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.