Clause 8 - Powers of local authority in relation to the provision of childcare
Childcare Bill
12:30 pm
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive response. I take her point on amendment No. 97. My drafting skills were not at their best while I was drafting it. I am also reassured by her assurance that there will be robust guidance on the services for which schools can charge. It will be helpful when we see that guidance in due course.
I am also happy with the Minister’s response to the point raised by the National Union of Teachers about existing and future arrangements for children with a statement of special educational needs who are in a special maintained school, and that there is no possibility of charges being imposed on those children by the provision.
I am partially convinced by the Minister’s comments on amendments Nos. 199 and 267—local authorities already have the power to claw back or deal with maintained-sector schools that do not provide the quality of child care that they have agreed to provide—given that they are all within the state sector.
Where I am not convinced is in response to amendment No. 9. The Minister’s responses were weak. That is not her fault; she is able to put the best face on any argument of any Minister. However, the arguments do not stack up, and the Government should accept the amendment.
The Minister basically said that checks were in place. She gave the example that a governing body is required to consult the local authority before the body sets up pre-school child care provision within its primary school. That is not a safeguard. Of course it is required to consult, but then what? She said that if the local provider wants to, it can register an objection. If the school persists in going ahead with the provision, despite the objection, the local authority can refuse funding. The question is: will it?
By removing subsection (4), the amendment would make it a duty of the local authority to take into account the availability of local existing child care provision when deciding whether a school can establish its own child care provision. The existing so-called checks are weak. The Minister’s arguments in resisting the amendment are weak, too.
The Minister also says that schools must have regard to the children and young person’s local plan. Again, it is a weak argument for resisting the amendment— particularly given its irresistibility. She must come up with much stronger arguments than the one that she provided.
The Minister then made the extraordinary comment that private providers are not subject to the various constraints of having to consult local authorities and receive local objections. Of course they are not. People operating child care provision in the private or voluntary sectors have the market place for their accountability. Of course they do not have to go through those various processes. Their accountability is to people who want to pay to send their children to attend child care provision.
In view of the weakness of the Minister’s argument, I feel inclined to push amendment No. 9 to a vote.