Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Pat Glass and James Berry

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Pat Glass]

I am not saying that we should do that, but if we say that local authorities must provide “reasonable flexibility”, that forces those who are not doing anything about that now to start to do something. Unless the Minister tells me that he is prepared to look at that flexibility in regulations, we may need to make an issue of this.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that councils as public authorities have a duty in law to act reasonably, so the insertion of the word “reasonable” into legislation is superfluous?

[Pat Glass]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the Education Act 2005, which has “reasonable” in every third sentence. It is not superfluous. It makes the point that this measure is not about giving everyone what they want or what they think they need; it is about giving something that is reasonable to the taxpayer and to the parent or child.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

I apologise if it is carelessly worded; that was not my intention. I simply want to make clear in the Bill that it is illegal to refuse a place on the grounds of a child’s disability, in exactly the same way as it is under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. I do not know whether there is a criminal penalty attached to that, but that is the current legislation, and that was my intention.

[James Berry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pat Glass]

Before I give way, can I make it clear that we do not want to put anyone in prison? As I said to the Minister, if the amendment is carelessly worded, I am happy to change it. The current situation cannot continue and I simply want to change it, however that may be possible, so that it is line with Disability Discrimination Act.

[James Berry]

The examples the hon. Lady gave are horrific. However, if the measure is already on the statute book, should she not call for proper implementation of the legislation we already have, rather than duplicating it?

[Pat Glass]

That is exactly what I want to do. I have a Bill in front of me, and I want in some way to ensure that the current position—that what I have described is illegal—is used to improve the situation for the parents of disabled children, however we do that.

Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Pat Glass and James Berry

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Pat Glass]

I am coming back on to it very quickly.

Tax-free childcare, although some way from being delivered, is designed to put cash in parents’ pockets, but it does not contain the levers to deliver quality or to control prices. The two-year offer aims to reduce inequalities rather than be an economic driver. However, the chief inspector of schools pointed out last week in his annual report to the Government that in this area the Government’s policy on disadvantaged two-year-olds is failing at least 113,000 of our most disadvantaged two-year-olds and therefore arguably has the potential to widen rather than narrow the attainment gap.

The extension of the 15-hour offer to 30 hours should be about delivering both objectives, but that requires both quality and funding, and the huge funding gap will, if not addressed, damage both quality and capacity in childcare. This, I think, is what their Lordships were most concerned about when they looked at this amendment, which the Government now seek to remove. As I have said, we support the Bill, we want it to work and we want it to deliver quickly, but there remain a number of challenges with the Government’s plan and it is only right that we scrutinise them.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady wants this to be implemented quickly, but when she gets on to the substance of the amendment she will tell us it proposes a review that will delay implementation, will she not?

[Pat Glass]

I am sorry, I just do not accept that. Nobody is going to see any of this—apart from the early implementers, and there will be very small numbers of those—until 2017. The Government have plenty of time to get this right, and if they do not, we risk ending up with either less provision or poor provision. It is really important that we take our time up to 2017 to make sure that we get this right for families.

At the heart of our concerns, and those of their Lordships, is a serious funding gap. The Chancellor’s recent announcements only go some way to answering those. The other place voted to amend the Bill on three separate occasions, mainly on procedural grounds because the Bill lacked substance and clarity about funding. It has been dogged by lack of detailed information and costings. The Minister really needs to respond to those concerns and answer those questions over the next couple of days.

Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Pat Glass and James Berry

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Pat Glass]

I am shocked that women end up in prison because their children will not go to school. It is not necessarily something that a mother living in a refuge, separately, can do anything about. This is serious stuff, and it is really scary stuff for parents. If they get it wrong, they could end up in prison or with a hefty fine. It is really important that the Committee probes exactly what is meant by eligibility. I want to see how far the Minister is prepared to go on that, because I am not quite clear about who is eligible and who is not. He needs to help us with that.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there should be penalties for what is, essentially, fraudulent activity, but that the thresholds for those penalties and the circumstances in which they come to play should be set out very clearly in the guidance?

[Pat Glass]

Could the hon. Gentleman say that again?

[James Berry]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there ought to be penalties when a parent takes an action that is tantamount to fraud on the state, but that the circumstances in which those penalties might arise should be specified clearly in the guidance?

[Pat Glass]

That is exactly what we are asking for in this probing amendment. Yes, I agree that there need to be penalties if someone is deliberately defrauding the state. I do not want to get parents into a situation in which they are affected unintentionally because the guidance or the eligibility criteria are not clear.