Labour call for delay on free childcare plans

By The Press Association16th June 2015News EnglandChildcare, Childcare Bill, Early Years, News England, Nurseries

New laws doubling the amount of free childcare parents can get for three and four-year-olds should be delayed until the Government can give more details on how the scheme will work and be paid for, Labour has said.

Shadow education minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said there were “huge questions” over the cost of the move, which was promised by the Conservatives in their manifesto.

The Childcare Bill, which is being debated for the first time in Parliament, will double free hours from 15 to 30 hours for 38 weeks a year – a total of 1,140 hours of childcare a year.

Lord Nash, introducing the Bill’s second reading, told the House of Lords: “Access to childcare is not a luxury – it is essential for families in Britain and it is a crucial investment in this country’s future.”

But the scheme came under fire from across the House from peers who questioned how it would be delivered.

Ministers say up to 600,000 families will eventually benefit from the move, worth around £2,500 a year on top of the £2,500 they can already save from existing free childcare offers. The scheme is planned to start from September 2016 and be fully implemented by September 2017.

The Tories originally said the plan would cost £350 million a year, but Employment Minister Priti Patel has been appointed to chair a review of childcare funding, which she expects to deliver an “uplift” to the hourly rate paid by the Government.

The Pre-School Learning Alliance, which represents 14,000 private, voluntary and independent groups, has warned the existing 15 hours a week of free childcare is already ”grossly underfunded” by the Government.

Lady Jones (pictured) told peers: “We are being massively constrained in our scrutiny role by the lack of fairly crucial detail today.

“The Government has launched a rather crucial funding review to ensure that providers can be properly recompensed for the free places they supply and they’ve separately launched a consultation with parents and carers.

“The outcomes of both reviews will be fundamental to the success of the scheme and yet as far as we can see will not be available until the Bill has long since left this House.”

She said most of the detail of how the policy would work would be introduced later through regulations and there had been little evaluation of how a previous expansion in free childcare provision had worked.

“We don’t have the previous evaluation, we don’t have a funding formula and we don’t have the draft regulations,” she said.

“This all begs the inevitable question of why this Bill is being rushed through when a little bit more time and preparation might have delivered a more popular and workable scheme.”

She told Lord Nash: “Unless you are able to provide some reassurances on the availability of that documentation, we believe there is a strong case for delaying the future stages of the Bill until the information is available and we are able to carry out responsibilities effectively.”

Baroness Pinnock, for the Liberal Democrats, said the Bill was “completely silent” on the issue of funding and said the Tory manifesto commitment of £350 million would leave the scheme “grossly underfunded”.

She told peers: “Poor quality childcare can actually damage a child’s development. An underfunded scheme may actually result in lower quality care, yet the thrust of any childcare provision, especially one funded by the Government, must surely be to provide care of the highest quality.”

And she added: “It is only when we see the detailed regulations and importantly the funding package will we be able to be certain that this measure will be positive both for children and their carers.”

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, an independent crossbench peer, warned there could be “unintended consequences” from the move.

He said some childcare providers at present made up a shortfall in Government funding by charging higher rates to look after children for hours beyond 15 a week, but that option would now be denied them if 30 hours were paid for out of public funds.

Lord Nash, opening the debate, told peers: “It is important that the hourly rate strikes the right balance between being fair for providers and providing value for money for the taxpayer.

“We are addressing the concern that has been highlighted by the sector and have already committed to increase the average funding rate.”

He added: “The system needs to work for parents. It is the utmost importance we take the time to listen to the views of parents and providers and we will be consulting them about the features of the system that best meets their needs.

“The additional entitlement will be delivered in a way that is flexible, affordable and high quality for parents and the Bill enables the Government to set out further details in secondary legislation once we have listened to parents and providers.”

He said the measures would have a “direct and significant impact” on the lives of children and families.

The Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Paul Butler, warned about the “impression increasingly created that a parent choosing not to work, but to raise their child themselves, is somehow not doing the best for the nation or the child”.

He said the whole agenda seemed to be about “the adult first – their right to work, their economic well being – rather than the child first”.

And he added: “On behalf of the well being of the children themselves, if we are going to make this increased provision, which I’m sure we will and should, let’s try and ensure all the regulations that follow place the child at the centre, not the adults…”

Tory Lord True said the policy was a manifesto commitment and must be implemented.

But he added: “I don’t believe a rushed skeleton Bill is a good way to make policy.”

Lord True said there were many “unknowns” in the Bill and suggested it might best be implemented by being “targeted and phased”.

Replying to the debate, Lord Nash told peers: “It is imperative we carefully cost this policy and find the right balance between being fair to providers and delivering value for money to the taxpayers.”

He said issues to consider included estimates of the number of three and four-year-olds in the future, what proportion had working parents, how many would take up the offer and how many four-year-olds would have a reception place at primary school.

He confirmed the “current estimate” was it would cost “around £350 million to be delivered by reducing the tax relief on pensions for those earning £150,000 a year or more”.

And he added: “The message is clear: this Government is on the side of working people, helping them to get on and support them at every stage of their lives.

“This is why we are pressing ahead with these reforms so that not a moment is lost in getting on with the task.”