Vulnerable Children

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to highlight these shocking figures. I hope by doing so that we can support the Children’s Commissioner in her determination to track and address child vulnerability in all its forms.

This report is, indeed, shocking in the sheer numbers it identifies, but it is shocking that these figures are often only estimates. So when we are told that more than half a million children are so vulnerable that the state has to step in and provide direct care, intervention or support, 800,000 children aged five to 17 suffer mental health disorders, 119,000 children are homeless or living in insecure or unstable housing, or that nearly 12,000 children are living with an adult in drug treatment, we know that the actual numbers of children living vulnerable or high-risk lives could be even greater.

My concern and profound dismay at these figures echo what is felt by everyone who has already spoken. I want to focus on two of the 32 categories of vulnerability outlined in the report. I mentioned the 119,000 children who are homeless, or living in insecure or unstable housing. For children to thrive from their earliest years, they need a secure home environment. I should declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation. We know that families in persistent poverty are often struggling with high living costs. Often the only option available to them is low-quality and insecure housing. Pressure on local authority housing lists means that families are stuck in temporary accommodation, often unsuitable for children, and tensions rise over housing allocations.

We can do something about this. We know that the right housing and the right support enables vulnerable families to break chaotic patterns of living and gain the benefits of settled accommodation in the longer term. When this happens across communities it has a multiplier effect—creating safer neighbourhoods, boosting social capital and reducing demands on acute health and care services. The case for investing in affordable housing is overwhelming. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made on meeting the targets for increasing our affordable housing stock, and how will the Government ensure that these homes will meet the needs of families on waiting lists?

I also want to highlight the 800,000 children who are suffering mental health difficulties, as many other noble Lords have done. We know that childhood and the teenage years are when patterns are set for the future. A child with good mental health is more likely to develop healthy relationships, to do well at school, and to grow up to be able to take on adult responsibilities and fulfil their potential. So for these vulnerable children, early intervention is crucial. Yet recent government policies have made such intervention much harder to achieve: funding for the early intervention grant has been cut by almost £500 million since 2013, and it is projected to drop by a further £183 million by 2020. Central government funding for local authorities to spend on children’s services fell by £2.4 billion between 2010-11 and 2015-16, while a four-year freeze on support for children under universal credit is expected to reduce the value of key children’s benefits by 12% by the end of the decade. Councils are facing a £2 billion funding gap for children’s services by 2020, while demand continues to grow. Every day last year saw 90 new children entering care and 500 child protection investigations. Can the Minister give any assurance that this funding gap will be addressed in the forthcoming local government finance settlement?

While I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s consultation on children and young people’s mental health provision, particularly its focus on earlier intervention and prevention—it is long overdue—I ask the Minister whether he thinks its proposals go far enough. Aiming to have new mental health support teams linked to schools and colleges in,

“a fifth to a quarter of the country”,

five years from now seems a very modest ambition, given the scale of the problem. We need to be able to provide support to children, young people and their families when they start to struggle, not 18 months after they are referred for treatment. That is how we will avoid the costly and intense suffering that entrenched mental illness can cause.

I am haunted by the invisible children not captured in these statistics because they haven’t been reported to services, or because of gaps in available data. I hope that this report does indeed help us to count more accurately and to arrive at a system which better identifies the vulnerable child. I echo my noble friend’s plea for an urgent cross-departmental response championed at the highest level of government, so we can offer those vulnerable children the help and support that they need.

Education: Early Years

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for providing us with an opportunity to highlight, once again, the importance of early years education, one of the most important determinants of a child’s life chances. What is more important than making sure that all children are given the very best start in life? Indeed, the aim of doing so through improved childcare, early education, health and family support lay at the heart of the Labour Government’s creation of Sure Start in 1998.

I say with some sadness that I do not believe that expanding so-called “free” childcare to 30 hours a week for three to four year-olds, as it is currently funded, is the way forward. I say this for two reasons. First, I believe that an early years funding policy which focuses on subsidising childcare for working parents, rather than on child development, risks damaging the quality of early education provision. By failing to target disadvantaged families, whose children stand to gain the most from high-quality early education, I believe that we are also damaging social mobility.

My second objection stems from my knowledge of early years education from the perspective of committed, professional providers in this field. I declare an interest here as my sister is an early years professional, operating two nurseries in deprived areas of Nottingham. I have drawn on her experience when talking about early years education in this House previously, and she shared some thoughts with me before today’s debate.

A tremendous amount of research has been done into early years and into how to achieve high-quality provision. However, as a practitioner, my sister has an admirably short checklist of what is needed for its delivery: a well-qualified workforce, a comprehensive, age-appropriate curriculum, efficient management of provision, an effective inspection regime and the right resources.

This is really quite simple, but none of it is possible without adequate funding. Early years funding rates for 2018-19 show that most local authorities will not receive any additional funding next year, and that 14% of local authorities will actually see a reduction in funding. While the Government’s operational guidance for 2018-19 confirms that local authorities should take no more than 5% out of the funding that they pass on to providers—they have actually been taking more—funding is still woefully short of what is needed. Early years providers have said repeatedly that they will struggle to deliver high-quality care and education—and sufficient places—with the funding available.

I read with amazement in the FT some weeks ago that the children’s Minister, Robert Goodwill, seems to think that good-quality provision can be funded at an average hourly cost of £3.72 an hour. That beggars belief. He said that this was based on recent research. Where on earth did he get these completely misleading figures? It is not surprising that many practitioners are concerned about the sustainability of their business and believe that we need to get back to basics—to stop introducing ever more complicated ways of helping families to pay for childcare and education, and to go back to the original idea of one system of funding; that is to say, a realistic fee, paid direct to providers who are accountable to their local authority.

I suspect that many parents are actually frightened of becoming involved in the multifarious schemes, which include: funding two year-olds from deprived families for 15 hours per week; funding all three and four year-olds for 15 hours a week; since September this year, funding some three and four year-olds for 30 hours per week, in families where each parent can earn up to £100,000 per year—yet foster parents are, for some reason, excluded; and the tax-free scheme, which has been beset by problems.

Of all these schemes, the one that has worked the best and seen the greatest take-up is the original funding for three to four year-olds, with a reasonable rate given directly to the provider. As I recall, this was introduced by the then Prime Minister John Major in 1995.

The reasonable rate is the issue. As early years providers have highlighted for months, you cannot run a champagne nursery on lemonade funding. The campaigning group with that name has a very effective video, which explains simply that, if it costs you £5 an hour to deliver a service for which you are getting paid less than £4, and you are not allowed to increase the fee to cover the shortfall, you will decide either not to offer that service or to cut back on your costs, thereby affecting the quality of the service you can provide. A third option, of course, is to go out of business.

PACEY, the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years, highlights that the “free” childcare entitlement for three and four-year-olds has been seriously underfunded in many areas, for many years. The National Day Nurseries Association has reported that 89% of private, voluntary and independent nurseries make a loss when providing funded places for 15 hours a week. It is not hard to see why. Nurseries are expected to employ graduates; pay wages above the national living wage rates, which increase at least once a year; pay contributions to employees’ pensions; pay increased business rates; serve high-quality, nutritious meals to combat the obesity epidemic; provide high-quality resources—and the list goes on. For this, in Nottingham for 2017-18 the Government set a local authority hourly rate for three to four year-olds of £4.92. Just over £4 is passed on to the provider, and there will be no increase in 2018-19. Can the Minister please give us any assurance that the Government will review the current funding rates?

Providers cannot continue to operate under these conditions. If funding rates do not increase in line with rising early years delivery costs, nurseries, pre-schools and childminders will go out of business. An Ofsted report earlier this month highlighted that the number of childminders operating in the early years sector has fallen by 26% since August 2012. What action will the Government take to tackle this decline?

My final point is on the need for a properly qualified workforce in early years—an issue raised by a number of contributors to this debate. In her 2012 review, Foundations for Quality, Professor Cathy Nutbrown says that the biggest influence on the quality of early education and care is the workforce. I believe it is crucial that staff working in the early years are highly trained, well managed and well led. They should be offered continuing professional development and enjoy the same status as teaching professionals.

Yet, as the Sutton Trust points out, we have seen the end of financial support for graduate training, the removal of the local authority role in continuing professional development, the lifting of the requirement for Sure Start centres in disadvantaged areas to offer graduate-led early education, and no movement on improving non-graduate qualifications in response to the 2012 Nutbrown review. Can the Minister at least offer any reassurance on the current proposals to remove the requirement for maintained nursery and reception classes to have a qualified teacher?

I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I sound somewhat frustrated in my remarks today, but I have heard how practitioners feel about the funding of the 30 hours of “free” provision, and their frustration is understandable. We must recognise the true cost of providing high-quality childcare or we will reap other, longer-term costs from failing to provide this care. We need a long-term, sustainable funding settlement for providers that will offer families the affordable, high-quality childcare they need.