Clause 6 - Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents
Childcare Bill
3:15 pm
Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
We can go into the detail later, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the requirements of registration will be those for the full Ofsted registration for under-fives. It is a robust scheme. It has been developing and, because of the Bill, it will continue to incorporate not only learning and development standards, but the welfare standards of care for young children. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the registration process is nothing like that for schools that teach English as a second language. It has been the cornerstone of the framework through which quality has gradually been building up, and will continue to be.
The hon. Gentleman raised two issues about the Sure Start programme. It is slightly off his point about child care, but I want to deal with the national evaluation of the programme and what its findings might mean in respect of quality. Let us be clear about the methodology of the evaluation. It compared a sample of families with young children in areas that had a Sure Start programme and a sample of families in areas that did not have such a programme but were similarly disadvantaged. We must remember that, at present, the Sure Start programme is only in areas with a disadvantaged population.
It is important that members of the Committee know that I took the findings seriously. The random sample of families selected from the Sure Start areas did not necessarily have contact with the Sure Start programme. The research findings could not identify separately those families that had contact, so we do not know whether the sample of families in the Sure Start areas had experience of what its local programme provided. None the less, the findings are important. They showed small but discernible positive effects for the majority—about 86 per cent.—of children, such as fewer behavioural problems and better social skills.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, for a minority of children—about 14 per cent.—especially those of really disadvantaged and hard-to-reach families, such as children of teenage parents, teenage lone parents and those in long-term workless households, there was a suggestion of negative effects, specifically poor verbal ability and social skills, and more behavioural problems than their peers in equally poor Sure Start areas.
As for interpreting the findings, I have referred to the methodology, but there is also the consideration that this is quite early in the time scale in which we would expect to see significant positive effects for disadvantaged groups, primarily because international research shows that positive effects on children largely—this is significant—come through as positive effects on parents first, in the way in which they parent their children. A small amount of time in a Sure Start programme will not change a child’s life chances; that will come about as a result of a change in the routine parenting that they receive daily. However, it is early days.
I do not consider that there is a problem with the philosophy and concept of Sure Start. Indeed, research in this country and internationally tells us the opposite, but it raises issues about how some of the programmes have implemented the Sure Start model. On the back of that evaluation we issued very specific and detailed guidance for what should happen in children’s centres as they develop, based on the Sure Start model. In the guidance we specified that they have to do three things. Those three things are all reflected in the provisions of the Bill, which is not a coincidence.
First, there must be a clear focus on outcomes for children and on reducing inequalities. I say that because some of the programmes have had a warm reception from the community, and from parents in particular, because they have involved parents in the establishment of programmes. Everyone has had a very warm feeling about the involvement of parents, which is great, because we have to work through parents, but it may be that one or two programmes have taken their eye off the ball as regards outcomes for children through parents, and we need to reinforce that.
Secondly, we need to get better at reaching all families. That is why we have enshrined in the Bill proactive outreach for disadvantaged children. Thirdly, real inter-agency and integrated working is what makes the difference.
New clause 9 proposes that there should be an appeal process if an individual parent is dissatisfied because they cannot access the particular kind of child care that they want or need. I completely agree that if parents’ needs are not being met, they need to have a channel to express that. However, I do not believe that a convoluted appeals process is appropriate in that context. I agree that there needs to be a well signposted process by which parents can complain, and in which their complaint is registered not just with the local authority but with Ofsted when it does its inspections.
Local authorities already have in place well established procedures to enable citizens and residents to make complaints, and what I intend to do in the guidance is to ensure that as part of that overall complaints process, they must provide parents with a well signposted dedicated pathway in relation to child care issues, by which they can lodge complaints about child care and early years services. In other words, that dedicated pathway must be available within the overall complaints procedure. Those complaints will be received by the local authority and will be made available to Ofsted when it forms judgments as part of the joint assessment review process. However, notwithstanding that development, if parents think that there has been maladministration they can still go to the local ombudsman.
The amendment as it stands would complicate the route by which parents can seek redress. I hope that hon. Members feel that what I will put into the guidance will be clear and that that will be a much more straightforward way for parents to complain.
Amendment No. 99, with amendment No. 261 for Wales, are, again, well intentioned. I am pleased to inform hon. Members that in clause 8 we have addressed the issue that they raise concerning the contribution of providers within the private and voluntary independent sectors. We are determined that those sectors should continue to play a full part in the provision of early years education and child care as services are expanded. The sector has a good track record of responding positively and flexibly to changing parent demand, and many parents choose the sector because of its flexibility.
In that context, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton raised the issue of the report from the National Day Nurseries Association and its conclusions. I want to comment briefly on that report, and first on the size of the sample on which the report was based. Some 2,000 questionnaires were sent out and only just over 200 people responded—10 per cent. of 2,000 is very small and is also a very small percentage of the sector as a whole. I do not want to set aside the comments in the report, but I want to place them in that context. The hon. Gentleman reported finding that a number of those responding had expressed concern about the willingness of local authorities to engage with private and voluntary providers. The report also states that 37 per cent. of respondents—given the sample, that is only 80 nurseries—were confident of forming a relationship with their local authority and 40 per cent. reported that they had already been in contact with their local authority seeking involvement and were fairly comfortable with what was going on.The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of occupancy rates as though it were a sign of a problem for the sector. The NDNA admits that there are seasonal changes in occupancy rates and that occupancy traditionally drops in the summer months when this survey was undertaken.
I shall make a final point on the NDNA report, and I am so glad that it made this comment. The report concludes that the mutual involvement of local authorities with private and voluntary independent providers is a two-way process and that “greater endeavour is needed” by the private and voluntary independent sectors to explore partnership arrangements with local authorities. However, they need to take the initiative and bring local authorities to the table, instead of waiting to be involved. Therefore, the onus is on both.
The Bill already ensures that a local authority should act to provide child care only after it has consulted private and voluntary independent providers and has established that none are willing to provide it, or that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances. That will require local authorities to understand the child care market in their area, including the maintained and PVI sectors. I hope that, given the strength of the limitation placed in the Bill on direct provision by the local authority, the hon. Gentleman will agree that the letter of the Bill is very strong in this regard and that there is therefore no need for further amendment.