The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education (Baroness Barran) (Con) My Lords, with the leave of the
House, I shall now repeat a Statement made yesterday in another
place by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education.
The Statement is as follows: “With permission, Mr Speaker, I will
make a Statement on the successful first stage of the largest ever
expansion of childcare in England's history being made by this
Government. The...Request free trial
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a
Statement made yesterday in another place by the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Education. The Statement is as
follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on the
successful first stage of the largest ever expansion of childcare
in England's history being made by this Government.
The Government have a strong track record of supporting parents
with the cost of childcare, supporting disadvantaged children and
ensuring that childcare is of high quality, with 96% of early
years settings rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted. In 2010 we
extended the three and four year-old entitlement, commonly taken
as 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year; in 2013 we
introduced 15 hours of free early education a week for
disadvantaged two year-olds; in 2017 the three and four year-old
entitlement was doubled to 30 hours per week for working parents;
and in March 2023, recognising that childcare is one of the
biggest costs facing working families today, my right honourable
friend the Chancellor announced the biggest investment in
childcare by a UK Government in history, so that by September
2025 working parents will be able to access 30 hours of free
childcare a week from when their children are nine months old
until they start school.
By the time this expansion is complete, parents using the full 30
hours can expect to save an average of £6,900 a year, a hugely
significant saving for their family finances. We are staggering
the expansion to ensure that there are the staff and places
available to meet parental demand, and this month marked the
first stage of the rollout, with eligible working parents now
able to receive 15 hours of government-funded childcare for their
two year-olds for the first time. Last month my right honourable
friend the Secretary of State for Education informed the House
that we expected 150,000 children to benefit from the expansion
from the beginning of this month. As we set out in our official
statistical report, 195,355 parents were already benefiting from
this on 17 April, and we have subsequently broken the 200,000
mark. We will publish further official statistical reports in due
course.
As Members will know, the system involves parents applying for a
code that they take to a provider to be validated in order to
obtain a place. The first phase of the rollout is showing a
trajectory similar to that of our previous expansion of
childcare, in 2017. On 5 September 2017, 71% of codes had been
validated. As of 17 April this year, 79% had been validated by
providers, and we have broken 81% as of this week. With every
rollout, some eligibility codes go unused for a variety of
reasons, such as parents changing their minds about formal
childcare, or being issued with a code automatically even though
they did not need one. In the case of our well-established offer
for three and four year-olds, about 12% of codes have not been
validated, but as with previous rollouts, we expect the number of
children benefiting from this new entitlement—and the number of
codes validated—to grow in the coming weeks and months.
As was the case in 2017, no local authorities are reporting that
they do not have enough places to meet demand. I pay tribute to
early years providers, local authorities, membership bodies and
other key stakeholders who have worked closely with us to ensure
that the first phase of the rollout was successful and parents
could access places, and we will continue to work closely with
them for the next phases of the rollout. The first of those will
begin in September, but parents will be able to start applying
for 15 hours of childcare for their nine month-olds from 12 May,
ready to receive these in September. I am also delighted to
announce that parents on parental leave, and those who are
starting a new job in September, will be able to apply for
childcare places from 12 May, instead of having to wait until 31
days before their first day of work, as has been the case until
now.
Delivering such a large expansion requires more staff and more
childcare places. We estimate that we will need 15,000 more
places and 9,000 more staff by September 2024, and that for
September 2025, which will see the largest phase of the rollout,
a further 70,000 places and 31,000 staff will be needed. Last
year the number of childcare places increased by about 15,000,
and the number of staff by about 13,000, even before the rollout
began and before the significant steps that the Government are
taking, beginning with rates, to increase capacity in the
sector.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has independently confirmed that
funding for the new two year-old entitlement is significantly
higher than average parent-paid fees. According to the
Government's provider pulse survey published last week, the
largest barrier identified by the sector—by 45% of respondents—to
expansion of its provision was future funding certainty, a
message that I have heard clearly from the many providers I have
visited in recent months. In his 2024 Budget, the Chancellor
committed to ensuring that funding rates for all entitlements
would increase by the measure used last year in the 2025-26 and
2026-27 financial years. That estimated £500 million of
additional funding over those two years will provide a level of
certainty that we are confident will help to unlock tens of
millions of pounds in private sector investment, ensure that
rates keep up with provider cost pressures, and give providers a
greater opportunity to increase staff pay.
This year, to support recruitment to the sector, we launched a
£6.5 million recruitment campaign titled “Do something BIG. Work
with small children”, and thousands of people are visiting the
campaign website every week to find out more about the great
early years and childcare careers that are available. In January
we introduced changes to the early years foundation stage to give
providers greater flexibilities to attract and retain staff, and
yesterday we launched a technical consultation setting out the
department's proposals for how a new experience-based route could
work for early years staff who have relevant experience from
other sectors but do not have the full and relevant
qualifications that we require.
Due to the falling birth rate over recent years, some primary
schools have space that they are no longer using, and some have
closed entirely. In order to support our expansion of childcare,
we have launched a pilot to explore how some of the unused school
space could be repurposed to enable childcare settings to offer
more places. If the pilot is a success, the Government will roll
that out more widely.
Our progress in delivering this transformative expansion in early
education and childcare underscores this Government's unwavering
dedication to empowering families, supporting the childcare
sector, and building a prosperous future. I commend this
Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
7.46pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity for us to discuss the
Statement made yesterday in the other place. I thank the Minister
for repeating it today in your Lordships' House. Noble Lords
present are probably united in thinking that the Government's
aspiration in expanding free childcare is welcome. However,
unfortunately, it appears that currently only the Government
believe that their flagship policy is on track.
My first question to the Minister is: why are Ministers
proactively bringing a Statement to Parliament to say that
everything is on track, when the Government's own auditors are
now saying otherwise, without the Government acknowledging that
there are issues? When I suggested yesterday at Oral Questions
that the policy was in trouble, the Minister stated that
“it is a huge success[”.—[Official Report, 23/4/24; col.
1369.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=&ColumnNumber=1369&House=2&ExternalId=62606013-ED30-4F57-9E5D-50B5809A9C92)
I woke up to headlines that indicated that I was not far off. In
light of the report published today by the National Audit Office,
will the Minister accept that the policy is, at the very least,
at risk of not going to plan? Even the Telegraph is reporting
that parents are facing worse childcare under this Government's
childcare expansion.
Are the Government still guaranteeing that every eligible child
has a spot now, that every eligible child will have a spot later
this year, and that every eligible child will have a spot in
September next year? Are parents getting the savings that they
have been promised? Why have the Government repeatedly dismissed
genuine concerns about the rollout of the plan, when the problems
are so clear and stakeholders across the board are highlighting
the same problems?
Even the DfE has the expansion as its top programme risk, with
risks including insufficient places, operational infrastructure
not being ready, insufficient parental demand and an unstable
market. When will the Government make a formal response to the
NAO's report? Furthermore, could the Minister confirm that the
DfE has itself
“assessed its confidence in meeting milestones beyond April 2024
as ‘problematic'”?
Does she agree with the NAO that the extension does not “achieve
its primary aim” or demonstrate “value for money”? How did the
DfE think it was appropriate to set dates for expansion without
engaging with the sector or understanding local authorities' and
providers' capacity? Will the Government act on the NAO's
recommendations about continuously reviewing the achievability of
the 2025 milestones and will they now publish interim performance
thresholds?
I return to the point I made to the Minister yesterday: the DfE's
own pulse survey from last week found that 45% of childcare and
early years providers said it was unlikely that they would
increase the number of places they offer to under-threes as a
result of the Government's childcare expansion. The NAO estimates
there is in fact a net reduction in places—albeit just a 1%
reduction —since 2018, but this is at a point at which we need a
significant increase in places. Could the Minister outline what
the DfE's plan is if it accepts that it will struggle to reverse
this trend, if it finds that the providers simply cannot afford
to offer free places, or the one in three nursery and pre-school
providers that the Early Years Alliance says are at risk of
closure simply do not survive? This would potentially put 184,000
places in jeopardy. How does the Minister explain the disparity
between what the Government say and what the sector, parents and
councils, and now the NAO, are saying?
The Statement repeated today states confidently that
“no local authorities are reporting that they do not have”
sufficient “places to meet demand”. This is very different from
the National Audit Office view that only 9% of areas are
confident that they will have enough places. To clarify this
point, I contacted the Local Government Association, which told
me that councils have reported greater concerns about the next
stages of the expansion, where it will extend to children and
families who would not previously have accessed childcare to this
extent. It is deeply concerned about provision for families that
require a different range of childcare options, such as outside
traditional hours, or families for children with SEND.
The Coram Family and Childcare survey found that England has seen
reductions in the availability of childcare in all categories.
Worryingly, the greatest reductions have been in childcare for
disabled children, which I understand is now at 6% sufficiency.
Can the Minister say why this is the case and what the Government
will be doing to remedy this? Local authorities are also
concerned about recruitment, particularly because of the higher
ratios required for under-twos. They are concerned about the lack
of sufficient level 3 qualified staff in the sector. Is the
Minister confident that recruitment is on track?
There is broad consensus on the need for a decent childcare and
early years offer, including increasing free hours. It is a
shared ambition across political parties to have an improved
system that works for parents and carers and delivers the best
start in life for children. Labour genuinely wants better
childcare and early years provision. We have commissioned a
review by to assess a way forward. We want a well-planned,
well-designed system that delivers for children and improves the
offer to parents.
I am confident that the Minister also wants a system that works,
but the first step in this instance to getting that has to be for
the Government to accept that there are problems, and work to get
this scheme back on track. I look forward to her response as to
how, in light of the serious risks facing this flagship
government policy, the promised expansion in free childcare and
early years provision will be delivered.
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed Statement. I
would guess that all of us aspire to the aspirations that she
espoused on childcare. The issues that we are concerned about—and
they concern a number of people—are around whether this can be
delivered. I listened to the Statement with great care and the
words that were missing were not about numbers but about quality.
I have always believed, as my party always has, that it is not
just about providing childcare. It has to be quality
childcare—and I did not get a sense of that in the Minister's
Statement. There are a number of issues. She mentioned pay, quite
rightly, but it is about training as well.
As we have heard, the National Audit Office has raised concerns
that plans to extend free nursery provision could
compromise—again, that word—the quality of childcare as the
sector expands to meet demand. The NAO cautioned that hiring
inexperienced staff and a lower supervision ratio for two
year-olds could undermine childcare quality. There are also
worries about whether inspections by Ofsted would identify issues
early enough. The NAO has highlighted concerns about the
Department for Education's confidence in delivering required
places, with only 34% of local authorities expecting to have
enough places by this September. On the other hand, the Minister
has painted an extremely positive picture of rollout. It will be
interesting to see who is right.
This ministerial Statement did not mention or address the
up-and-coming report and findings, which have been described as
utterly damning by the early years sector. The Government must
address the findings of this report urgently. The report
concludes that there is a risk posed by
“the lack of contingency and flexibility”
in the Government's “fixed, ambitious timetable”. It is therefore
important that clarity and reassurance is provided quickly on how
they will address the report's findings. Families across the
country will struggle to plan their arrangements if certainty
over the next phase of the rollout is not provided.
Only 17% of nursery managers said that they could offer the
extended entitlement, due to the crisis of recruitment and
retention. What will the Government do to address this
recruitment and retention issue?
Finally, I was interested to hear about the campaign to use
unused schools. The Government want to set up what I think they
call “in-home nurseries” to create some of the 85,000 places
needed. How many schools will be used in the pilot scheme that
the Minister told us about? If the scheme is successful, how many
schools do they think they will be able to finally use?
(Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their questions and for sharing, as
we all do across this House, the ambition for all children, as we
know the importance of a great start in life.
I will start, if I may, where the noble Baroness did in relation
to the National Audit Office report and her question, which was
echoed by the noble Lord, about when we will respond to the
National Audit Office formally. I can give the House some sense
of that today but, in terms of timing, we will also be giving
evidence on this subject to the Public Accounts Committee on 8
May—so our plan is to respond to both the NAO report and the
Public Accounts Committee in the normal way.
On the NAO report itself, I absolutely understand why both noble
Lords rightly raise its challenging aspects, but it is also worth
noting some of the more positive aspects. The NAO report
identifies that the programme has been fundamentally successful
in the rollout so far, meeting and actually surpassing the April
2024 objective. It confirms that the trajectory and take-up of
this expansion in entitlement is the same as previous expansions.
It also notes that it expects that the number of places being
taken up will continue to grow and notes the phased introduction
of the new entitlement.
On the recommendations, the noble Baroness opposite raised the
achievability of the September 2025 milestone, whether the
department would be setting interim performance thresholds and
how we would respond with corrective action, if needed. Of
course, we continually review the deliverability of the
programme. We have a local authority delivery team; we have our
insight unit, which analyses the data; and we have pulse surveys,
stakeholder groups and provider groups, so we are really well
connected into the sector. We have set a series of milestones
that cover local authority readiness, sufficiency and workforce
and, by the end of June, we will set regularly spaced performance
thresholds. We will use those to assess the growth of capacity
places and the workforce. Of course, those can and should be
updated as needed, as we get live data in.
By the end of June this year, we will agree a set of staged
corrective actions, if those actions are needed. To support that,
we will also use our data better. We regularly update both our
supply and demand modelling, and we share that directly with
local authorities. We have a set of KPIs for the programme, which
we monitor regularly.
The noble Lord, , raised a point about the
quality of staff and the risk that, with less experienced staff,
the quality might suffer. We do not really accept that. Back in
2021 we made major reforms in early education, which the noble
Lord will remember. These were designed to improve outcomes for
all children, but particularly for disadvantaged children and
children with special educational needs. In October last year we
published the evaluation report of those reforms, which showed
that practitioners have really benefited.
As we continue with the rollout, we will be looking at the
availability and quality of places for children from
disadvantaged backgrounds. Similarly, for those with special
educational needs and disabilities, we will be looking at what
the impact is if we see new providers and staff entering the
market.
We have also commissioned and funded the children of the 2020s
study, which collects longitudinal data on elements that
influence cognitive and social and emotional development during
early childhood. Obviously, we will share that data.
Deliverability was a key part of both noble Lords' questions, and
the workforce is a critical part of that. It is fair to say that,
where we are further away from a delivery deadline, it is not
unreasonable that confidence in readiness might be lower. Looking
at where we were in November in our pulse survey and what
providers were saying about their readiness for April, 65% of
them said that they were ready. By the March survey, one month
ahead of the extension, that figure had risen by 16 percentage
points to 81%. That is just normal.
It is also important to note that all types of providers that
took part in our pulse survey have increased their capacity in
the last year by over 20% for group-based and school-based
providers. The figure is rather more for childminders although,
as your Lordships know, they represent a smaller part of the
market. On applications, for group-based and school-based
providers, the number of applicants to vacancies is now on
average five to one, which is a really healthy and promising
indicator for the future.
The noble Lord also talked about retention, which is clearly
critical. It will be important to improve retention in order to
reach our objectives. The additional funding, the visibility of
funding and the ability of providers to plan will make
recruitment and opportunities in this sector more attractive, but
there is work to do to deliver that.
The noble Lord also asked about the number of schools. We are
working in a small number of areas with those schools to build a
template of what might work. We will test that and, if it is
successful, roll it out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, asked about wraparound care
outside formal hours. In the Spring Budget last year, we
announced £289 million to support the expansion of wraparound
childcare for primary school-aged children.
Finally, the noble Baroness rightly raised concerns over this
programme delivering for children with special educational needs.
She will remember from my remarks yesterday that we are
conducting a review of how the special educational needs
inclusion fund works to make sure that it is as good as it can
be.
We have chosen a phased approach to make sure that we learn as we
go along with the implementation of this expansion, but we are
doing everything we can to make sure that it is a
success.8.05pm
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister began by saying that this is the biggest
expansion in childcare, and she is right; we share those
ambitions. But it is because it is the biggest expansion we have
experienced in childcare that the NAO report is so worrying.
Among the things the report says, in many different ways, is the
difficulty the DfE has in getting the right data to plan
properly. While I have listened to what the Minister said about
how the DfE will respond, with better benchmarks and so on, I
find it very difficult to know how it will do that given the
quality of data. I will quote from page 33 of the report:
“Given limited engagement, DfE does not know the market's
willingness and capacity to increase places … There remain
uncertainties over whether the sector can expand”.
If you take that set of uncertainties, it becomes clearer why
this is the DfE's top risk. The risks have already been
enunciated by my noble friends. They include risks to places,
operational infrastructure, insufficient parent demand and an
unstable market. That is an extraordinary range of risks. The
risk register must be glowing red. Can the Minister share the
risk register with us so that we can see where the DfE sees the
greatest risks coming from and what the responses will be? If she
cannot do that, maybe she can explain how the risks identified
are being addressed on a systematic basis.
I turn to the conclusion of the NAO report. It says that the
DfE
“has assessed its confidence in meeting milestones beyond April
2024 as ‘problematic'. It must now use available data to
understand when it needs to intervene”.
But, as I said, if the quality of data and access to data are so
limited, how will the department do that?
The conclusion ends:
“In extending entitlements, the government's primary aim is to
encourage more parents into work. Even if DfE successfully
navigates the significant uncertainties”,
which are documented throughout the report,
“it remains unclear whether the extension will achieve its
primary aim, represent value for money and not negatively impact
DfE's wider priorities relating to quality and closing the
disadvantaged attainment gap”.
Each of those phrases carries tremendous weight, particularly the
last one about the attainment gap. How are the Government going
to respond credibly to that set of very authoritative
statements?
Finally, I have a general point. The NAO report is a reality
check. I have every sympathy with the Minister and with the DfE
in trying to deliver this, because it is a huge challenge. One of
the reasons for that is that it is an object lesson in how not to
make policy. The Government did not consult the providers early
enough or get an understanding of what the market was like on the
ground. They did not address the historical underfunding, as we
discussed when we debated this last November, which was built
into the system from 2013 onwards, and did not understand the
lack of resilience in the sector. The Minister talked about
retention and recruitment but, in fact, between 2018 and 2023 an
increase of only 5% was achieved in recruitment and retention.
The target for the coming years is much higher.
This is a very serious report, and it is going to demand from the
department a very serious and credible reply. The real risks are
the risks to parents, who want and need to be able to count on
this service, and to children, who need quality provision, which
they are not likely to get unless investment is properly
guaranteed and targeted.
(Con)
I have to say that I did not agree with everything that the noble
Baroness asserted. To start with the risk register, it is not
glowing red, but it is of course a priority risk for the
department. The noble Baroness understands this extremely well
from her previous experience. We are doubling the commitment in
this area financially: we will spend £8 billion a year once this
rollout is complete, from £4 billion today. That is a massive
increase, and it is a real challenge in a market with a number of
small providers and with the way in which, rightly, we work
through local authorities and providers. So it would be
irresponsible—and I think that the noble Baroness would be
criticising the Government—if it was not a significant risk for
the department. But that means that it gets a great deal of
focus, and there are very detailed plans to support it.
As for consulting the sector, I slightly take exception to what
the noble Baroness said. The department works very closely with
the sector, providers, parents and local authorities, and it is
crucial that we do, because we are committed to getting this
right.
As for the willingness of providers, and the point that the noble
Baroness picked from the report about our understanding of
willingness and capacity, as I pointed out earlier, capacity for
all types of provider rose by over 20% last year. That is very
significant, as I am sure that the noble Baroness agrees. On the
point about willingness, almost 40% of group-based providers, 33%
of school-based providers and 42% of child minders said that they
would be more likely to offer places to children under three,
given this expansion. About half of them—it is slightly
different, but I shall not bore the House with all the
numbers—said that those would be additional places, so they would
not be substituting an older child with a younger child.
Where I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness is that this is
a very serious report. We take it very seriously, and we will
respond in full.
of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, like every other speaker, I have read with concern the
National Audit Office report, which talks about the lack of
qualified staff and suitable space, which could have an impact on
the quality of provision. I share the concerns about qualified
staff, but we have not had much discussion about the suitable
space side of the issue. The Minister may have to write to me
later, but it would be interesting to know how many of these are
actually new facilities, how many facilities are closing— we are
still hearing reports of facilities closing—and what the
comparative quality of the space of the new provision is.
One thing that I was thinking about, which is something that the
Minister and I have discussed before, is access to green space.
We are increasingly understanding how terribly important that is
for the health and well-being of everybody, but particularly
young children. What percentage of the new provision is in places
that have access to space? Is expanding the number of places
reducing the amount of access to green space per child? What
information do the Government have about the quality of the
spaces of these new provisions? That is something that the
National Audit Office has brought to our attention, and it really
deserves more focus.
(Con)
On building capacity, the department has awarded £100 million to
local authorities to help expand capacity. On the quality of
space, as the noble Baroness knows, early years settings are
regulated by Ofsted. It has very clear standards that they have
to meet, and we expect them to meet them.
(Lab)
My Lords, the NAO report suggests that many of the issues and
challenges that we have heard about this evening would have been
mitigated if the Government had not cancelled the £35 million
pilot. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us why we cancelled
the pilot and what assessment has been made for phases 2 and 3 of
the scheme, having not done it.
(Con)
The noble Baroness hits on perhaps the one thing on which we do
not accept the recommendation from the National Audit Office. We
made a decision not to run the pilot because we did not think
that it would contribute meaningfully to readiness or provide
value for money. The key decision we took was that this would be
a phased rollout, so that local authorities, providers and
parents all had time to adapt. We are continuing to test and
review delivery on an ongoing basis; we are piloting different
interventions to support workforce expansion through financial
incentives in 20 local authorities. What we found from the
evaluation of the 2017 rollout was that providers were willing to
offer more hours, and were able to offer sufficient hours, and
that there were no adverse impacts on other provision. We also
found that providers were really flexible. We are very fortunate
to have providers that are so focused on outcomes for parents
and, of course, for their children.
|