been no consultation among the middle workforce. We hear that only one-tenth of social workers supports this clause. Barnardo’s, Action for Children, the NSPCC, the National Children’s Bureau and Mencap are all strongly concerned and are against Clause 29.

Listening to this debate, I thought about the experience of children taken into care—children whose voices were very often not heard by their families. Their interests and concerns were not listened to by their families, and I feel that the process followed in this arrangement leaves social workers and those working with these children very much in the same position: we risk leaving them feeling that their voices and concerns have not been heard because of the very unsatisfactory way in which this provision has been introduced. I have some sympathy for what is being presented and some understanding of the risk of too much regulation, following one crisis after another. But I am afraid that the way in which this has been introduced simply risks demoralising all those who work on the front line.

I support my noble friend’s Amendment 57, but I am grateful to the Minister for the helpful briefings arranged on this clause and encouraged to learn from his recent letter that he has established a consultative group of practitioners and this new panel, and that in the implementation the Children in Care Council will be consulted. As I say, the first rationale that I am aware was publicly provided for this controversial measure was in the document published during Committee in the summer. The Government have been very slow in bringing forward credible examples of how the clause will be used and how it is necessary. The noble Baroness was very helpful in what she said, in being specific about the changes, but this is very late in the day. Much as I respect the clause’s advocates, I have not found one social worker or child psychotherapist or one provider of children’s services in the several organisations that I am associated with who supports this. It would be helpful if there could be a proper consultation. To achieve the Government’s vision of social care reform, surely they must bring at least a critical mass of social workers and social care professionals with them. I implore the Minister to take this clause back to the sector, to consult and collaborate with it, and to produce something that we can all get behind.

Recently we have been concerned about Brexit and whether the Government—the Executive—would consult the legislature—Parliament—about its implementation. I ask Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place how they would feel if the senior authority sought to push through something which would affect them so much without consulting them first. I am afraid that this is exactly how many of those working practically in the field feel. That is why there is this depth of concern about these proposals.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I regret that I was unable to attend Grand Committee because of certain personal problems and trying to do my day job, in which I declare an interest, of running a local social services authority. It is an innovative authority, achieving for children, which was established by the London Borough of Richmond, in common with the then Liberal Democrat Royal Borough of Kingston, as a community interest company to enable high-quality social work to be done locally and to help others. I recall that when it was proposed everyone said it was a dangerous experiment and should not be tried and that it would lead to all kinds of dangers. However, we have found that care in Kingston has been transformed and our senior social workers have been able successfully to give advice to other authorities such as Sunderland, Wandsworth and others. We should not fear innovation.

As many have recognised, the background to this proposal is, as the Munro report said, that there is a risk of too much rigidity, overregulation and stifling the good for the always important sake of protecting the vulnerable. However, having listened to the debate, I find that some remarks were astonishingly apocalyptic. It is nonsense for the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite—or indeed, with all due respect, for the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston—to talk about privatisation in the context of a debate in which the Government have tabled amendments to say that profit will be ruled out. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, may know of private sector operators who are keen to operate on a loss-making basis, but I have yet to meet one. The talk of privatisation is reckless. It spreads disturbance where it need not be spread and is not germane to the point before us.

Everyone, from every Bench, including the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has said that they like innovation. The noble Lord likes to see change and things being done differently in the Army. The tenor of the debate has been, “We would like innovation but we cannot allow it because it is too risky”. If the Army had operated on those principles it would still be advancing in close order, line abreast, in red coats.

What is before us is not wholescale radical change but a limited power for social workers to innovate, to try to do a better job for the people they want to serve. It is disappointing. I have spoken often in this House, with Members on other Benches, and I feel that professionals in local authorities are not trusted enough. It is a constant theme of the speeches I make in your Lordships’ House. Sometimes I feel like a lone voice on the Benches behind the Government, I have to say. But here is a small, limited proposal that asks us in Parliament to trust local authorities and the advice of professionals who wish to innovate.

Many of the speeches have been made as if the amendments put forward by my noble friend on the Front Bench had never been tabled. Here is a man who I have heard rightly praised, on every piece of legislation we have had concerning children, for his capacity to listen and make changes with deep sensitivity to the concerns and interests of children. He has come forward with proposals answering your Lordships’ concerns, many of which have been expressed legitimately, and it is proposed that they be rejected out of hand. I see the noble Lord, Lord Low, rising. I will of course hear what he says.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

What is there to prevent local authorities and social workers innovating under the present legislative framework?

[Lord True]

My Lords, certain things can be done differently, but this proposition will allow a range of proposals to be put forward, some of which have been mentioned already by my noble friend Lady Eaton. No doubt others will be suggested. The point is that we must allow professional social workers to make propositions.

On what is here before us the cry is, “No consultation”. This process requires local consultation and evidence on how better outcomes will come about from the experiment that might be allowed. It requires proof of local capability and quality, assessment of the potential risks to children, monitoring, evaluation and an evidence base before it even gets to the panel that is proposed to consider whether we might have an experiment. Then the panel will consider the experiment, then your Lordships will have the right to vote on whether that experiment should take place. The idea that Parliament would be taken out of the matter is nonsense. Parliament is at the heart of the matter in the legislation put forward.

This is one of those days where, carried by the deep love and affection this House has for the vulnerable and disadvantaged, which I share—it is why it is my passion to be in local government—your Lordships risk throwing a very small baby out with some bathwater that does not exist. We have a Catch-22 situation before us: the legislation potentially enables high-performing local authorities, taking ideas put forward by professional social workers, to try limited experiments in a safe, controlled environment. If your Lordships say that prior experiment is too dangerous and throw it out, the only alternative, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has said, is to have wholesale legislation without any prior experiment: let us test it and see when it has got through Parliament. That might be rather more dangerous.

I hope that on reflection the House, while in no way resiling from the deep concerns expressed, will listen to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I hope that they will read what is in the amendments and not reject them, as doing so would excise the capacity for limited innovation by good social workers from the practice of care in this land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

I have already quoted a number of practitioners who have stated the need for it. As I have said, if we remove Clause 32—which I am quite prepared to look at doing—we will deal with many of the shadows that some noble Lords have raised.

The Government have listened and made substantial steps to put safeguards in place around the use of the power. The Children’s Minister and I remain ready at any time to discuss these clauses further. Professor Eileen Munro talked about doing the right thing, rather than doing things right, and that is what this power is all about. If these clauses are removed, noble Lords would be denying local authorities that can see a better way of working for the benefit of the children in their care the opportunity to test the whole system and learn how we can do things better, giving those children the opportunity of a better life.

[Lord True]

Before my noble friend sits down, there is an important point. Is he saying that once the House has considered what he said and reflected on it, he would not oppose Amendment 66, which would leave out Clause 32, while on the other hand he would wish to keep the innovation clauses? That would, as he has said, leave all the innovation coming up from the professions and from local authorities, and remove the suspicion that the state might impose something.

[Lord Nash]

Yes.

Education and Adoption Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am a little puzzled by the groupings. I thought that we were discussing government Amendment 20 and the whole business of so-called consultation and what that entailed in a later group. I will not trespass on remarks I may make to your Lordships at that stage. However, remembering grant-maintained schools and what went on in that so-called consultation—the intimidation and other things that happened to parents and others who wanted to set up independent schools—we should look a little askance at pleas for too much elaboration in the process. Perhaps we can discuss that at the appropriate time.

I apologise to your Lordships that I was unable to be present in Grand Committee and I repeat my declaration of interest at Second Reading: that I am the leader of a London borough. I spoke on the difference between academies and maintained schools, and put in a plea to my noble friend that he consider addressing what we all know—I certainly know it from my local experience—which is that some academies are coasting. That is a minority of academies and I do not subscribe for a moment to the doctrinaire opposition to them, but there is no doubt that there is some need for intervention. In my neck of the woods, we are getting to the very limits of tolerance with the dithering of some academy leaderships in addressing failings in their schools.

Therefore, I give an unqualified welcome to Amendment 24 in the name of my noble friend. It is extremely welcome, needed and right. On the questions posed by noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, it is clearly beyond doubt that proposed new Section 2D, in Amendment 24, would apply to all past academy agreements. The ones causing most concern in my area are academy agreements reached under a previous Government. I do not mean the coalition Government but a Government of another colour.

My noble friend has listened with his customary wisdom and intelligence to your Lordships’ House. He has been prepared to take and to hear criticism, and good advice, from all sides of the House. He has put forward very constructive proposals. I hope very much that your Lordships’ House will not be churlish and pick at rather minor drafting points. We all know that this is an early stage in the legislation process. It is still 2015, and the Bill will be tidied up before it becomes law. I hope the House will give a very fair wind to the generous way my noble friend has listened to the House, and to the amendments he has put forward, and will support government Amendment 24.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the amendments in this group after our deliberations in Committee. Before doing so, I apologise to the House: I very much wanted to take a full part in this debate, having raised many of these issues in Committee, but I have a personal appointment first thing in the morning in Manchester which I must keep. I am afraid that I have had to book a train to get me home tonight and, depending on how long Report stage takes, I may not be here for the end of the debate. I apologise for that.

I welcome the two government amendments in this group. Under Amendment 15B, the regulations on defining coasting will on the first occasion they are presented be subject to the affirmative resolution. That is a very welcome change on the Government’s part. I thank the Minister for taking the time to alert me to his proposals before today, and that was one of them.

I also welcome government Amendment 24, which, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, enables—as we argued strongly for in Committee—parity of treatment between academies and maintained schools where they are defined as coasting, in need of improvement or in special measures. This is very important, particularly given the Government’s aspiration for all schools eventually to be academies. It is very important that we are clear about the process that will pertain when an academy is coasting or in need of significant improvement. Will the Minister therefore elaborate on the detail and explain how this will work in practice?

The Minister has rightly stressed throughout these debates the importance of acting quickly when a school is coasting or in need of significant improvement. As he has said on many occasions, a day longer in such a school is too long for any child. I agree. Will he say something about the timescale that he envisages will apply if and when these provisions are used in relation to an academy? The amendment refers to the warning notice. Proposed new Section 2B(4) states:

“The Academy agreement must provide … the power to terminate the agreement … if the proprietor has failed to comply with a … warning notice … on time”.

What does that mean? What timescale are we talking about for implementation?

The amendments take us to the end point of giving the Secretary of State a power to terminate an academy agreement. I presume that that means that a school would not go back to being a maintained school and that it would close or become a new academy with some other sponsor. Is this correct? Will the Minister elaborate on what will happen to the school and the children if the original agreement is terminated? Again, stressing the need for children’s education to be protected, how long does he envisage it will be before alternative arrangements are in place?

Proposed new Section 2B(5) enables the Secretary of State, by regulation, to specify academies that will not be included in these provisions. What does the Minister envisage here? Does that mean that general regulations will be introduced that elaborate on the procedure by which these measures will be implemented? If so, by what means will this House approve them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments. On Amendment 16A, I always thought it curious that schools applying for academy status must consult, but those issued with an academy order do not need to. To move on, I hope that the Government will accept the amendments on the need to consult. I remember, as I have said, being a parent and governor in London at the time of comprehensivisation. Yes, it was sometimes bloody. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned trauma. It was traumatic: there were banners in the streets and protests. But finally, having consulted parents, everything settled down. It did not take all that long. The time allowed for consultation can be defined; it does not have to go on for ever.

It is disrespectful and dangerous not to consult parents. Consultation with parents brings them more onside with what is going on and makes them more likely to support the school that their children will enter.

Amendment 15C is interesting and important, but I am reminded of the Minister’s remarks on coasting towards the end of his speech on the first group of amendments, and of one of his letters—I think to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—which stated:

“Where a school has the capacity to improve sufficiently, we will give it the time and space to do so”.

The Minister refers there to the very important principle of having the possibility to think again, hesitate and perhaps seek further advice and information. I apply this to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State may—rather than must—intervene in the issuing of an academy order, that gives him or her an opportunity to look at the situation again. Looking again is often a very good thing.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I agree with many of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about the role of parents. It may have been 30 years ago that we had the disgraceful intimidation and political machinations in the consultation over grant-maintained schools. However, as I said at Second Reading, if you look at the anti-academies websites and those of many of the other activists who want to stop academies, you will see the same sentiments, tactics, and calls for strike action and action against this measure, so I am afraid that that spirit is still out there in the world. However, the new leadership of the Labour Party may stamp it out, and I look forward to that.

Of course, parents have a role. I do not want to repeat what I said at Second Reading as this is Report, but we need to watch this legislation. My local authority was very grateful to receive a visit from the Prime Minister on Monday, who praised the quality of our children’s services. Many local authorities perform well, and it is a pity that those authorities are not given more space. I am concerned about bureaucracy in connection with the regional schools commissioners but we must address the Bill and the amendments that are before us. The worst amendment in this group is—perhaps not surprisingly—the one that has attracted the interest of the Liberal Democrat Benches, namely Amendment 16A. I would be very disappointed if colleagues on the other side of the House united to support it. The amendment is concerned with schools that are causing concern where children are being failed and where intervention is needed. It proposes that we should delay intervention while someone consults the very governors of the school who have failed the pupils at that school. Those governors are referred to in proposed new subsection (2)(c) of the amendment. Are we in the House of Lords going to state in an Act of Parliament that the very people who have failed children must be consulted before something can be done? I cannot believe that we would support that.

It may well be that the “relevant local authority” referred to in Amendment 16A has failed, and that its performance is causing Ofsted concern. Why, then, should we insist that it be consulted when a school’s children need to be helped, or, indeed, that the teachers at the school should be consulted, as proposed in new subsection (2)(b) of the amendment? It has to be said, although it is harsh, that the teachers at the school may be some of the people whose performance has caused the problems. Therefore, I would be astonished if the Labour Party, which at least pays lip service to supporting academies—I am never quite sure whether the Liberal Democrats support them or not, but most of the time they seem not to do so—were to line up with the Liberal Democrats and say that we must have an elaborate consultation involving the very people who failed children in the first place.

This amendment also refers to,

“the minimum length of time that must be allowed”.

At the very least we should have the maximum time allowed—I suggest no days for pursuing or consulting a governing body that has failed children.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, listening to this debate, I feel it is finely poised. It is so important to bring parents along with one and it is so important not to delay in improving the educational experience of young people. I wanted to say a little in praise of academies, from my limited experience. When, under the previous Government, the legislation introducing academies came to this House, I strongly opposed it for a number of reasons. One was that it seemed to place structures above the most important thing, which is getting excellent teachers into the classroom.

My experience, from when I first entered your Lordships’ House, has been of the truth of the inverse care law. That is, that the most disadvantaged, poorest people and children are cared for by the least well-paid, lowest-status, least well-qualified people. In social care and in education, our aim should be to recruit and retain the very best people and put them on the front line with children and vulnerable families. I was therefore concerned that the focus was not right.

However, what I have heard in the course of discussing the Bill has somewhat encouraged me. First, for those who attended the meeting with the regional schools commissioners and the head teachers of academy schools, I think it came through very clearly that the benefits brought by academy status, in terms of the governance and leadership of schools, were described positively as bringing fresh blood and excellent governors to the boards. We have heard repeatedly in recent years, and very recently from Sir Michael Wilshaw, that there is continuing concern about the quality of governors. It was good to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, provide some comfort that, thanks to new regulations, in her experience at least, two new governors had come on to her board from local business. However, clearly that is not happening everywhere.

I was grateful to the Minister for arranging for me to visit the Ark school, King Solomon Academy, in Marylebone. It is in an area with a high level of free school meals; the area is very multi-ethnic, with a large migrant population. It is also the best performing non-selective school in the country. I learnt that there was outstanding governance there; superb leaders had come out of the City with a vision and had driven the school forward. The head teacher, Max Haimendorf, was recruited from the Teach First scheme—he was maybe only 28 when he became head teacher—and most of the other teachers are also from Teach First.

I reflected that, by this process of encouraging the very best governance in schools, one achieves the aim that I, and I think many others, have of finding the means to recruit and retain the very best teachers, at the front line. I hope I make that point clear. It seems to me that one benefit, which I hope will increase over time, is that by improving the governance and leadership of our schools, they will attract and retain the very best teachers, delivering those teachers to the vulnerable pupils who need them most.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting and compelling debate on this topic, but one element that has not been raised across your Lordships’ Chamber is that consultation provides a great opportunity for potential sponsors to sell their wares. If they are to take over a school, consultation provides them with a platform where they can show what they are going to offer and allow parents the opportunity to question them and understand what difference potential sponsors could make to their children’s school. That is a very valuable part of a consultation process.

In my head, consultation does not involve a plebiscite of parents, teachers, staff and governors, but it does involve an in-depth conversation, which is built into the process. That is why it is so important.

I must take exception with the noble Lord, Lord True, about why people who have overseen failure in their school should be part of the conversation. I will tell your Lordships why: because that is the moment at which they are called publicly to account. They have to present to parents the reason why their school is not fit to be continued under the current governorship and leadership and why it is important to pass it on.

[Lord True]

Is the noble Baroness suggesting that there should be public hearings as part of the consultation where governors appear in halls and are asked questions? How long is this process going to take? Who else will appear before these hearings?

Education and Adoption Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, considering that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has referred to a tiny speech I made earlier this evening, I will just expand on the views that we take on this side.

First, none of us wants a failing school to continue to fail. That is in absolutely nobody’s interest. Secondly, all of us who have been involved in local communities over the years—as those of us on this side have—understand that parents get very attached to what they know and are often therefore reluctant to see it change, However, if a school is failing, change it must. It was the 2006 Act, I think—although I could be wrong—that enabled local authorities to intervene. In my experience, they do that: my local authority does. It can intervene by completely changing the board of governors and putting in its own governing body, with nominations made by the local authority, which can then change the head teacher. Then you work with parents to explain to them and get them to understand that they should not be putting up with this poor-quality education for their children. Change can then happen.

One example of that is a school about three miles away from where I live which was in special measures. The local authority removed the governing body—without its consent—and put in its own people, who were experienced governors from elsewhere, plus nominations from the local authority. The head teacher was changed, and that school was judged to be good in its recent Ofsted report. That seems to me to have achieved what we all want to see achieved, which is that no child should have to suffer education in a failing school. So it can be done, but if you are going to have long-term success, you have to take the confidence of the parents with you, because they play an absolutely critical role in ensuring that their children succeed. I repeat again that that is what we on this side want to achieve. It can be done.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, if, as the noble Baroness said, she wants this to proceed as quickly as possible and something to be done about a school, I am rather mystified why in Grand Committee and, so far, on Report we have heard a whole series of amendments from the Liberal Democrats to delay and complicate the process. It seems that the words they say or put down on paper, and what they do, do not seem to match—but perhaps I am not understanding something.

Equally, I do not quite understand why, from the Front Bench opposite, we have the idea of a sunset clause saying we will get rid of all this in five years’ time. It is a funny way to go. I thought that in our democracy one was supposed to stand in a general election, put your plan to reverse the academy policy to the public and win the general election—or perhaps, on the basis of what we have been hearing on Report today, form a coalition with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

That is plan B.

[Lord True]

I am glad that the House has been informed of that and am sure that academies up and down the country will note that. But I think that the unelected House should probably leave it to the public to make that decision rather than putting in a sunset clause.

However, I did go with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on one point. I welcome what my noble friend Lord Nash has done in introducing a clear duty to communicate information and, pari passu, it may be that perhaps there could be some assurance that that duty to communicate would apply in the case suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, where there is a move from one academy provider to another, even if it does not have to go into the Bill. But of course that is not what is in the amendments before us. The noble Lord had an opportunity to propose that amendment but did not.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, also said that any academy worth its salt would want to communicate with parents. However, frankly, any local authority worth its salt—whatever it thinks and whether it is in charge of a failing school or not—should want to facilitate the change. Why would any authority not wish to? But it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to put in this provision which, again, the noble Lord has not tried to take out, although he referred to it. If a local authority is not minded to assist—and I have heard a few not-very-willing voices opposite—it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to put in a reserve power.

My own view is that these amendments fail. The House discussed the issue of extensive consultation earlier and a full House took a decision on that matter. Could we not now just settle on the communication which has been promised to parents, welcome my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment and proceed?

[The Lord Bishop of Ely]

My Lords, I am keen to follow what the noble Lord, Lord True, says in commending Amendment 20. The Minister very kindly earlier on commended the Church of England on its communication through its church schools. That effective communication, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said earlier on, is absolutely key. I know only too well that if there is fog in the pulpit, there is swirling mist everywhere else. Our communication through our church schools has to be effective because it is a key element in the building of fruitful relationships and networks of trust. Our diocesan multi-academy trusts are busy drawing church and community schools to join together and be more effective. But that is possible only through paying attention to parents and pupils in a process of effective communication, rather like what the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, earlier referred to as an effective conversation, which is an ongoing process.

I was also taken by the attention drawn by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, to the need for communication to be both determined and sensitive. If academy proprietors communicate clearly to parents that they understand the importance of the school’s character and values, a relationship of trust is already under way. I would hope that through a memorandum of understanding with the department, and in open dialogue with the RSCs, we in the church and in the wider community shall see a fruitful engagement with all stakeholders through effective communication that pays attention to building relationships at every level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we on this side are now anxious to make progress. We have had the discussions and the debate and are grateful to the Minister for the concessions that he has made on a number of issues. I pay tribute to him for that. He has worked hard at it. We do have some fundamental differences, but this is government: we have to move on, accept what has happened and make the changes work.

Unlike the noble Lord, Lord True, I am not going to pore through every comment that Conservatives have made and try to score cheap points, except to say of course that at the last general election, they got 37% of the vote and only 26% of the entire electorate.

[Lord True]

I did not think that it was a cheap point in this ancient democracy to say that the people decide.

Education and Adoption Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Earl has certainly not taken too long. The House always listens with great interest to his humane and informed words. I declare an interest as leader of a London borough council. All our existing or pending secondary schools are academies or free schools with my authority’s encouragement and support. I am also a trustee of a charity that provides funding for faith schools, whose existence I equally support. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, had pertinent things to say on that point.

I will concentrate on some of the educational clauses of the Bill, which I support. Like most local authority leaders, I agree with my noble friend that it is intolerable that any child should suffer poor education for a term, let alone a year or years. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, is absolutely right on this too. Delay in effecting change is unacceptable. Delaying tactics damage pupils’ prospects. Whatever has been said by the other side, my noble friend is right to address the opportunities for delay in taking action in schools that are not performing. Young people get one chance. The Bill is born of that, and that is why it is so welcome.

We have heard a lot today about problems with the idea of coasting schools. We have all seen the Government’s draft regulations, and public consultation is promised. I have no doubt that noble Lords will want to look at this in Committee. There is common ground around the Chamber that the reality is that we all know that there are schools that are treading water, at best, and it is reasonable that pressure should be applied to them and that, where need be, their leadership should be changed. I support that philosophy in the Bill.

Much of the heat outside about this Bill at root surrounds the concept of academies. Those views are not particularly heavily represented in this House, at least not so fanatically. Some people think academies are an educational elixir, while others damn them as poison. I am always ill at ease with any absolutist position, and I am not comfortable with the view on either side. I do not accept the view that some put—not my noble friend—that local authorities are the origin of all the ills of education and that improvement will be found simply by moving schools out of local authorities’ control. That is not what my noble friend said, and I think it is not what he believes. Indeed, Clause 12 is interesting in that it allows the revocation of academy orders.

In many cases it is proven beyond doubt that conversion has helped. On the other hand, a generalised anti-local-authority mantra is unhelpful. It may be justified in some cases, but it is hurtful to high-performing local authorities and the dedicated people who work in local education services. I do not say that because I have a dogmatic “local authority first” view. As many in the House know, my local authority was one of the first—perhaps the first—to change its local education authority into a social enterprise or community interest company, Achieving for Children. That company recently achieved an outstanding result in turning round the quality of services in Kingston under its new Conservative management. It is helping disadvantaged children in Sunderland, working with the department. Those results were achieved by highly skilled and motivated public servants from local government. Some people call them bureaucrats, but in my view they are outstanding public servants and we need to watch our language, as the Minister always carefully does. The House should know that he works very positively and creatively with local councils in seeking to secure educational improvement.

On the other hand, I am sure all of us have an equal distaste for dogmatic hostility to free schools and academies. I do not think we have heard that today. For one or two moments, I thought its spirit hovered a little uneasily near the head of the opening speaker from the Opposition Front Bench. The reality is that the signal towards academies was given by the Labour Government before 2010. That progress was continued under the coalition Government and will continue. Indeed, the new shadow Secretary of State for Education said the other day that she anticipates that almost all schools will be academies or free schools by 2020. That is the reality. Frankly, anyone who looks at the really bilious website of the Anti Academies Alliance would want to repudiate some of the things there. That organisation actually salutes a strike at a local school where both the Labour council and parents have supported conversion to an academy. There can be no meeting point between such people and real pupil-centred education. I am sure that the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench agrees that such opinions need to be repudiated. Incidentally, I would be very interested in an exposition from the noble Lord when he winds up on what Labour policy actually currently is, because we have all been following very closely Mr Corbyn’s remarks on these matters.

I strongly support this Bill because we need to deal with underperformance. If my cold will allow me, I shall add two personal comments which do not detract from my support of the Bill. Back in 2010, after the general election I went to see the then Secretary of State, Michael Gove, who I consider to be one of the great Secretaries of State for Education. I put to him my fears that an overswift expansion of academies might lead to some excessively large chains emerging without the vital sense, which is fundamental to good schooling, that a well-led secondary or, indeed, primary school grows out of and is at the very heart of its local community. We discussed the idea of families of community-led academies—secondary schools surrounded by and perhaps even led by primary schools, or garlands of primaries as I like to call them—or multi-academy trusts going for conversion. The world is now moving in that direction. It is what we have tried to achieve in Richmond with our academies and it is happening in many other areas. We heard from the right reverend Prelate about how it is happening in Ely. Schools which are academies are not necessarily atomised. They are independent and have some elements of competition, but if they work together they can be balanced by local roots, cohesion and co-operation. At the time, I think Mr Gove saw the point, but he was understandably keen to make progress in the context of the law left behind by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. In some ways, my right honourable friend was right.

Of course, there are areas of weakness and on those the dogmatic opponents of academies gleefully pounce. Sometimes they may be slightly remote and complacent management, failure to grip poor leadership or teaching approaches or sometimes—I have experienced this at first hand—a sense that managers of academy chains do not adopt the deeply personal community-based approach that we heard about from my noble friend Lord Harris but are a little untouchable. I do not think that is the case. I know from experience that my noble friend the Minister has already taken firm action in relation to coasting academies, but I wonder whether it might be possible in the course of the Bill to reflect on whether it might be wise to make more explicit the Government’s power to intervene, in order to draw the sting from the idea that there is inequality between maintained schools and academies. I do not think that is the case; I do not think that the Government tolerate underperformance in any school, but I welcome the chance to talk to my noble friend about that.

I have some concerns about where regional commissioners might evolve. For now, it is a mechanism that we should support, adopt and use to make change. However, as pressure on them grows, the numbers of schools that they supervise increase. Questions will arise about accountability, as others have said. They are potentially, in effect, arms of a phantom regional government. Is it not inevitable that bureaucracies will grow? Who will recruit to those expanding offices? Who will judge their performance and how? Who can guarantee that such new bureaucracies will be responsive to local concerns, as local authorities must be? How will parents and the public hold them to account? I hope that, having used this necessary instrument now—which I support—we will not in a few years’ time find ourselves looking to rein in what we are now creating.

I do not want to encourage noble Lords opposite too much, but I always look at the political aspect. Regional commissioners could be morphed, by a stroke of the pen, into new appointments to the national education service—proposed by Mr Corbyn and controlled from the centre—with very different educational objectives from those of this Government. You cannot change local authority leadership except by the ballot box. You cannot break academies except by legislation but, for regional commissioners, a simple letter of dismissal from an incoming Secretary of State would suffice. I hope that, once he has used this necessary instrument in the years ahead, my noble friend and his colleagues will have a care that they are not creating new future bureaucracies. They might even be petri dishes in which the blob could replicate itself again.

These, however, are wider, long-term reflections, that are not for now; for now, we should address ourselves to the business of supporting the Bill, considering the Bill and, I hope, passing the Bill, so that my noble friend and the Government can continue with the necessary work of bringing improvement to pupils in our schools.

Childcare Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbourne (CB)]

My Lords, might I ask in the context of this debate what the Government mean and we mean by quality in childcare? Is it the quality of childcare only or the quality of childcare and the relationship between the adult and the child? I respectfully submit that one of the most important factors in childcare is the relationship that develops between the child and the carer.

The Government have adopted the early years formula and put a lot of money into it. I think that they are absolutely right to do so, but I suggest that to some extent this Bill in mechanising, as it were, the management of the care of children runs the risk of losing the relationship by which a very young child learns to love, care and interrelate with other human beings. I wonder if the fact that so often we are losing that relationship in the early years is not the cause of some of our troubles in family life later on as the young people get older.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy for some of things said by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, although I would not follow him the entire way. However, while I understand why noble Lords have tried to provoke a debate on regulations—we do need one at some point—at this stage of policy development it is quite difficult because we still have not resolved the underlying issue of the nature of what we are about.

I understand the logic of it, but I am concerned by the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We already have before us a proposal for the state to provide universal childcare for 1,140 hours a year—although the state will not provide it: the poor old providers in the schools and all the other people will have do that. As we found at Second Reading, that is more than we ask for sixth-formers studying for A-level courses or for pupils studying for their GCSEs. However, we are saying to those three and four year-olds, “Come here and stay for 1,140 hours”. That cannot in any sense all be about education—it certainly is not entirely about the effective relationships that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was talking about. Now, on top of that, to say in Amendment 21 that the settings must provide even more than 1,140 hours a year is, if you will forgive the classical allusion, to pile Pelion on Ossa. It is simply not conceivable that under regulation, which applies to everybody who works in this sector—you cannot have some people obeying the regulation, while others do not—these extra hours should be piled on also.

We hear a lot of talk about flexibility, and of course I support that, but again I urge the Committee to recognise that a lot of the women who provide this care and education—and they are mostly women; I keep saying that, but it is true—want their flexibility too. A lot of them are young mothers or grandmothers, and they cannot sit around in these settings at the behest of the state for hour after hour. That is simply not the way things work in the real world. Therefore if we are to have a debate about flexibility, can we please bear in mind the flexibility of the good people who have to provide that service and who have the vocational wish to provide education? I would be very wary about adding to the burden, as this amendment would, and I think my noble friend will be cautious about it.

On the regulation amendments, this may be premature, and I fully understand where the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, is coming from, but there are inherent disparities in the existing regulations. Maintained schools have to provide a lower ratio than private and voluntary providers. I do not quite understand the overall logic for that, but that is what it is. When plans to change the ratios were put forward recently, which I thought deserved a hearing, there was a bit of—what was the word used?—an outcry. However, the reality is that we cannot at once argue that a ratio of 1:13 is fine if you are in a maintained sector, but if you are in a non-maintained sector it has to be 1:8 or less. Clearly, there is room for some discussion about where to fit the right level.

Again, I will be nervous until we see the colour of the Government’s money—or, rather, the way in which this system will work. It is premature in the debate to say that the existing regulations and hours are necessarily the right ones, as they may well not be affordable. There is a trade-off. You cannot have an immensely expensive policy of employment subsidy by providing places for children to be placed while their parents go off and do other things and necessarily do everything at the level you want to. Therefore we have to think about that. Again, however, I underline what I have tried to make my main theme in this Committee; if we are talking about quality, there is a lot out there that is to do with education, such as good learning and advancement of children’s development. In trying to create a single universal policy by regulation, we must not lose sight of the diversity and richness of the educational element of early years care, which certainly cannot take place over a longer period than sixth-formers and GCSE students are asked to support. That is simply not on. I would be nervous about settling on particular regulations just at this moment, but I hope that we will have a chance to have this debate. My noble friend has offered the road to that in later proceedings on the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

28: Clause 2, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) Nothing in any regulations under this Act may impose any obligation on any private or voluntary childcare setting or school that does not wish, or is unable, to—
(a) participate in a scheme, or any part of a scheme;(b) provide such information to the Secretary of State, a public body or local authority as may be required under this Act of participants in a scheme,under this Act to provide 30 hours of free childcare.”

[Lord True]

My Lords, I can be relatively brief, since some of this follows earlier discussions. I have yet to be persuaded that the ranks of providers and settings that we are told are required will spring into being. I was interested in what my noble friend said in response to the previous amendment: new settings will emerge that will enable flexibility. When I think of the struggles that I have as a local authority leader to find settings for primary schools, let alone nursery schools, I do not think it will necessarily be quite as easy as that. Furthermore, I urge that, when we read through this debate, the point that I made about flexibility as it applies to part-time workers and the people providing the service is understood. We ask a lot of our nursery teachers at the moment and many of them have busy family lives.

My main point with regard to this amendment is that, at the moment, the voluntary, private, independent sector is relatively small. However, the Bill envisages an economy in which we move to an expectation that any setting that is participating in this scheme will actually provide 30 hours of care for 38 weeks a year. As I tried to illustrate on an earlier amendment, there are a very large number of settings in rented premises such as church halls and parish halls, or providers whose teachers want to follow the school term because they themselves have children at school; it suits many such employees to have school holidays. For various reasons, many providers will simply not be able to provide the 30 hours for 38 weeks on any method. Some will not be willing to do so because they place greater emphasis on educational purpose than on occupying the crease. There is a dashing element to education and there is a Geoff Boycott mode of being there for 1,140 hours to fulfil the commitment. I do not expect a formal answer from my noble friend. All I am asking on this amendment is to consider those extremely valuable settings in villages and small places where the parish hall may be required for other purposes. Socially, they are extremely important and they should not be hyper-regulated to whatever extent the Treasury says we have to regulate this new sector to protect public money—so that for the 30 hours and 38 weeks we have to comply with 65 pages of new regulations to ensure that the state’s money is protected.

All I am asking is that it is understood, just as we understand with independent education, academies and free schools, that there may be some variety. There may be places where good-quality education is provided where it is not necessary to conform to every regulation that the state puts forward for this 30-hour, 38-week scheme. This is a plea to my noble friend as he reflects on this. This informal sector should not be snuffed out by being crowded out by state-supported provision and commercial ventures that are allowed to borrow against the certain stream of the 30-hour, 38-week commitment from the taxpayer. If it is to be nurtured, can we give those settings the same degree of latitude with regulations, while obviously making the same demands about inspection, that we give to the excellent educators in academies, free schools and the independent sector in maintained education, where we do not necessarily expect everything to be the same? That is the thought behind Amendment 28. It is not necessarily a perfect amendment, but just a thought that I place.

Amendment 38 is simply a rider to that. Ofsted does important work, and every setting needs a “good” or “outstanding” Ofsted finding to succeed. When Ofsted is assessing educational quality—not just Geoff Boycott occupying the crease—can we be sure that in no circumstances will it include in any report that the setting is not open for 1,140 hours and is therefore not conforming to the standards that are expected? It is very easy to slip into that sort of position.

I am not expecting an answer now because Report and later stages of the Bill will follow, but I fear that the independent informal sector may grow simply because it physically cannot conform to the requirements of 30 hours and 38 weeks. We should not resent that or compete with it. We should nurture it and that should be understood in the policy approach to regulation and inspection. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock]

I want to comment on two aspects of what the noble Lord, Lord True, has proposed. He raised the issue of capacity, which we raised on the first day in Committee. We received assurances from the Minister that capacity would be much less of an issue than some of us feared. I trust that the Minister believes that to be the case. If so, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord True, is overstating the issues that he has raised today.

The second matter is more important and concerns the continuity of care provided if we go for this 30 hours a week. Almost inevitably, as we said on the first day in Committee, many children will take part in different settings, so 15 hours may be in a school nursery setting and the other 15 in a private nursery, with a childminder or a combination of all three—childminder, private sector day nursery and state nursery. We should think very carefully about that. I hope that the Minister will be able to come back with some thoughts about this. Very young children may be moving between those three different settings during the course of a day. How does that benefit them? How can we overcome some of those changes that the noble Lord, Lord True, has raised in the discussion around his amendment this afternoon?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 28 and 38. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for raising this issue and I hope I can satisfy him that we are keen to stimulate new provision and not crowd it out by regulations. As someone who has fielded against Boycott, I can assure him that his approach is deceptive. He does actually hit the ball extremely hard.

As I explained in Committee last week, no provider is required to offer places under the existing entitlement. It is of course very pleasing that so many choose to do so. I do not expect that providers will be required to provide places for these additional hours should they choose not to do so. If they do not, they will not be prevented from providing places under the existing entitlement of 15 hours. We have no plans to make the regime more burdensome. If a provider is providing the existing 15 hours, he will have a service-level agreement with a local authority and if that is how he decides to provide the extra 15 hours, he will have a service-level agreement for that provision. However, if a provider decides not to deliver this, there will be no plans for extra regulation.

The noble Lord asked whether failure to provide places will be reflected in Ofsted assessments. A rigorous inspection regime is important to ensuring the effective use of government funding and improving the quality of provision that children receive, regardless of whether they accept children under the free entitlement or not. However, I reassure the noble Lord that whether or not a provider offers free places will not be a factor in Ofsted inspection judgments. Of course, the quality of provision provided to such children will continue to be inspected. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that, as I said last week, if grandparents are working they can therefore qualify for the provision. I will reflect on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I am happy to discuss those with them privately. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord others who have spoken about their concerns. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am very grateful, as ever, to my noble friend for listening carefully; I found what he said very reassuring. I will obviously want to look closely at Hansard, but what is important above all is his clear commitment to continuing the dialogue with providers and to understand the mixed nature of the sector. Having heard what he said, particularly his assurance regarding Ofsted—and in no way resisting the comments about quality, which is vital—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

35: Clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 26 to 28

[Lord True]

My Lords, having just spoken from a point of view sympathetic to providers, I now come forward as a paid-up member of the trade union of local authority leaders. I suppose that that is a switch from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hyde, since local authorities have not always been the flavour of the month in my noble friend’s department. However, they do try honourably every day to assist in the provision of high-quality education, and I hope that that will be recognised as work on this legislation goes forward. Local authorities are not the enemy: they are often part of the solution.

This is a probing amendment—that is very clear. We are told that further regulations are to be produced requiring each English local authority to provide all sorts of as yet unspecified information. Governments have a terrible habit of requiring information from people, and I am afraid that local authorities sometimes do as well—I plead guilty to that, although I have tried to eradicate it. Every piece of information asked for that is not germane is a burden on business and a burden on the setting. It should be avoided unless it is of overwhelming social benefit. Filling in forms, answering emails and getting involved in chit-chat about whether information is expressed in the right way all take time away from administering, teaching and other important jobs. I hope that providing this unspecified information, whatever it is to be, will not add administrative burdens and costs to local authorities above the minimum level and certainly that it will not prove a burden on the providers and small settings.

The policy statement so helpfully circulated by my noble friend refers to the fact that, under existing legislation, local authorities currently provide a certain amount of useful information: the hours of the setting, where there is one; costs, if people wish to declare them; and other similar items. You can go on your local authority website and find out about nursery settings in your area. The policy statement goes on to say that although the new regulations will require more information, it will not be very different from what is already provided under the existing system. If that is the case, why have this regulatory power? How is it going to be used? Once we have given it away to the Government, or whoever, is there not a risk of regulatory creep as one Government succeed another? I do not think it is necessarily enough to pass a law that everything should stay the same. I ask for an assurance that over the course of the Bill we can have a dialogue about the burden that providing information imposes both on local authorities and on providers.

I conclude with one point that goes back to the position of the provider—particularly those providers that may be on the fringes of staying in the scheme. The more you press them for information, the more they become unwilling to give it, the more careless they get about filling in what they are doing and the more coercive systems can become. None of that is intended, but with accretive creep it could happen. If we are to have regulation then let us be absolutely clear about the boundaries, let us not take it too far and let us never consider that quality is necessarily assured by regulation. Regulation may be part of it, but quality is assured by good service and is tested and assessed in this sector by Ofsted. If this policy is as successful as my noble friend hopes, and anybody in this country is enabled to choose the care they want, then quality will also be provided—perish the thought—by the market, because no one will be constrained from making the childcare choices they want, and logically the good settings will succeed and the bad settings will not. So, please: let us have restraint on regulation. As we go forward I would be grateful for an assurance that my noble friend will talk to local authorities and providers about finding the right balance in the regulations required, lest we get into a merry-go-round of demand, counterdemand and otiose administration. I beg to move.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, in responding to the debate on the first group of amendments the noble Baroness asked whether I had recovered from my daughter’s wedding, which took place last Thursday. We ended it yesterday with a family lunch. As the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I agreed last week, in Wales a wedding can last a number of days. In my daughter’s case that was certainly true.

My noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen cannot be with us this afternoon, so I shall speak to her Amendment 37. It is a straightforward amendment, which would place a duty on each local council to share information directly with partner agencies in the area, including children’s centres. In my experience, something as simple as this is all too often overlooked when we consider a measure such as the Bill. To digress for a moment, I know from personal experience of the National Health Service in the past couple of years that structures are often in place that actively work against information sharing, to the detriment of a patient.

With this amendment we have the chance to ensure that this does not happen with the Childcare Bill. Information about childcare services is crucial and can be complex. Sources of information vary from the formal, through local authority networks, to the informal, by word of mouth. We welcome the Government’s intention to ensure that parents can access information about childcare and other services through a range of sources in a local authority area. The amendment suggests that the requirement on local authorities to publish this information could go further to ensure that those who would benefit most from childcare support are made aware of good-quality care. Children’s centres can and do work hard to reach parents. Action for Children’s parent champions for childcare, based in children’s centres, can give personal support and advice, which is often much needed.

There is much merit in the amendment. I hope that the Minister, if she cannot accept it today, will at the very least reflect on it and come back to us on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

May I ask the Minister about a point of detail? At a recent meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group dealing with children’s centres, one of the practitioners said that, while in the past Ofsted has examined centres to see how they were engaging with fathers, it had been decided that it should no longer do that. For instance, when providing information to parents, a centre might say, “Dear Mum and Dad” or “Dear Mother and Father”, rather than saying “Dear Parents”, in order to reach out to and engage fathers. They do a lot of work to try to reach fathers. That should be recognised. It may not be the case—it was only one practitioner’s experience—but I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me to confirm whether Ofsted is checking this, acknowledging the good work in this area.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. She looked around to see whether I was still in my place. I share the concern of noble Lords who are coming in about the trauma being inflicted on the people of Greece by the euro project, and I have moved along to allow other people to come in and make a point. I have to leave after this stage.

I am very grateful to my noble friend for what she said. It is important always to remember, before every piece of legislation that comes before this House, that the need for one local government officer at a relatively low grade across the 32 boroughs of London alone costs £1 million. That is besides the rest of the country and is a minimum sum, so noble Lords will understand why I am concerned that no regulatory demand should place pressure on local authorities to employ even more.

I am very grateful for the undertaking that we can have discussions on this and I am very grateful for the spirit in which my noble friend responded to the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

Childcare Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement and am very pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, will be helping in the progress of this Bill. The noble Lord chaired most ably the Select Committee on Affordable Childcare. It is to this point that I wish to refer, following on from the points made by my noble friend Lady Andrews about the skeletal nature of the Bill and the inadequacy of the deliberations before the Bill came to us.

The Affordable Childcare Select Committee interviewed more than 80 experts in childcare and several academics and parents. It was an excellent committee effectively chaired. I would like to know from the Minister whether the Government have actually read the Select Committee report. Even though the report was presented to this House in February, we have been promised a response only in the autumn. That seems to me to be a very long time for consideration.

If the Government have read the report, does the Minister think that it would be a good basis on which to produce or propose legislation now? The Government have missed an opportunity to produce a really good, solid Bill. They have not done so. They had the opportunity to read the Affordable Childcare Select Committee report with all its recommendations. What will the Government do now about this Select Committee report? Will they take it seriously and why have they not done so already?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I raised this matter on Second Reading. I was critical of my noble friend on the Front Bench and of the way in which the Bill had been brought forward. This was from the viewpoint of someone who spent rather too long in Whitehall and even longer—13 years—in the usual channels. I repeat what I said: it was not a good way to go about legislating. But I think that the House is at its best when it sheds light, rather than heat, on a subject, so perhaps we should get on and consider it in Committee.

The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition was a little bit holier than thou. During all the years I spent toiling in opposition, I remember a fair number of pretty outrageous Bills—indeed, skeleton Bills—that came forward from the other side. I remember in particular a scandalous planning Bill which would not bear much resuscitation. So we have all been guilty and we all agree that the House is at its best and does its duty best when it has the opportunity to consider a Bill in detail. I was grateful for the chance to talk to the Leader of the House yesterday, and to my noble friend, who responded, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, with the courtesy and consideration that the House expects from him. Clearly, a mistake was made. When a new Government are formed they understandably want to make progress on important matters. Lessons have been learned and I am unequivocally grateful to my noble friend for his response.

There is just one small thing. I do not want to upset my noble friend the Chief Whip, but Report stage is quite restrictive. It is not for me to do the usual channels any more but it may be that, in the light of information we receive, some of the Report consideration could be on recommittal, to enable your Lordships to look at one or two matters, provided that there is no obstruction to the timely passage of the Bill. This is a matter for the usual channels but the House does have that flexibility. I should like to thank my noble friend for the generous, courteous and honest way in which he has come forward with good solution for the House.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister’s statement has been described as unusual. I welcome unusual statements, especially from Ministers; it is normally a sign that some thought has been given to what is happening, which is much appreciated.

The messages are clear. The Delegated Powers Committee has produced an absolutely vigorous report and comment which mirrors much of what was said at Second Reading. We have the beginnings of a response from the Government and, if I can play a small part in that, I shall be delighted to do so—I assure noble Lords that it will be on an all-party basis, as the Select Committee was.

The critical issues are, first, how much information will be available to the House before Report. That is fundamental to having adequate further discussion. Secondly, in the case of this particular Bill, is a very clear distinction being drawn between primary legislation and regulation? These are the two areas where major discussion needs to be held. I hope that postponing Report will give us time to do that—and I hope that we might even have the odd, additional, unusual statement coming forth to help us in a difficult situation to get a Bill through that we all want to see in good shape so that we can strongly represent it to the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey]

First, I apologise to your Lordships for not being able to speak at Second Reading. I will speak to Amendments 1, 29 and 38A. I very much agree with the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Howarth, but am very nervous of phrases such as “value for money” and “best value” in local government. It has to be about what is best in terms of provision. We have seen early years childcare grow over the last two decades. We have seen the Labour Government, the coalition Government and now the Conservative Government all doing something about early years, but we have not really thought about how it is going to look and how we want it to work. I find it concerning, for example, that three-quarters of our nurseries are, as we know, independent. There is nothing wrong with that, but we know that of those independent nurseries only half have a qualified teacher on the staff. We also know that, when there is a qualified teacher, the learning experience for those children is far greater than otherwise. So it has to be about the quality of the provision, for me.

I wonder about the effects of having those extra 15 hours. It might be great for working parents, but how do they affect the child? I will give an example. Schools will have nurseries, where children will go for part-time provision for three hours a day, Monday to Friday. So you can see a system arising now whereby the working parent will take the child to the childminder and the childminder will then take the child to the school nursery for three hours. With the extra 15 hours, they cannot use the school again, because it is a different set of children in the afternoon—not in every case but in most cases—so they will look for a different provider for the afternoon session. Then the child will go back to the childminder to be taken home to the parent. So there will be four different regimes or experiences of childcare, and I really wonder what the effect will be on those children. We need to look closely and calmly not just at the extra resource and provision, which we all welcome, but at how we ensure that there is quality.

[Lord True]

My Lords, this is very much a debate on Amendment 1, and I welcome it—it must not be another Second Reading debate—but the points in the amendment seem to be the essence of good governance. Even if my noble friend is unable to accept the amendment, I am sure that he would be the first to say that government will be constantly reviewing the cost of providing childcare and constantly consulting. I am already grateful for the assurances that I have had that he will consult childcare providers. So in that sense the spirit of it is agreed. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that longitudinal and technical study is extremely important. Without going over where we have been before, policy should be founded on consideration of good information and be brought forward in due process, and we are moving towards that.

I have one mild stricture for the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. She said that she did not care about what was in the government manifesto. That is a perfectly reasonable personal thought, but I think Mr Lloyd George from her Benches reminded this House that it ought to have a care for the manifesto of a newly elected Government. So I know that she does not oppose this Bill, but I hope that it is not going to be a doctrine that we hear from the Liberal Democrats—that they do not care too much what the elected Government have promised.

I wanted to probe further on regulation. I shall read Hansard very carefully tomorrow. My noble friend does not necessarily have to reply in detail; it may be something that he wants to give further thought to. But on the question of regulations—maybe draft regulations, not the final regulations—the fact is that the wrong regulations under this Bill, and under its wide powers, could drive small, private and voluntary settings out of existence, just as the wrong sort of heat drives our trains off our railways, it seems. That will be one of the concerns that I express as we go through the Bill. It is reasonable for Parliament to want to avoid the wrong sort of regulations on behalf of those whom we represent. Of course, I declare a particular interest as the leader of a local authority that may have to implement those regulations and as the husband of a provider who may have to respond to them. I hope that between now and October my noble friend will see whether we can show a little bit of ankle on the regulations, because some of them could be literally life and death, not only to businesses and voluntary organisations but to the hard-working women, if I may use that phrase —they are predominantly women—who work in these settings, many of them part time. So I would be grateful for the most that he can do to help us on regulations.

In the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, of course I agree that value for money is important. Once upon a time, Her Majesty’s Treasury was very interested in value for money before any policy came forward; now it seems that we are looking into affordability once the policy has been published. The value-for-money argument has another aspect to it that I hope we will not lose sight of. I recognise that the Government are committed to this principle. However, this policy, we are told, is going to be funded by taking away benefit from people earning more than £150,000 a year who are provident enough to save for their retirement. That money is going to be given to another set of people, many of them earning more than £150,000 a year, who, you might say, are not provident enough to put a bit of money aside to pay for childcare for their children. That could be a bit of a merry-go-round, to use a phrase that we have heard lately.

As the policy evolves, I hope that we will consider whether the state, the Government and the taxpayers are getting the best value for their money—not only what parents get in terms of providers; that is an issue of quality. This looks potentially—we shall see—to be a very expensive policy with a very substantial dead-weight cost involved in it of paying for a lot of people for something that they pay for already.

I do not expect an answer but I hope that that thought will inform a little the consideration of the implementation of the policy. Having slightly enlarged on the noble Earl’s Amendment 29, I hope that that aspect of value for money will be kept in mind as development of the Bill goes forward.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, in this group, I will speak to Amendments 1, 27, 40, 41 and 42, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and to Amendments 29 and 38A, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. I will attempt to flesh out a sequence of events and a road map which the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Andrews, spoke about. I will write to noble Lords about this and place a copy in the Library well before Report.

The Government are committed to delivering the provisions in the Childcare Bill in a way that is flexible, affordable and high quality for parents. A number of amendments in this group refer to specific activities that have been discussed with reference to the Motion to move the Bill into Committee and that were covered in the policy statement published last week. As I clarified on Second Reading, the Government are reviewing the cost of providing childcare and have committed to increase the average funding rate paid to providers. It is essential that the rate that we pay is fair for providers, value for money for taxpayers and consistent with the Government’s fiscal plans. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in Amendment 29 that value for money must be a consideration for all aspects of government spending, and the early years should be no different. The extension of the free entitlement is a significant government investment.

Last month, the Government launched a call for evidence as part of the funding review and, as I have said, we have already had more than 500 responses. As I have also said, we will report back on the review’s findings by Report and will then be able to say a lot more about the delivery model. I can confirm that we want childminders to be able to deliver the extra 15 hours of childcare, as they already deliver the universal 15 hours.

On 25 June, I wrote to noble Lords with an assessment of the impact of the Bill on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, child poverty, the public sector equality duty and the family test. The collective conclusion of these assessments is that the extension of the free childcare entitlement will have a positive impact for children and families. I can confirm to noble Lords that the Government will publish a full impact assessment on the extent of free entitlement when draft regulations are published for consultation in due course.

The Government want to engage with parents, providers, local authorities, employers and representative bodies about how parents currently access childcare and how it is delivered. This will begin shortly. We want to hear what is important to parents in choosing a childcare provider, and their views on how the extended entitlement will best meet their childcare needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20 in my name. However, before doing so, I want briefly to lend my support to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. I feel that it is a very important amendment as it provides a necessary rebalancing in the Bill between the needs of the child—we heard the statement about putting the child at the heart of the Bill—and those of working parents. Both are important but we have to think very hard about how those two interests and sets of needs can be best balanced.

The amendment to Clause 1 in my name would require regulations to set out the quality standards that childcare providers must adhere to in order to deliver the 30 hours of free childcare. Essentially it is about the quality of the childcare to be provided and it is a probing amendment.

While it is encouraging that the quality of childcare is gradually improving—we heard about this at Second Reading—there are still insufficient numbers of high-quality free entitlement places for three and four year-olds and disadvantaged two year-olds, resulting still in too many children attending poor-quality settings or being unable to access provision that meets their individual needs. Some 15% of disadvantaged two year-olds are attending settings that have not been judged good or outstanding by Ofsted. We know that this position is particularly stark both for children with special educational needs and disabilities—we will come later to amendments that focus on that group of children—and for disadvantaged children. I thought that the Affordable Childcare Select Committee report—I declare an interest as a member—was particularly strong in pointing out that childcare provision in deprived areas is less likely to be good or outstanding than that in affluent areas, compounding the disadvantage that already exists.

We know that current quality standards for early education and childcare are set out in statutory guidance for local authorities. However—this is my key point—it seems to me imperative that the expansion of free childcare to 30 hours does not in any way undermine recent progress in improving the quality of the free entitlement. The early years foundation stage and a robust Ofsted inspection process have both been central to improvements in outcomes for young children in recent years. While the Government acknowledge in statutory guidance that high-quality provision has the greatest impact on children’s development—that is very welcome, particularly for the most disadvantaged children—they have not restricted the delivery of the free entitlement solely to good and outstanding providers due to a shortage of high-quality places.

It is unclear to me—hence this probing amendment—whether the Government plan to use regulations underpinning the Secretary of State’s new duty to prescribe the quality standards that childcare providers must meet in order to be able to deliver the 30 hours of free childcare. I always like to look on the bright side, so it seems to me that the Bill presents an opportunity to secure quality standards for the additional 15 hours of free childcare and, at the same time, to strengthen existing quality standards for the free entitlement for three and four year-olds.

Very much in that spirit, perhaps I may ask the Minister some questions. First, will regulations be used to place quality requirements on providers of the additional 15 hours of free childcare? Secondly, can the Minister provide assurances that all childcare settings providing the additional 15 hours will be required to be judged good or outstanding in their most recent Ofsted inspection to deliver the early years foundation stage and to have all staff holding or working towards a level 3 qualification? Thirdly, will the Government consider using the introduction of the additional 15 hours of childcare to raise the quality of the current free entitlement? Finally, can the Minister provide any assurance that the Government will develop, publish and implement—I am sure that many people in this House would be happy to help on this—a strategy for expanding on and improving the quality of the early years workforce, building further on the recommendation in Professor Nutbrown’s report and, in particular, on the recommendation that there should be graduate leadership in all settings, including, most importantly, those in disadvantaged areas?

[Lord True]

I wish to speak to an amendment that I have in this group. I follow entirely the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, about the need for things being child-centred. My noble friend was kind enough to embarrass my wife by saying that she was Montessorian of the Year, so I am obviously particularly attached to the Montessori system, which is quintessentially child-centred.

I will not repeat the remarks that I made at Second Reading but I think that, as the Select Committee said, there is a little bit of a risk of a conflict at the heart of the Bill. It is presented by my noble friend as an Education Minister but much of the rationale is that it is an employment measure. Indeed, the Minister for Employment is creating a task force that is intended to enhance the take-home pay of a two-earner household doing whatever the regulations—when we see them—will define as work. We do not know quite what that is, but we know that it is work done outside the home or work done inside the home, other than anything to do with caring for the children, as far as I can see. At the same time, we are moving from 15 to 30 hours and bringing in something that was never there before—a barrier against women who stay at home and provide that affective affinity which is so vital. Heaven knows, my mother was never a graduate—she did her bit in the war—but I do not like to think there was anyone better than her at providing childcare. I hope that we can find a way in going forward with this policy to explore whether that barrier is necessary. It will be costly in terms of administration for local authorities, and potentially to providers, and potentially socially costly in what it says about the role and enormous social, and therefore economic, contribution made by mothers who stay at home.

I fear that increasingly, given the comments I have received since the remarks I made at Second Reading. I have had a number of emails from groups and individuals about what I said at Second Reading about not venturing to put in second place the role of the mother who stays at home and cares for a child. That has certainly struck a chord. We must have care as we tread forward. If we really do believe in a big society, is that a big society that we wish to build? I unashamedly think that that is a marvellous phrase of the Prime Minister’s, and I strongly support the principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, as a local authority leader I am obviously grateful for the way that my noble friend responded. I understand precisely what he said about flexibility. At the moment, local authorities have to deliver the universal entitlement, the conditional entitlement and the targeted benefit for two year-olds. This will be another, different category of support. He is quite right to say that that needs to be thought through. I am not going to alarm the House as I once alarmed Whitehall by pronouncing the dread word “voucher”, but there are all sorts of ways that these things can be looked at.

I am worried that as a House our gift to Lady Nash is detaining my noble friend Lord Nash here at great length, but the only thing I would say, given this opportunity, is that local authorities will not find this easy. I agree with the permissive approach that my noble friend has endorsed and I am grateful for that, but just to inform the House, I asked my officials what it would potentially cost to extend provision to 30 hours across our existing maintained sector. Because of the constraints on building and taking a reasonable view that the regulations will not be less demanding than existing ones, capital investment would be more than £6 million for our maintained schools. That was in a local authority with a low proportion of maintained to private and voluntary provision.

While I understand the aspiration of the noble Baroness to enable local authorities to come forward, I think the Government and the House need to understand that the resource constraints on local authorities in filling such a gap would be considerable.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I thank noble Lords —we have had a good short debate. I understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord True, that, although we can recognise the success of local authorities’ involvement until now, this would be a new challenge for them. Of course, if you follow the logic of that through—I think the noble Lord was making a bid for some extra money when he talked about the capital costs—there is no guarantee that the Secretary of State or local authorities will have the extra money to fund some of that capital build that we all know would be necessary.

I have listened very carefully to what the Minister said, but I have to say that he was not very persuasive on this matter. He said that they are consulting. I understand, and we agree with the need to consult, but if that is the case, how come this is very specifically in the Bill when everything else could or could not be part of regulations?

My key concern is that the Minister did not address the complexity of running a parallel system. The noble Lord did not respond to the question of whether local authorities would still be responsible for the first 15 hours. As I said in my opening remarks, it appeared that they would be responsible for the first 15 hours, so making somebody else responsible for the next 15 hours does not seem to make sense at any level.

I shall withdraw the amendment, but I think this is something that needs a great deal more thinking through before we get to Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I have a very straightforward and simple question for the Minister. When I first read the Bill, I was struck by the phrase “working parents”. Do the Government really mean working parents or do they mean those with parental responsibility? One of the things the Minister will know about family construction in this country is that nuclear families, with two parents and two children, are at a minimum. I spent my life in the children’s court system looking at extraordinarily complex types of families. People with parental responsibility might be kin such as grandparents, aunts or other relatives, or they might not be directly related but have been given some sort of kinship care prior to adoption. There is a whole range there and I hope that the Bill, at some point, will make it clear that this is about those with parental responsibility. That would end the debate about a whole range of the issues that have just been raised.

[Lord True]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very interesting point. I will intervene on a slightly different tack. I have tried to present myself as friendly and caring so far, and I hope I am, but we have of course just heard a debate which has lasted half an hour with a range of different aspirations. Some are very worthy, including those on behalf of the homeless, grandparents and people with wider parental responsibilities, and some relate to whether different types of things are work or not. I have not counted how many categories have been suggested by your Lordships, but there are probably 10 and maybe 12, each of which has to be assessed and policed by somebody. I do not want to try my noble friend again, but this problem of defining the frontier and policing the entitlement arises from what I called earlier the net curtain between the so-called working and the so-called non-working—although there are wider issues in relation to broader parental responsibility.

At the moment we have a beautifully simple system: someone comes with a child of three or four; the providers simply tell the local authorities the numbers; a return is made; and money is given to the providers and paid over. Each one of these aspirations requires a different sort of assessment, probably by a different part of the public sector. It may even touch people who do not touch the public sector—there are sad cases of people who are deeply involved in caring but very hard to reach. I venture to say to the Committee that trying to get everything into one bottle will be extremely difficult. If the Minister wishes to keep the net curtain as he goes forward, there may be wisdom in trying to find different types of authority with the entitlement to do the assessment rather than putting it through.

I would prefer to keep it simple. Universal benefits are much simpler, although a means test can be applied if it is wanted. But I recoil with some fear, not particularly from the point of view of the local authority but from thinking about public administration, the ethical doubts and challenges, the frontiers that have to be defended, the rows and the unintended injustices that will occur from having too complex a system where it is hard to define the frontiers between working and non-working in a way that is perceived as “fair” and therefore sustainable. I believe that this debate illustrates the point I have been trying to make about public policy: good intentions, unless we are very careful in framing the regulations, will lead us into some very difficult places—and I hope that they never become dark ones.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 5, 8, 9, 11, 25, 26 and 33. This group covers a range of amendments on eligibility. I appreciate the intentions of noble Lords in laying these amendments and seeking further clarity on the definition of “working parent”. Perhaps I can clear up one point immediately, on whether a parent is someone with parental responsibility. This is defined in the Bill, in Clause 1(12)(a), which states that a,

“‘parent’, in relation to a child, includes any individual who … has parental responsibility for the child”.

The Government’s intention with this new entitlement is to support hard-working parents with the cost of childcare and to enable them, where they want, to return to work or work more. As I announced at Second Reading, parents working eight hours per week, including those who are self-employed, will be entitled to this additional provision.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is well known for championing the case for support of the most disadvantaged, and he is absolutely right to do so. The Government provide a wide range of support to all families, especially the most disadvantaged. All families are of course entitled to 15 free hours of early education for three and four year-olds. Recognising that some children were missing out on the benefits of early education, we extended this to the most disadvantaged two year-olds. In particular, I know that the noble Earl will have welcomed that this includes looked-after children. We have been encouraging local authorities to ensure that many of these children can benefit from the support that is available.

The noble Earl raised the important issue of homeless families. I empathise of course with the practical challenges that such families face. Housing authorities and children’s services work together locally to ensure that the needs of children in homeless families are met. The Housing Act 1996 places a duty on authorities to co-operate with social services where children may be homeless intentionally or threatened with homelessness intentionally. However, I will be very happy to meet with the noble Earl on this matter. The Government are committed to supporting vulnerable groups such as care leavers. Our statutory guidance makes clear that local authorities, through the pathway planning process, must assess the needs and ambitions of their young people and set out how they will support them.

Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would include parents,

“on courses to improve their literacy or numeracy”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Tyler, have, in separate amendments, also proposed that parents engaged in education or training or undertaking voluntary work or work experience for a minimum of eight hours per week should also qualify. As I have explained, the intention of this additional entitlement is to support working parents. If parents work at least eight hours per week, they will qualify regardless of whether they are engaged in education, training, voluntary work or additional work experience.

It may help the Committee if I explain the support that parents who are studying may already receive, in addition to the existing free entitlement. Parents who are under the age of 20 and are studying a publicly funded course are eligible for the Care to Learn scheme. This can provide vital financial support for childcare costs of up to £175 per child per week. For parents over the age of 20, discretionary learner support and childcare grants may also be available, depending on the nature of the education and training that parents participate in.

Where a child is deemed to be at risk of suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, the local authority has clear duties to investigate and to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. This might include the provision of access to childcare provided by the local authority as part of a wider support plan.

Where a child is looked after, the local authority must make arrangements for their care, which might include support for childcare. The local authority must provide a fostering allowance which covers the full cost of caring for the child. For this reason, foster carers are not eligible for additional support through tax-free childcare or child tax credits for children who have been placed with them. We of course value the important role that foster carers undertake in looking after some of our most vulnerable children. However, whether foster care is considered work under the eligibility criteria for this additional childcare support is more complicated. I would welcome a further conversation outside the Chamber with the noble Earl on this issue.

I now turn to Amendment 25. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has rightly recognised the important role that grandparents play in the lives of children. In particular, some willingly and unselfishly accept the role as main carer for their grandchildren at a time in their lives that they should be able to dedicate to themselves after bringing up their own children. When grandparents have parental responsibility and meet the requirements that they are working, I hope the noble Baroness will be delighted to hear that they, too, will be eligible to benefit from the new entitlement. This will allow them to maintain their work or increase their hours so that they can support their grandchildren, safe in the knowledge that they will be well looked after.

Childcare Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

It is hard enough for someone to leave their baby and return to work, without the additional challenge of struggling to afford childcare. The Bill provides us with an opportunity to correct this imbalance. I beg to move, and urge the Minister to consider how parents of one to two year-olds may be helped by the free childcare offer from the Government.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, surely, as the noble Baroness has acknowledged, there is a key question of affordability here. There is a great danger of good intentions running away with us on this legislation. I ask the noble Baroness for clarification. She speaks from the Front Bench of her party; is she making a commitment that the Liberal Democrats believe that that money should be spent?

[Baroness Pinnock]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord True, and I said earlier, election manifesto promises are important. The Liberal Democrat manifesto gave a commitment to providing childcare in this gap for one to two year-olds. In the end, it is a question of priorities. Either you spend money on things such as Trident or you spend it on children from one to two years old. It is a question, as always, of priorities.

[Lord True]

The answer is yes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 10. While I understand the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Tyler, would like working parents of children between ages one and two to be entitled to additional childcare, the elected Government’s manifesto commitment is to increase the hours of free childcare to working parents of three and four-year-olds.

There is already support for childcare put in place by the last Government. We have increased the child tax credit entitlement to £2,780 per year for families with one child, £480 more per year than in 2010. We have legislated for tax-free childcare, which will save about 1.8 million working families with children under the age of 12 up to £2,000 per child a year.

The Government are also committed to increasing childcare support within universal credit by about £350 million to provide 85% of childcare costs from 2016 when a lone parent or both parents in a couple are in work. This is up from 70% in the current working tax credit system and current universal credit system.

This package of support for childcare as a whole provides help for parents with children between ages one and two and represents significant public investment. These are, however, difficult economic times, and the Government have to make hard choices. We know that more parents use childcare as children move towards school age. We are, therefore, focusing on where there is the greatest demand for childcare. Alongside this, two year-olds in low-income families also receive 15 hours a week, offering both high-quality early education and the opportunity for their parents to move into work.

I hope, for these reasons, that the noble Baroness is persuaded to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock]

I shall speak to Amendment 30 in this group which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield. For a serious new investment by the Government, it is disappointing that there is no indication in the Bill of the funding package that will be available for its implementation, because the funding is critical to the nature and quality of the childcare that will be provided. I welcome the funding review that has been opened, and I am delighted that the Minister has already received more than 500 responses to the request for information, but that simply shows the nervousness of the sector over the funding package that may be available.

I know from comments that have been sent to me by various childcare providers that they are very worried that if the funding is not of the right size, the implementation of what is otherwise an excellent proposal will be seriously damaged. There are several reasons for this. We do not know the quantum figure. We know that two figures have been bandied about. One is £350 million, which was mentioned in the Government’s manifesto, and the other is more than £1 billion, which was mentioned prior to the election period. The figure surely must be more than £350 million in order to fund an additional 15 hours of childcare for three and four year-olds. I hope the Minister will be able to explain where the money will come from, even if he is not able, at this stage, to tell us the total figure that will be available.

The other significant issue is that providers will not know the hourly rate that they will get for providing this childcare in the different settings. We know the rate is determined through local authority school forums and that they get the grant via the early years element of the direct schools grant. We also know that that is a flawed system. It is not necessarily a fair distribution of funding to local authorities across the country. We end up with different hourly rates for different childcare providers in different parts of the country which may not be sufficient to meet the costs of provision in those areas. I hope the Minister will be able to throw some light on this area.

There is going to be a significant demand for capital expenditure. For instance, providers in the state sector in nurseries attached to primary schools currently provide 15 hours through a morning session and an afternoon session. If there is going to be only one session of 30 hours, there will need to be a 50% increase in the amount provided. Capital funding will be necessary to do that, and it would be good to know whether any capital money is going to be available for either the voluntary or the state sector to do that.

The last point I want to make is one I raised at Second Reading, on the question of cross-subsidisation. Currently, parents who are working full-time may have to have childcare from eight in the morning to six in the evening. It is obviously quite proper that they have to pay for some of those hours, but people have been telling me that in the hours outside the free entitlement, they might be paying up to twice as much as the hourly rate in order for the private provider to meet the full costs. If, therefore, a private provider or voluntary sector provider is providing not 15 hours but 30 hours free, where is the cross-subsidisation going to come from? I am confident that the Minister, through his request for comments on the funding review, is receiving in his inbox many expressions of concern about the hourly rate that will be necessary to ensure these childcare providers are viable. For those reasons I have tabled the amendment in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and support the comments that have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I also have an amendment in this group. Part of it follows from what the noble Baroness was saying. Cross-subsidy—or top-up fees, as it would be more honest to call them, although we pretend that they do not exist—is a problem. As has been established in this Bill so far, that will be a problem if 30 hours becomes the limit and you cannot charge below that for the settings in question.

I am actually really interested in another thing, which is not just money. I do not believe all the problems in the world are solved by money. One of my objections when I saw this Bill published arose when somebody said, “Here’s a great idea. We’ll throw an unspecified amount of money at it and the world will be a better place”. It is not quite as easy as that and what matters are real people, real places and things that actually happen on the ground. This is a fantastically diverse sector, as both my noble friends on the Front Bench have rightly recognised. Of course, I am biased, because over the last 30 years I have come to know hundreds of people who work in the informal education sector, in nursery care, for whom I have huge affection and admiration. They are good educators; women with vocations; people who are passionate about children; but maybe those settings do not all live up to the standards you might want if our country had been erased and you were rebuilding it—they would not be like that. But they are there—in the little church halls, the village halls and parish halls up and down the land—and they are small settings. It may be nine or 10 people who work hard, and the skilled and dedicated principal and manager does not have all the time in the world to fill in forms.

What this amendment is getting at is something that I think is so important. I know my noble friend says that he wants to address this issue—I appreciate what he said both inside and outside the Chamber—and does not want to cause problems for this sector, but a huge number of providers simply could not provide 30 hours of childcare a week, because the constraints of where they provide it do not allow for it. We really should understand, as I ask in this amendment, how many nursery and childcare providers operate in rented premises or private places. These are the people who are under threat. What proportion of nursery and childcare providers could not offer this wonderful 30 hours a week that we talk about in this House and which we would all love to see?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, of all the issues on which regulations might be produced, as listed in paragraphs (a) to (k) of Clause 1(5), this is the one that has caused the most concern and disquiet.

Our Amendments 19 and 22 would remove the new powers to create new criminal offences leading to imprisonment of up to two years. On the face of it, this appears to be draconian and unnecessary, and we would like to explore the thinking behind it in a great deal more detail.

The Government say in their policy statement that it is their intention to align these new offences with existing schemes involving information-sharing and self-declaration. However, as the Delegated Powers Committee points out:

“There is nothing on the face of the Bill or in the memorandum … identifying the categories of person from whom the information … might be required”.

It goes on to say that the Government have drawn a confusing analogy between their proposals and the 2006 Act, the latter being about childcare premises rather than about the provision of information.

The truth is that we do not know who might be covered by this possible regulation. Would it be individual parents, individual nurseries or childminders, or even local authorities? How severe would their crime need to be? At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords identified how confusing and contradictory the current childcare funding landscape is proving to be. Parents of children aged two, three and four all have potentially different entitlements. The scope for uninformed errors is considerable.

We do not feel able to agree to a part of the Bill that gives so much power to the Secretary of State to determine who will be criminalised in the application of the Bill. Our amendment therefore removes this paragraph. It is a probing amendment but we would need a considerable level of reassurance about the constraints of its application before we were able to support the original text at Report stage. I beg to move.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I raised this matter at Second Reading and, having raised it, it had rather more publicity than I expected. I had a very large number of expressions of concern on the subject. I had tabled an amendment but, seeing that the Opposition had also put one forward, I saw no need to persist with it. However, I think that a very clear answer is needed both on the range of possible forms of entitlement, which we discussed in relation to an earlier amendment, and in relation to the informality of a number of the settings which I described when debating the previous amendment. The fear of criminal offences and potential imprisonment is quite chilling for people who work in this sector.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord True, seek the removal of a power to create criminal offences. The Government’s position on this issue was set out in the policy statement that was made available to all Members of this House last week. We take the security of personal information seriously, which is why Clause 1(5)(k) enables regulations to make provision for any criminal offences in connection with the provision and disclosure of information or documents mentioned in subsection 5(i) and (j). These paragraphs relate to the sharing of information and provision of documents for the purpose of checking eligibility for the free childcare provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I do not expect an answer now, but I should like to give an example which comes from the policy statement. It says that under Clause 1(5)(i), the number of hours of free childcare each eligible child takes up may be included. That can only come from a report provided by the provider, which is sometimes a small provider. Inadvertently false information may be given; it could be a mistake or something might be put in the wrong column—things happen. The next paragraph in the statement, which concerns provision for criminal offences, directly relates that to the provision and disclosure mentioned in Clause 1(5)(i) and (j). It may be that the example given is not included in that, but people reading this document could believe that there is scope for the offence to be pushed too wide by certain busybodies. I do not want to continue the point now but I hope that we can have further discussions on that matter of concern.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I share the continuing concern of the noble Lord, Lord True. I have to say that the noble Baroness did not address the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers Committee. I know that, separately, the Government have given an assurance that they are going to look at that. However, she will know that they raised some concerns about the analogies being drawn between the 2006 Act and what is in the Bill now. I am not convinced by what the Government have said on this matter so far. I think that we need to have considerable further discussion on this, but I am prepared to allow the noble Baroness to look at the Delegated Powers Committee report and respond to that, and then perhaps we can have a more informed discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Childcare Bill [HL]

Lord True Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the informed and compassionate interventions of the noble Earl. I declare an interest as leader of a local authority whose duties and costs will be increased by prescription under the Bill. I declare another interest as my wife is principal of a nursery school, and a very experienced and highly respected Montessori education professional. So if I, like others, concentrate on the concerns that I have about the many unknowns in the Bill, I hope that it will be understood that I recognise without demur, as others do, the value of high-quality nursery education—and I do believe that the greater availability of that is welcome. This is a manifesto commitment and it must be implemented. I know that the commitment to it of my noble friend Lord Nash, for whom I have unqualified respect, will ensure that it is implemented with care. I am grateful that I have already had the chance to speak to him.

However, as others have said, a manifesto aspiration does not leap fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus into thought-through law or practice in under four weeks. Speaking as a superannuated policymaker, I do not believe that a rushed skeleton Bill is a good way to make policy or to draw on the wisdom of Parliament. I guess that I am just an old-fashioned Whitehall beached whale when I think that there might first have been an appraisal of what we have now—whether it is capable of providing 30 hours’ free childcare—and a completed funding review rather than the welcome news that one is beginning; and maybe even a White Paper. In the absence of that, I join those who have praised the work of your Lordships’ Select Committee on Affordable Childcare, which was so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. I agreed with almost every one of his wise words today.

The challenge as laid down by that committee in respect of evaluating the potential deadweight costs of this policy, its effectiveness in practice, its impact on the private and voluntary sectors, the adequacy of funding and the role of local authorities—among others—surely deserves an answer in detail before Parliament completes the passage of legislation that will award Ministers quite enormous regulating powers. Can my noble friend confirm when the response to that Select Committee will be published?

Many have questioned the adequacy of resources for what we have now, let alone what is proposed, so I will not go further on that. My noble friend had estimated £350 million a year, and it would be interesting to know if that is still stood by. But even if that is correct, I feel that for this policy to be implemented best—and it could then have very considerable merit indeed—it might be targeted and phased, and I welcome the fact that the piloting mentioned today already envisages that. The policy could first address disadvantage, single parenthood, special needs, inadequate parenting and areas where provision is limited—and then move on, if and when we know it is deliverable and can afford it.

Despite my noble friend’s words today, we still know too little of the eligibility criteria. There is reference to “working people” and homes where, we are told in the notes, “all parents”—I suppose in the modern world that means two or more—work, but for how many hours and on what? How is that going to be assessed and by whom? I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate is not in his place, because I follow the point that has been made by others that there is always a risk of institutional bias in policy-making when those involved in making or commenting on policy are by definition working people. But there is a danger of forgetting the enormous contribution made by many remarkable mothers who are now classed, rather slightingly, as people who do not work. Has the state really resolved to discriminate against families where one partner does not work but instead devotes their time to childcare?

If so, that leads to a second question, which others have touched on: just who and what is the policy for? I think that this is the nub of the question. As others have said, surely the centre of any education policy, particularly for the youngest children, must be the child, not increasing household disposable income. Great stress is laid on the economic value of getting more people into the workplace, yet, as has been pointed out, the research of the IFS, and indeed the finding of the Select Committee, was that the proven behavioural effects might be limited and that there was a risk of a substantial deadweight cost. This needs to be teased out because that would be just the kind of policy a country in parlous and deepening debt can least afford.

What we have is a proposal that parents of children aged three and four will be rewarded for putting them—looking at it from the child’s point of view—in other hands for 1,140 hours a year. This compares with rather less time spent in the classroom by many older children. Are we certain that actively promoting at every level of income this way of bringing up very young children is for those children the most beneficial? I wish that I could be so sure, so I agree with others that there needs to be greater clarity about what we are after here. Is it the maximum hours of free childcare—although not enough to cover full-time work—or the best possible education for balanced child development? The two are not the same. Indeed, as others have pointed out, one may work against the other.

One thing I know is that the needs of every child vary and that there are many good ways to provide for education, so I disagree profoundly with the contention that all operators must meet the same criteria. Touching on the private sector, despite the deeply unfair imbalance in regulation between the PVI sector and the state sector, we have enormous reliance on the private and voluntary sector—for 60% of three year-olds nationally, and for 76% in my own authority. Setting aside the resource point, which others have made, many of these are sessional settings with part-time workers. Yes, nursery teachers, too, are working people with their own needs. Many are in rented premises whose times of rent cannot be increased. Nearly half of all settings in London are operating at full capacity. The sector is not capitalised to build new provision, except in the large chains. They simply cannot adapt to meet the demands of flexible working. Local authorities, I assure your Lordships, certainly do not have the resources—or in cities, the space—to provide replacements.

My noble friend knows from our work together, which I so appreciate in my own authority of Richmond, the immense difficulty of finding places in cities for primary schools, let alone new-build nurseries. It is already widely asserted that the 15 hours of free education is underfunded, but what is true is that in many places, so-called free education is an open fiction with, as others have said, settings that are theoretically not permitted to charge top-up fees sometimes charging loaded fees for time outside the so-called free hours to survive. Without that possibility—and we must note that 30 hours would be more than many sessional carers or schools do or could provide—much private and voluntary provision might become unviable, be driven private or be ruinously expensive to the state to finance in full. That is a troubling prospect and might mean the loss of many often skilled part-time jobs for women. I know that my noble friend, with his typical wisdom, will find time to consider these issues and meet providers—including, I hope, the Montessori Schools Association—to discuss these concerns.

I am afraid that I agree with others that the regulation-making powers in the Bill are disturbingly wide, disturbingly ill-defined and draconian. Potentially, they could lead to effective state control of the whole sector by the back door, just at the time when my noble friend is so rightly and so boldly liberating the maintained schools sector to be diverse. As others have asked, will we see the draft regulations, because that is important? We have already had one long, costly and failed attempt to find a single funding formula for the whole sector. I hope that we do not now plan another. The Bill gives power to the state to specify descriptions of childcare. What does that mean, precisely? As to the nature of nursery education, since 2006 we have already had the 2008 EYFS, the Tickell review, the 2012 revised EYFS and the 2014 EYFS revisions. What now? Can we be confident in all these regulations that my noble friend’s department will this time get it right first time—and how will we protect diversity?

Finally, I am troubled to see in the Bill proposed criminal penalties. I would like this to be explained either now or in Committee. Penalties on whom? Would nursery teachers be sent to jail for up to two years, as the Bill allows, if they fail to find out the whole truth about the private affairs of every one of their parents, or if they fail to disclose confidential details of their businesses to a local authority? I think we need to know.

On local authorities, I will not add to the questions asked by my noble friend Lady Eaton, with which I agree, but local authorities already publish details about local provision under the 2006 Act. What more is required? That more officers be appointed to probe the affairs of local nursery schools? Surely that cannot be the intention. We must avoid an intrusive bureaucracy, there in part to police a boundary to exclude so-called non-working mothers from help with childcare. Is there a risk of a social and administrative cost in that which is greater than the benefit?

This is a praiseworthy ideal. If properly planned and implemented, it can be a great boon, giving room to the rich diversity of provision and differing development of every child. Yet there is so much more we need to know. It is a fine idea in urgent need of better definition. That lack of definition, combined with a major increase in state power made possible by the Bill, might be a benefit—but it may be a danger. I look to my noble friend, in the extensive consultation he has promised and I know will deliver, to ensure that it is the former.