Extreme Heat Preparedness

Debate between Lord True and Baroness Pinnock

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

One of my neighbours said that to me only yesterday; he was just off to a hotter place. Of course, I remember the bloom of youth, and the summer of 1976 was wonderful and memorable in many ways. Let us not forget that many people, if they behave sensibly and reasonably, can enjoy those warm summer days that they dreamt of in the cold winter nights of November and December—but many people are vulnerable and need care, support and protection. That is the responsibility of the Government so, although I accept what my noble friend says, we should all be mindful that there is danger in excessive and exceptional heat. The Government, with the emergency services and others, are seeking to respond to it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, surely the issue is that the current heatwave is yet another example of climate change; I am sure the Minister will agree on that. But the Government seem to be acting Janus-like to net zero. One face is the leadership of COP 26. The other is, for example, the Prime Minister’s positive support for a new coal mine in Cumbria and extending oil and gas licences in the North Sea. The International Energy Agency says that no new fossil fuel developments can proceed if net zero by 2050 is to be achieved. Which face of Janus will it be for the Government?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, there are several strands tied up in that question. We have some exceptional hot days in July. We must respond to that and are doing the immediate response. Then there is a separate strand when the noble Baroness talks about the longer-term threat of climate change. The party opposite was among those beating the tam-tam to remove from office my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who has pushed through the strongest commitments and the most specific and active support for COP 26 by any Government in history. As for what the noble Baroness says about a coal mine, the Government remain absolutely committed to net zero. Does the noble Baroness not understand that we must balance the issues across the energy sector and the global economy caused by the illegal invasion of Ukraine? We must ensure that in the immediate future we have a diverse and resilient energy supply chain to withstand broader impact.

Public Services: Update

Debate between Lord True and Baroness Pinnock

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker]

I again call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, I want to explore the needs of local authorities a bit further. Councils of all political persuasions are very concerned about the considerable shortfall in the funding they need—for example, to prevent the failure of private sector social care provision. Will the Minister join me in urging the Government to meet this large and urgent need for additional funding—over and above, I have to say, what has already been provided to local government during this crisis?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I might be new in the game, but I am afraid that I cannot urge the Government because I am no longer on the Back Benches. I can say that the Government understand the critical importance of local authorities in confronting this problem. I will certainly make sure that the noble Baroness’s points are heard and understood by the Chancellor. As I said, I cannot anticipate what financial provision he will make for the future.

Education and Adoption Bill

Debate between Lord True and Baroness Pinnock

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord True and Baroness Pinnock

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.

Childcare Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord True and Baroness Pinnock

Monday 6th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[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?

Childcare Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord True and Baroness Pinnock

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- 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?