Lords criticise lack of detail in Childcare Bill

During the debate in the House of Lords, concerns were raised about the lack of detailed information on how much the scheme would actually cost, as well as the definition of eligibility for working parents who would qualify for the extra hours.

Several peers also took issue with the timetable of the Bill’s passage through Parliament, pointing out that they would not see the results of the funding review and the consultation until after the Bill had passed through the House of Lords.

The review and the consultation will report in the autumn.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said, ‘The devil is in the detail and, sadly, we are being massively constrained in our scrutiny role because of the lack of fairly crucial information’.

She said that the outcomes of the funding review and consultation with carers and parents ‘would not be available until the Bill has long left this House’.

Details of the proposals would be in secondary legislation, she said, ‘which we have not yet seen, and it is not clear whether we are intended to see the draft regulations before we start to scrutinise the Bill in detail’.  

She also raised questions about the funding formula for the offer and said, ‘This all begs the inevitable question of why the bill is being rushed through, when a little more time and preparation might have delivered a popular and workable scheme.’

The Conservative peer and leader of Richmond Council, Lord True, whose wife runs a Montessori nursery, said that he was ‘troubled’ to see that the Bill proposed criminal penalties.

‘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?’

In response, Lord Nash said, ‘I can assure him that this is intended for serious cases relating particularly to the protection of people’s confidential data, as is the case now for the current provision, and for cases of fraud.’

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, who chaired the select Committee on Affordable Childcare, said the Bill showed ‘real and worthwhile commitment, but there is a list of “to do” jobs.’

Highlighting evidence given to the committee regarding underfunding, he said that ‘doubling the number of hours available’ may lead to an ‘unintended consequence’, because it would take away ‘one of the routes by which the current service is funded. The private providers tell us that how they square the books is to offer additional hours at an increased price, ’ he said.

The Bishop of Durham asked whether parents would be able to spread their entitlement to 38 weeks to a longer period over the year, but was assured by Lord Nash that the Bill would allow for this, as it does for the current 570 hours.

The Bishop also raised the issue of capacity in the sector to provide the hours, pointing out that many providers use church and community halls and may not be able to extend the offer on their premises.

There were also concerns that the Bill gives powers for the Secretary of State to set up a corporate body to oversee the duties of the Bill.

Baroness Andrews said, ‘What will be the function of the new and mysterious “body corporate” set out in the regulations? Why is this not in the Bill? This is nothing less than a new quango?’