25/11/2015 House of Commons

As we come to the childcare bill, I have to remind the house that Mr

Speaker has certified clauses two, four, and six of the childcare bill

Lords understanding order number 83 J in relation to England. I further

remind the house this does not affect proceedings in the debate on

second reading or in committee or at report stage. After report stage, Mr

Speaker will consider the bill again for certification and if acquired

the legislative grants committee will be asked to consent to

certified provisions. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of

the day. Childcare bill Lords, second reading. Secretary of State,

Nicky Morgan. Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the bill be now read a

second time, I am delighted to be opening the second reading debate of

the childcare bill. At the general election, the prime minister

promised a Conservative government would give working parents of three

and four-year-olds 30 hours of free childcare week. We put the early

years at the heart of the manifesto because we know how important these

years are for children's school readiness and future educational

success. We also know that working families struggle to find flexible

affordable and high-quality childcare. For many parents, the

challenge is the biggest barrier to work. I am determined and this

government is determined to deliver these measures which will give

children the best start in life, support parents to work, and as a

result allow our economy and society to prosper. We brought forward this

bill so we can give working parents the extra 15 hours free childcare in

addition to the current 15 hours of free early education for all three

and four-year-olds. The 30 hours that will give hard-working parents

a real choice to earn more by going to work core working more hours if

they want to do so. We have not wasted any time on delivering on

this commitment. Just one month after the election we introduced

legislation to the other place and launched a review into the cost of

providing childcare, something providers had long been calling for

to inform a fair and sustainable funding rate. I thank her for giving

way. She rightly says she wants to make sure her measures are

delivering for all children, how will she make sure that this bill

delivers for disabled children in terms of their access to childcare

which can be so important for helping parents who want to go back

to work? I thank her for that question, she raises an important

point. We want local authorities to ensure they provide places for all

children, those with disabilities and those without. Of course the

fact this childcare bill and 15 hours additional is part of a

package of childcare measures being introduced by this government. The

Chancellor has taught today about the fact we are spending over ?1

billion more on child care every year over the rest of the

parliament. So, we will be conducting early years funding

formula reviews and we want to understand how providers cater for

children with disabilities and special needs as part of that. I

also point out that the tax-free childcare proposals mean the maximum

amount parents can pay into the childcare counts is doubled and they

can use the money for children with disabilities up to age 18. I hope

she agrees we are offering a comprehensive package of childcare

support for all children and families.

I am very grateful for what the Secretary of State has said. Can she

reassured nursery providers in my constituency that there will be a

fairer funding formula? We have heard that a few moments ago, but

for childcare providers, this is important. I am delighted to hear

about the work of the nursery my honourable friend talks about. The

national funding formula review will apply not only to schools but also

to early years, and it will include the high needs block of funding as

well. Could I ask my right honourable friend, it is good that

this doubling of hours for childcare is happening. How will we ensure

that the quality of the childcare that our children will receive will

be doubled up? How will we ensure that there will be sufficient

places, and of the right quality? He raises an important point. We are

doubling the entitlement, and we know that the sector has already

responded, with the introduction of free places for two-year roles, for

the most disadvantaged. The sector responded by creating an extra

230,000 places in the last Parliament. Coming on to talk about

how families will respond to this entitlement, and how they will use

both -- those additional hours. We know there is capacity in the

system. I wonder if the right honourable lady could correct me if

I am wrong, which is the maximum amount of money in this statement

will be ?5,000 per child. If it is term time only, it is 1140 hours. In

my constituency, where costs are ?9 an hour, the amount per hour is not

going to be sufficient. I will come on to talk about hourly rate. Of

course, as part of the funding formula review, we want to make sure

that as much money is going to the front line as possible. Providers

are already working with them. The Secretary of State is right to talk

about the fairer funding formula, which is vital for nurseries. What

measures is she putting in place to guarantee that local authorities

will pass on all this extra funding to the nursery providers and not top

slice it? Honourable gentleman is right. We want to see as much money

going to the front line as possible, and that will be one of the

questions we will be asking as part of the funding formula review. I

will make some progress. I want to talk about rates. The honourable

lady opposite is on the record of saying that she is pleased to see

that the government is offering more support for early years and would

like to see our policies turned into reality. Today she has the chance to

demonstrate her support by supporting this bill tonight, and it

looks like she is going to be doing that. I welcome the support of the

party opposite. There were questions party opposite. There were questions

raised in the other place about why this bill was introduced so early.

Why would we wait? It is clear from the interest of members today how

successful and import of the existing 15 hours offer is in

supporting better outcomes for children. The latest OECD study

reminds us that the UK is one of 13 OECD countries in which more than 9%

of children aged three -- more than a high percentage of children are

involved in early years education. Free childcare is something that

many parents want. We know that this is what parents want because we have

listened to them. My Department consulted with nearly 20,000 members

of the public and 750 employers. Those who took part told us they

wanted more than 30 hours of free childcare. I heard this myself on

the visit to Royals Royce -- Rolls Royce. Employees talked to us about

childcare decisions and what they are looking for with the entitlement

of 30 hours of free childcare. I would like to thank them for sharing

their views. They want more flexibility and choice in how they

can access childcare. I want to ensure there is high quality and

affordable childcare available to those parents, to reduce pressure on

household budgets and ensure they are better to plan for their future.

I am confident we have a child care sector that will deliver. The

childcare market is flourishing and has grown by 230,000 places since

2009. Would my right honourable friend agree that the 130 inch

childminders who create hundreds of places in Portsmouth make a big

difference to the quality of childcare, and will there be

measures put in place to support them, with administration in

particular? Childcare I childminders is very much part of the respond.

They are popular and flexible, and one of the things we have done in

the course of the last Parliament is offered the childcare business

support grants, which allows people to set up in business as

childminders, often women, often setting up in business for the first

time. We welcome their contribution to this market. Providers have

demonstrated what they can do with nearly 60% of eligible children

accessing a place at the beginning of this year. Now we will increase

our overall investment in the childcare sector, and set an

increased funding rate, which will enable providers to deliver the

care. The Chancellor of the care has just set out in his Autumn

Statement, and could not have demonstrated more clearly the

government's commitment to childcare. We have invested billions

of pounds to supporting parents with childcare. This government will go

even further, and invest a record amount in childcare. We will provide

more support than any other government in history, including tax

free childcare being rolled out for 2017, and more support for families

on Universal Credit. Working families will be entitled to receive

an unprecedented increase in childcare support, saving up to

?5,000 per child per year for working families. We will be

investing more than ?1 billion a year to fund our manifesto pledge

for 30 hours of childcare for working parents of three and

four-year-olds. We were the only party at the general election to

commit to raising the average funding rate paid to providers.

Today we are confirming we will do so. I will just make some progress.

The increase in funding includes nearly ?300 million for a

significant uplift to the rate paid with two, three and four-year-olds

entitlements. This will introduce a new rate paid to providers, which

will increase by 30p an hour. ?4 88 is the amount for three and

four-year-olds, and ?5 39 is the rate for two. We have set a rate of

funding that providers need to deliver high-quality childcare, and

delivering good value to the taxpayer. We will consult on a

package of reforms to improve efficiency in the sector. I can

confirm that the early years agreement will not change, it is

worth ?20 million in 2015-16, helping to ensure that three and

four-year-old from disadvantaged families have the best start in

life. The increase in funding is supported by the robust review into

childcare carried out in the last six months. That review is being

published today. I would like to thank those who responded to the

call for evidence as part of that review, and those who attended

discussions. The participation engagement for organisations

including the Independent schools Council and other key partners meant

we could fully understand the concerns and arguments around the

funding of the entitlement. We are committed to ensuring funding is

allocated in the fairest way. Next year, we will consult on an early

years national funding formula which will give due consideration to

disadvantaged children, and special needs funding for the early years. I

remain genuinely confused by this. I hear the words fairer funding

review, but does that mean that in Islington, where the rate is ?9 40

per hour, will money be taken from other barriers to pay for the

childcare within Islington? Less than ?4 50 an hour is not going to

pay for the amount childcare costs in Islington. These are not my

figures. I suggest that the honourable lady looks at the copy of

the review which is being published as I speak. The ?9 an hour figure

isn't one that we recognise. It has not been made clear to us during the

course of the review. The average rate is going to go up to ?4 88 for

three and four-year-olds, and ?5 99 for two-year-olds. We are confident

that that amount of money will be able to increase and provide

high-quality childcare for children in Islington or elsewhere. The

honourable lady asked about the funding formula review. That is

about making sure that as much money goes to the front line as possible.

I hope she has also had a conversation with Islington council

to make sure that they are passing on and providing sufficient places

that are needed for childcare, and pass on as much of the money as they

can. We have talked about top slicing earlier. Front line

providers need to get the money that we are providing. The statistics

that I am quoting, the ?9 50, is the daycare trust numbers. The Secretary

of State must be aware that there are boroughs where the prices are

much more than ?4 50 an hour, and they simply will not be able to

provide childcare, given the amount of money that is being provided

today. It is the bill is going to enter committee, and there will be

debates on this. The evidence -based review does not support the figure

that she has talked about. She might be talking about the additional rate

that some providers will charge, not for the free entitlement. We are

talking about the free and title and, the hundreds of millions of

pounds that this government is going to spend of hard earned tax payers

money to ensure that families get the support for childcare that they

need. On the note about councils siphoning off a bit of the money,

that happens in Wiltshire, and I welcome that we will prevent that.

What measures will be put in place regarding that in the future? Part

of the reason for having the funding formula review, and this is part of

a wider review for school funding as well, is to make sure that we talked

to local authorities and others receiving the money to find out the

best way. In my opinion, the best way to do that is to ensure maximum

transparency, so people know how much money is given by the

government, how much the local authorities are receiving, and how

much is being passed on. It will be very clear to businesses, families,

and those potentially paying additional costs. We need to have

that review and make sure we get contributions across the country. I

will give way for the last time. She has been very generous. Could she

confirmed that this additional money is going to be ring-fenced? I am a

bit uncertain about that. I assumed the money would be ring-fenced

specifically to go to nursery providers. The money for childcare

providers is paid to the local authorities. This money is paid for

the provision of childcare. It goes back to the point I have been making

about transparency, and needing to know how much of that money is being

spent, and how much is reaching the front line. We could be talking

about childcare providers, but also schools. Let me turn to the funding

review clause, which was added to the bill in the other place. Now

that we have carried out a substantial funding review, we want

to get on with implementing this free entitlement. The first clause

in this bill was to establish an independent funding review before

the bill comes into force. This will put that early implementation at

risk. Labour peers were willing to deliberately delay these important

measures by asking for a further funding review.

They maybe feeling embarrassed as the Chancellor has debunched all

their -- debunked all that you are scaremongering about funding. She

has the opportunity to redeem herself, back this bill and help us

to over turn the amendments which seek to delay this. If she does not,

I do not think that working parents will look kindly on her attempts to

delay their access to more free child care. The Government delivers

on its promises. This gives 30 hours of free child care. Local

authorities deliver the first 15 hours of free education for three

and four-year-olds with a take up rate of 96%. While the bill places

the duty to secure free child care on the the Secretary of State, I

will discharge it through English local authorities. This Government

is committed to working with local authorities, as we develop the

delivery of the programme, through early implementation stage and

beyond into the full roll out of the system from September 2017. We have

been work with the local authority government association and I would

like to thank them for the work they have done with us and for their

co-operation. Around 1800 local authorities and providers have

registered their interest to take part in the early pilots. There are

huge opportunities to test capacity, flexibility and innovation and make

sure all eligible children, including those with special

educational needs are able to access the 30 hours offer. As part of early

implementation, we want to encourage innovative approaches for work

parents whose children are disabled. Early years providers should be able

to meet the needs of all children in their care. In the last Parliament

we delivered the most significant reforms for 30 years, putting early

identification integration at its heart. We are committed to continue

making a difference to families through early years provision. We

encourage providers to offer the hours at the times for working

families and those work outside 9 to 5. The Government recognises that

the need for child care does not end when a child starts school. So we

are giving more working parents something that the best schools

already done. We will give parents the right to request child care in

the form of breakfast and after school clubs and holiday care at

their child's school. I welcome the news about before and after school

club. I wonder if she will guarantee that parents will be able to access

those places. I have recently lost all my breakfast club facilities for

both my children and was offered only one morning a week on two

separate weeks for my children. I wonder if she can guarantee parents

like me that I will be able to get that? The honourable lady has set

out the problem that we are trying to solve and the - she and other

parents will be able to ask to contact the governing body. There is

need for the school to make the school available for before and

after school actics -- activities. That also extends to having

provision during the school holidays, that is another time when

it is difficult for working parents to juggle their parental

responsibilities and work. And the child free tax care, I don't know

the age of the honourable lady's children. That would extend up to

the age of 12 and could pay into the account and the Government would top

up that up to ?2,000 a year and she could use that for provision. In my

experience, when schools and others realise there is a parental demand

that actually they do want to respond to that, they know that is

something parents want. It is a great delight to see more Labour

policy implemented by the Government. Can she confirm this

afternoon when she talks about the provisions that schools can make

that she has allowed the Chancellor to deliver a ?6 hundred million cut

to academies budgets. First, I should the honourable gentleman

should be pleased that we are actually, this party, on the side of

working people. He will know his own front bench are not. If he would

like to join us he would be welcome. His party when he was the shadow

education Secretary did not commit to increasing the funding for early

years in the way we have done. We can have a wider debate about the

schools budget. That is not the subject for debate today. But we are

not only committed to protecting the schools budget in real terms, by the

end of the Parliament the resource budget will be higher than it was at

the start, something that the honourable gentleman's policies

would never have delivered. I'm going to move on for the last time.

I will stifbg to the money -- stick to the money. When this side was

promising 25 hours a week term time only, I as understand it the

minister at the time said it would cost ?1.6 billion. Isn't the problem

the honourable lady has is she is missing a billion pounds and can't

cover child care at the cost it is rally going to cost? Yet again I

don't agree with the honourable lady's figures. The point is she is

Mickist missing the additional help that we are also giving to families

through tax free child care and universal credit, which net each

other off and of course she has already I think she needs to do and

look at funding review and she will see the response from those working

in the sector as to the rate they have been asking for and the reason

why the figures have been arrived at today, which I have just mentioned

which are an increase as well. She also should take note of the fact

that we are going to be spending a billion more on child care each year

in the course of Parliament. I want to make progress. Now, let me turn

to eligibility for this child care package. One of the key messages

from parents was a desire for a simpler system. We confirmed in the

other place that eligibility for the 30 hour entitlement will align with

tax free child care. As the Chancellor set out, parents will be

able to access the 30 hour titlement if they work 16 a week. Including

those who are self employed. In the case of lone parents, the same

threshold will apply and this makes is a significant offer and anyone

earning more than ?107 a week at the minimum wage will be eligible. As

many parents will enbit fit, it makes sense that parents can apply

for both schemes. This will provide a simple way to access both seems,

saving parents and providers time. Families are complex and different

circumstances need to be taken into account. The free hours will be

available where both parents are employed, but one or both are away

from the home place. This will ensure continuity and limit

disruption for children and providers. The additional free hours

will be available where one parent is employed, but the other has

substantial caring responsibilities or one parent is disabled. While we

are making a commitment to investing in the early years, we are doing so

when we are facing difficult seditions -- decisions. At the

centre has been the belief that it is right for those with the broadest

shoulders to bear the greatest burden and we intend to introduce an

income cap where parents who earn more than ?100,000 will not be able

to access the additional entitlement. We want parents to make

informed choices and it is vital that parents have easy access to

information about the child care that is available. So through the

bill we have introduced a requirement on local authorities to

publish information and advice for parents on child care in their area.

Child care's digital app which allows parents to search for free

child care will make it easier for parents to find out about high

quality and flexible child care places. So parents can access the

information they need to find the care that is right for their child.

The message and the measures in this bill are clear. The Conservative

Party is the party of working people. And this Government is on

the side of working parents. Through passage of bill we will fulfil our

pledge to do more to ease the pressure on working families, by

supporting them with the cost of child care. We are pushing forward

legislation to get them that support quickly and it should be supported

from all sides of the chamber. I look forward to listening to

contributions from members of the House and I believe that the

principles behind the bill are ones that everyone will support. The

under-Secretary and I look forward to working with all members on this

bill. The question is that the bill be read a second time. Lucy Powell.

I rise to support this bill at second reading. On this side of the

House we have a proud record on child care and enabling work to

return to work. We introduced free child care for three and

four-year-olds and delivered the first and only child care strategy

across Government and created sure start centres, expanding nurseries

and more than doubled child care places. We increased maternity leave

from 12 weeks to 12 months and increased maternity pay and

introduced the right to request flexible working and gave help with

child care. Child care was a free part of our plans to support

families. We welcome any investment in child care. I am pleased the

government now accept that supply side funding is a more effective way

of helping parents with the cost of child care and controlling prices

and increasing quality. Something that I have long argued for. But for

all ther trumpeted of Government achievements, their record tells a

different story. Financial support for child care for most families

fell in the last Parliament. In that time child care costs rocketed by a

third. Up over ?1,500 since 2010. The pre-election promise of tax free

child care remains undelivered and early years places have fallen by

40,000 since 2009. The two-year-old offer while a good poll

circumstances remains undersubscribed and sure start

centres have gone to wall in many areas. Even the Prime Minister

disagrees with his own Government's record on sure start. I welcome the

U-turn on tax credits, but cuts have hit families hard. The story of the

last Parliament is one of reducing support for working family, child

care costs going up and the gender gap remaining stuck for the first

time in 15 years. She mentioned cuts to child tax credit. Does she accept

it is unfair and unjust for nine out of ten families, even members of

Parliament to be eligible for child tax benefits. Well most families

under their plans will be eligible for support with child care, so the

point being if I may say that the Government took away many of the

support that many families relied on, financial support are now

reintroducing it by different means. Today's claim of significant

resource for child care belie the reality. Famy were promised tax free

child care, but it is going to be another two years behind schedule

and the three and four-year-old entitlement, which is due in autumn

2017 still has funding question marks as we have heard from speakers

today. So any parent at the last election with a two, three, or

four-year-old might have expected to receive additional support. Yet none

of families will receive an extra penny. As their children will have

passed the eligibility ages by the time the policies are introduced.

Child care is vital to our future success for two reasons. Firstly, a

growing economy, through enabling parents to work and secondly to

close the developmental gap preschool, critical to educational

achievement. High quality, flexible child care is critical for the

economy. We have made great strides in the last 20 years, but important

policy challenges remain. On maternal employment rates,

particularly for mothers with children aged between one and four,

are poor come peered with other OECD countries. Over a third of mothers

who want to work are unable to do, because of child care costs and two

thirds of mothers would like to work more hours but are unable to do so,

because of unaffordable child care bills. This is particularly true for

second earners as the resolution foundation and the IPPR have

illustrated. Once you hit the age of 40, the pay

gap can be stark. Pressures on family budgets have increased.

Single earner households are now more likely to be in poverty. So to

boost our economy and give families the chance of a decent job and

income, childcare investment is essential. But high-quality

childcare is essential to. We know that many of the most disadvantaged

five-year-old start school 18 months behind their peers. Wood quality

childcare can close this gap and give children a good foundation for

school and later life. Sometimes, these two aims of economic output

and early education require different solutions. Sometimes,

seeking to improve one element can come at the expense of the other. So

providing support like extra free hours is a good way of delivering

both. Tax-free childcare is designed to put cash in parents pockets, and

does not contain levers to deliver quality or control prices. The

two-year-old offer aims to reduce inequalities. The extension of the

15 hour offer to 30 hours should be about delivering both objectives,

but this requires quality and funding. We support this bill, but

there are a number of challenges with government's plans, and it is

right that we scrutinise them. This childcare policy needs to be

considered in the context of the totality of childcare support, which

is complex. Overall, support has fallen for families while costs have

gone up. Any measures like this should be robust we analysed for the

impact on the market in which they operate, including the impact on

price, places and quality. Put simply, high-quality, affordable

childcare is not cheap. Attempts by government to cut corners will

ultimately fail. At the heart of this bill is a serious funding gap,

and today's announcements only go some way to answering these.

Previously, the bill lacked substance and clarity about funding.

When ministers first announced the offer, they said it would cost ?350

million. This figure was pie in the sky, and has been revised recently

to ?640 million. However, a ?1 billion funding gap has been

identified in the plans. We welcome today's announcement, which shows

the government understands there is a funding shortfall. However, we

will have to interrogate this further as the bill proceeds. The

raid still remains below the true cost of childcare. The switching of

money from reducing those who are entitled to the extra support to

provide funds for the three and 4-year-old offer is a switch spend,

and still leaves a shortfall. Families where one parent works

around 15 hours a week will rightly be disappointed that they are no

longer eligible for this support. She is right to reduce the

entitlement at the top end of the salary scale to ?100,000 per

parents, but Shannon -- can she clarify how this funding will be

allocated? The government's failure to adequately fund the free offer

could have far reaching implications to the childcare market. There has

been a review which the honourable lady will not have had the

opportunity to see yet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has

announced, and the Secretary of State has identified, that there

will be a cap. The CD as she identifies must be out of date,

because they do not take into account the review. The figures.

With... Nor has she seen it, with respect. She misunderstands the

nature of the market. The hourly rate which is paid to nurseries by

the local authorities is not a cap on the cost of childcare, it is a

cap on the amount the nursery can claim. The true cost of the

childcare is significantly more in places like Islington. The true cost

of that childcare can often be as high as ?9 per hour. In nurseries in

my own constituency it can be considerably higher than the hourly

rate. What happens is, the private providers cross subsidise from the

free offer that they then offered to parents with paying out was that

other parents pay for. She might look puzzled. I know a considerable

amount about this subject, having been the shadow childcare response

person for two years. There are major problems with the childcare

market, even if you increase the hourly rate by 30p, and even if you

use the early years pupil premium to cross subsidise, taking money from

elsewhere. I thank the honourable member for giving way. The cost of

childcare review, undertaken by the Department over six months, had 2000

responses, including from all the sector representatives. The hourly

rates that have been announced today reflect the data that was given us

by the sector, including the profit and loss accounts of actual

providers. I would encourage her to look at that. Of course I will look

at it, and perhaps next time we are having a second reading of a debate

where funding is so critical, ministers opposite might care to let

the opposite front edges have sight of that information before we

embark. There still remain key issues here about the ability of the

vast majority of providers in this sector to deliver these free hours,

notwithstanding the challenges that remain for support. Reference has

been made to the cost of childcare review, which we have been told that

6000 people have put into it. It is yet to be found in the library,

because there are people looking for it. It is online but it is taking a

certain amount of time to print off. So we have not been able to look at

it in advance of the debate, or during it. It really is a farce

having this second reading now. I do agree with the honourable lady. She

makes a very good point. It doesn't get away from the fact that the

overall cost of this policy has a considerable funding shortfall. This

is regardless of the hourly rate. I beg your pardon, the Minister

himself said, when the Labour Party announced, before the last

election, that we were seeking to increase the number of free hours

from 15 to 25 hours, the then Minister for childcare said that

policy would cost one point ?2 billion. -- ?1.2 billion. That is

greater than the amount that the same government has put forward for

an additional five hours a week of funding. There are big funding gaps

that the government still has to to answer, regardless of the hourly

rate being paid. House of Commons library analysis has shown that

there are over 44,000 fewer early year childcare places today than

there were in 2009. Six in ten local authorities tell us they do not have

adequate supply of childcare for local parents. There is a downward

trend in childcare places which should cause concern. Private and

voluntary providers make up the vast majority of childcare places in

England. If there is not adequate resource for these nurseries, they

will simply not offer these free hours. I welcome the increase in the

hourly rate, but questions remain about how the places will be

provided, and without an increase in supply, costs will continue to rise

for parents. Parents will also be very concerned that the quality of

childcare could be damaged by the failure of the government to

adequately support their proposals. There is a wealth of evidence, from

the education select committee and Ofsted, that identifies the strong

links between outstanding provision and the best qualified staff. For

childcare is worse than no childcare, and can be detrimental to

development. Unless the government has answers on adequate funding, the

result will be a fall in quality provision. Can she give an assurance

today that they need these proposals there are no plans to reduce

quality, increase ratios or lower requirements for those who can offer

the free entitlement? Insufficient funds and poor delivery could have

the opposite effect the government wants, and lead to fewer places,

poorer quality and higher cost for parents. The government has ample

time to address these concerns before their policy is due to be

introduced in autumn 2017. We want to work with ministers to ensure

their plans are credible and affordable. Part of the problem is

the government has no clear strategy for trials care. I hope she will

reflect on this and come back to the house in due course with an

overarching childcare strategy. Would the minister like to

intervene? No. Happy for him to come forward and say he has a childcare

strategy! We will continue to support the progression of this bill

through parliament, but it is the secretary's responsibility to

satisfy this house, the other place and parents that this plan for

childcare is deliverable, sustainable and affordable. She must

set out her funding plans and reassure us through the passage of

this bill. There are other questions, such as who will be

liable to prove that parents are working, and sufficient hours, and

how disabled children will be supported? I want this policy to

work. I wanted to be a success, and I want it to have real meaning for

parents, and to ensure that children are supported in having a great

start in life. I look forward to working with her on this, and I

recommend that we support this bill this evening. Thank you, Madam

Deputy Speaker. Childcare is not a political football, and I really

hope that the honourable lady sitting on the front edge opposite

is not choosing to make it that. For my constituents, we want to make

sure there is consistency in the way childcare is approached in the

future, which goes for our constituents and their children, and

providers of childcare as well. I think that are some important

differences between the two front benches, and it is important to

recognise that. I believe that the a conservative to government is

showing a real understanding of the role of childcare and that it is

vital for working parents. There has been a real quiet revolution

happening in our workplace since the country has been recovering from the

recession, with more women in work than ever before, including in this

place. It is important to recognise this difference in approach, and

particularly that the Prime Minister, throughout the previous

five years, has made it central to the work that he has done in

government, to make sure that flexible working is in place for all

parents. And for all of us. These are ambitions that the Labour Party

didn't deliver on in their time in office. There are still many women

who are not in work who would like to be, and that's why I am pretty

sedating in the debate today. It is important to support this bill were

to see a doubling of free childcare alongside the other measures that

the right honourable lady mentioned in her opening statement, such as

tax-free childcare for the first time ever, and more support than any

government has ever offered working parents before. Can I also suggest

to the right honourable lady, she should be talking about being the

party of working women, which is what this government is delivering

through the childcare priorities she is setting out. Understanding the

pressures that working parents face, especially those with small

children, is vitally important. Women who want to return to work

have found it almost impossible to do, in the past, because of the

financial pressures they face. It would be wrong for those in the

other place to seek to delay this important manifesto commitment by

forcing on yet further research and funding reviews, which clearly

aren't required in order to make this measure work.

To make sure in the other place they listen to this debate and they don't

seek to block what is an important measure, which has support from both

sides of the House. Child care costs continue to be a real pressure. That

is why this measure is important. I would like to pay tribute to the

work of organisation like For Children, who provided briefings for

all of us a and they pointed out that one in five parents has

considered reducing their work hours, because of cost of child

care. That is why this measure is important. Because while we have

gone a long way in trying to make child care affordable, there is

still more to do. This measure will help do that for parents. I hope the

honourable lady sitting listening on the opposition bench registered that

and registers that is the will of parents. I welcome this bill. I

welcome the Government's commitment to increasing the average child care

funding rates as well that are paid to providers and welcome the

measures the Government outlined to make sure there is a fair

distribution of funding across the country. If my constituency, most

families have all parents working. That is one parent families and two

parent family households. 16,000 families in Hampshire could benefit

from this measure. This is a seismic change for those families. It is

important to get it in place. In Hampshire we are well placed to take

advantage of the new measures, because 90% of our providers are

good or outstanding according to Ofsted and we have more than 14

hundred early years providers delivering this key public service.

But we are still recovering from I think some measures put in place in

the past which had good intentions, but did unintentionally do some

damage. In the past we have seen thousands of child minders leave the

sector, because of the pressure they felt from the administrative burdens

they faced. That was a shame, because they provided excellent,

good quality child care for many working parts, particularly who were

looking for after school care. Government funding for free places

has been top sliced as my honourable friend mentioned. Because of a lack

of a focus on perhaps the detail of how that could be prevented. Indeed

parents have been in the past overwhelmed by the complexity of

what was offered and initiatives that were so complex and not well

communicated that many of our constituents found it difficult to

understand how they could access that or were overlapping and

provided additional complexities for employers. I welcome the comments

the Secretary of State made in terms of being committed to a simpler

system. I think that is an admirable place to start. The opposition did

rather overfocus for a second reading debate on the details of

finances. That is important, but there are other things that are

important as well. I would just perhaps draw the Secretary of State

and her ministers' attention to a few of them. Firstly, the importance

of making sure that for parents we have stability in terms of their

access to child care. If those parents who are work don't have

long-term permanent contract, they may have breaks in employment or

have variable hours. We need to make sure that for the children involved

have stability in the child care that they have on offer. So perhaps

the minister could in his comments at the end perhaps touch on how he

will make sure that there are perhaps grace periods in place to

make sure parents who have an underlying eligibility but may have

short breaks in their employment still are able to access child care

if that is at all possible. The second point is in terms of

flexibility and building on some of the points the honourable lady

speaking for the opposition was making, 45% of women with children

work, do not work full-time. Many work atypical hours, but many work

less than a full working week. I think flexibility needs to look at

not only the, those that work a typical hours, but those that work

shorter than the average working week, to ensure that they have the

right flexibility and the child care doesn't become a cost which is

higher than it should be in accordance with the hours they work.

They should be at the heart of proposals and not left to the

discretion of local authorities as to how flexibility works. I hope

this is something the ministers can consider to make sure it works in

practice for women and for parents who need it so badly. The third

point I would make... It seems that the child care will not be available

to parts unless they have weekly income level per parent equivalent

of 16 hours a week worked at the national living wage that. Does seem

to mitigate against the idea of people being able to work flexibly.

I thank you. I am not about to have a debate. I hope the honourable lady

is on the committee, because he will bring expertise to it. I'm setting

out the issues that I I think should debate and I leave the ministers to

answer the detail of her point. Going on to the issue of the

business model of providers, because the honourable lady speaking for the

opposition raises an important point in terms of making sure that this

does work for the providers, because unlike many services that

governments deliver, this is delivered predominantly by private

and independent providers. And it is important there is an understanding

of the business model and important to make sure that any funding regime

takes that, takes the realities of business life for providers into

account. I applaud the announcements of an increased rate in the average

hourly rate that will go to providers, but I would underline

that the only way this will work if there is, is if there is a guarantee

in place that the money is not top sliced by local authorities who may

seek to use that money to prop up services which are there to

apparently support the child care sector. Some of the services are

important. But what is most important is that the money gets to

the providers to provide the care the providers to provide the care

for our children. Because making sure that more of that money

gettings through will make sure that the quality is there as well.

Another issue which I hope the honourable lady will be able to

consider as this bill passes through the House is the knock on

opportunities for staff in terms of apprentice ships, making sure that

apprenticeships are available to those in the sector in the quantity

that would be needed to staff this new initiative. I thank the

honourable lady for the response to my intervention earlier on about

special educational needs. I raised that point, particularly because it

was an issued raised by me by a contacted family and they have

undertaken research which shows that 40% of families with disabled

children are not able to take up the 15 hour child care offer that is

currently available. That is ten times more than non-disabled

children, because parents can feel that staff don't have sufficient

training or providers can refuse a place for disabled child. Now

denying a child that opportunity is unacceptable. Denying parents the

opportunity to work is unacceptable. I am delighted to hear that there is

a focus in there on ensuring that the support for children who are

disabled to get this sort of child care is manifest and applaud the

work is being done and hope that continues. As I said, I am fortunate

to come from an area in North Hampshire that has a strong child

care sector. Strong because we have a strong local economy, as a result

of measures the government has put in place, the unemployment records

-- levels are at a record low. We need to make sure we have a strong

scheme in place tone sure that -- ensure that the child care sector

can flourish in every constituency in the country. In my constituency,

more than 40 group settings have said they want to offer the 30 hour

offer. 92 child minders have expressed their interest of being

part of early implementation of the new offer for parents. I I believe

our County Council is Regging an interest to -- registering an

interest and I hope with the support the council can do that and ensure

that excellent counties like that are in the van guard of delivering

an exciting new policy and I commend the ministers for the incredible

hard work they have put into this measure and bringing it forward to

the House today. I rise to speak today as a former teacher with 20

years experience in education. So I plan to speak today from a personal

point of view and I also plan to speak fairly briefly. I want to

speak particularly about clause 2, because I think there are some

issues there with clause 2. Years ago I worked at Glasgow University

and I was part of a team training new teacher, this was teachers from

nursery schools to secondary science teachers. One of the things that I

had to do as part of that job was to visit students in placement. And I

happened to visit a student in a particularly deprived area of

Glasgow. And there was a small boy there who had one word in his Voe

cackly. He had -- Voe Kabary. He had started school and the only word he

had man and that word was used to any adult and any older pupil. This

us was not a child -- this was not a child with special educational

needs, but a child with... Whose language development was severely

behind that what it should be. The honourable lady from Manchester

central mentioned this 18 month development gap. For this particular

child, it was closer to two years and that is a very difficult gap to

make up. There was some great work done by a Notre Dam sister who came

to Glasgow to look at the difficulty young people had in communicating.

She worked very closely with the parents and realised that early

intervention was key. This nun Doreen Grant wrote a book called

Learning Relations. So this 30 hours of child care. Can I say it's

absolutely fantastic for working parents. Extremely important and

will make a massive difference to their lives. I welcome that.

However, I think we need to be careful about the language, or maybe

we need to revise the language that has been used. We talk about child

care and maybe that is a difference. In Scotland we talk about early

years education and the education programme starts aged three. I'm not

talking about a formal education learning to read and write, I'm

talking about learning to communicate, learning relationships,

and starting to work through a curriculum. But when we compare the

word child care to the words early years education there is a subtle

but fundamental difference here in the language. Child care is about

the parents. It is about what we can do to help the parents to support

them. How it benefit them. How it makes their life more convenient and

yes of course it will benefit the children as well. However, early

education is focussed 100% on the children themselves. And it is about

improving the life chances for our children. Now, the Secretary of

State said they were the only party to have 30 hours of child care in

their manifesto. I'm sure it was a slip up from the Secretary of State,

because of course the Scottish National Party had already had 30

hours early years education in their manifesto. And that, the difference

here of course, is it is for all children. And that is really

important, because if we are talking about education as a way of

increasing their life chances it is crucial that we are not limiting it

to parents who are both in work. This clause 2 will further increase

inequalities and means that children that are most in need of a good

start and early intervention could miss out.

There are three groups of parents that I have concerns about that are

not fully addressed in this bill. First, we have heard about children

with disabilities. I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to

ensure there will be provision made for these children. I wonder about

parents with disabilities who are not able to work. Where does that

leave those children? These children's could be further excluded

from society, and could miss out on chances. And we could be talking

about extremely young children having to take on a caring role, and

that's really important. I really feel strongly that has to be, the

provision has to be increased to include people with disabilities who

are unable to work. There is also a worry about grandparents, sometimes

elderly grandparents, looking after children. No provision made for

them. They also have two fulfilled this requirement to be in work in

order to access this 30 hours. There's an opportunity here to

really make a difference to these carers, these unsung heroes in

society. The third group of parents I am concerned about are those who

are on hours contracts. The honourable lady talked about

flexible working. What about zero hours contracts? Unless we have a

firm commitment to childcare provision, people on zero hours

contracts will not be able to access that, which is really worrying.

There is a very famous quote that's been attributed to lots of people,

give me the boy until he is seven and I'll give you the man. That is

absolutely key. What we do at the early stages makes such a

difference. The Secretary of State talked about school readiness, and

this 30 hours making such a difference to young children when

they go to school. Are we only going to ready some sectors of society? We

must ensure that this is expanded. I would urge the Secretary of State to

look at that, expand it to make sure that all children, particularly

those from a disadvantaged background, are able to access this.

We've got an opportunity here to support both the parents and the

children, and I would urge the Secretary of State to follow the

Scottish Government's ambitious target to provide 30 hours of

childcare, better 30 hours of early years education, to all children.

Thank you. I welcome this bill, and I rise to and some reasons why I do

so. This goes to the heart of what constituents say to us, in every

part of the country, whether they are already working and wants

security against the costs of the childcare they already pay for, or

perhaps a couple who wants to be able to get into work or back into

work, and faces a situation where the costs of childcare are just not

worth it. I have spoken to schools of Norwich, parents and childcare

providers, who welcome this bill for those reasons. I am proud that this

is an election manifesto pledge, and I think that this bill stands to

help parents considerably by doubling the number of free hours

they can use. I think we will see, if we get this right, a

transformative effect for so many people. We will see it for those

parents who can then measured their household balance is more easily,

for parents who can now choose to go to work, for parents who may be able

to now change their career if they so wish, by having this backing

behind them. We will see a benefit to the children behind them, who

will be able to get that much more high-quality early years education.

I want to see an emphasis on quality as much as quantity. I think we will

see a benefit to local local economies, who will see the

workforce ETA supported, less stressed, more resilient and more

able, for the people who are those employees, to take advantage of the

opportunity is they wish to. I also want to say a word for the kind of

local businesses who are the nurseries and childcare providers

themselves. They will be able to grow to meet this demand, and employ

more local people themselves. We do have to get this right in

legislation. I want to add a feud detail is from my own constituency

and from the County of Norfolk. Norfolk County Council's 2015

childcare efficiency assessment shows us that with household incomes

in Norfolk lower than the national average, the biggest concern for

families is the cost of childcare. Research shows there is already

eyeing independent and voluntary sector in the county. Childminder

numbers are coming down. Recruitment is a challenge for some settings.

Quality of childcare provision in Norfolk is higher than the national

average. We see that 94% of Norfolk parents are happy with their current

childcare, although reports some dissatisfaction with affordability,

accessibility and availability. Norfolk parents want to use

childcare. Nearly eight out of ten of parents of eligible children take

up that provision, compared to six out of ten nationally. So credit

where it is due to the County Council, who have responded to armed

by creating over 2000 places for eligible to-year-old in one year.

There is a surplus of funding for two-year-old children over all, but

there is a widespread shortage of three and 4-year-olds funded

places. The County Council estimates that places are still required for

3600 two-year-olds, and 18,700 three and 4-year-olds. In my constituency,

demand outstrips supply for places for two-year-old and three and

4-year-olds. Some recent figures as Nick sample suggests there are

around childcare places in the mile Cross and Sewell areas of my

constituency, but 1200 three and 4-year-olds. So there is a shortfall

of half is what is needed. On top of that, like many constituencies

around the country, I see housing growth to come to the north of

Norwich. I see that the zero -5 population is rising. I also see

that demand is likely to rise further with this doubling of free

hours. In many ways, that's an opportunity. There is an opportunity

to be grasped in local economies like Norwich for this to be

something that can be done, and done well, for parents. Let me add the

thoughts from constituents who have contacted me. This one talks about a

shortage of out of school care. That applies to children who will be in

some cases older than what we are talking about here. But her comments

hold for parents facing all types of childcare shortages. She says, the

local childminders are all full with waiting lists. The local school has

increased its intake, but the breakfast and after-school clubs do

not provide enough places for the pupils at the school. She asks, how

is that sufficient? She says she works for the NHS as a nurse working

for disabled children. She says she will struggle to continue to do

shiftwork, because her son comes first, and with no option of

childcare, she will have to to leave her work. She asks, as my MP, if you

could provision -- increase the provision of after-school care, that

will be great for many parents. Having exhausted all avenues, she

says, including sure start centres, the County Council website and

Facebook groups, I will have two move, leave my job. So she is being

penalised for working full-time, she says. There is a huge fish unity to

get this right, for children of all ages, but particularly format one

max. The opportunity is there for parents, for children and for local

constituencies. -- particularly for one max. I have already convened

local action on this issue. The local SP college, as a workforce

provider, I have approached nurseries to ask how we can in

courage the greater supply in Norwich. We should be considering

that question alongside the legislation here. We have two years

to get it right. Parents need us to do so. We can look at some of the

obvious concerns, such as suitable premises all land available within

an urban area. We are also looking at the funding settlement. I welcome

the higher funding settlement announced today, and I want this

message to go out to childcare businesses in Norwich today, this is

your chance. This is an opportunity to serve your local economy by

coming into business in this area. I'd also expect the County Council

to look at its funding model, which it has, in terms of the detail of

the way it applies the funding to different types of setting. I would

also note that Norfolk County Council spends nearly 9% of its

early funding centrally, rather than passing it to providers. I say that

is too high. Cornwall spends 0.3% of its funding centrally, and

Lincolnshire 2.9%. So it can be done that those costs be brought down,

and I would urge Norfolk to look at that. This group I am communing in

Norwich will work together in five areas. We will cooperate with

schools in planning, in the planning that they have to do. We want to

cooperate with local authorities and the other planning they do in the

sense of development, so there is the use of this rates to look at --

of business rates. We also want to work together with business and

inward investment organisations. The larger chains, who have not yet seen

the opportunity in Norfolk, should come here and see the investment

opportunities we have. We also want to work with local education

providers, because there will clearly be the need for a training

offer suitable for increased demand. The fifth thing we must do is a

question of raising awareness. We have an opportunity here. It is a

huge opportunity that must be grasped. We would be letting down

parents and children and our local economy if we did not grasp this

opportunity, so let this message go out today from this chamber and this

bill, that childcare is that chance. It is an exciting opportunity, and

the government is doing what it can to make sure that that comes about

for parents and children. I have laid out just a few of the

characteristics of childcare in Norfolk, and particularly in my

already that I am leading in the already that I am leading in the

constituency for those parents who need this childcare, and there is

more to do. I thoroughly support this bill today, which will pave the

way for parents to go into work, for local businesses to grow, and for

children to benefit from good quality early years education. We

should see this bill accordingly. It is a pleasure to follow the

honourable member. As we have seen the debate is split between a

conversation between maternal employment rates and development and

the point the honourable lady for the SNP raised. I would have more

cress dense to her view if the rates of social mobility in Scotland under

the SNP administration were working faster when we see the number of

childrens from disadvantaged background going to higher education

in relation to England, the SNP have not delivered what they promised.

I'm delighted. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way.

He possibly doesn't realise one of the routes into higher education in

Scotland is through further education and these figures are not

included in your statistics. I thank today for her intervention and I do

know that. If I was a representative of the SNP I wouldn't be defending

their role with further education. What they have done is support

higher edge case at the expense of further education and hammering the

poor. But I'm being dragged away from the second reading of the bill.

As the shadow Secretary of State said, we can all welcome the policy

of extending free child care to 30 hours, this builds on the Labour

offer of 25 hours that we were told was unaffordable. It builds on hours

of work. Any legislation which aims to tackle the child care crisis

which aims to increase maternal rates of employment and aims to

generate long-term growth has to be welcomed. But over the last five

years the Government has made it harder to parents to find the child

care hours they need. Since twen ten there -- 2010 there are 40,000 fewer

places. Child care prices are crippling families who are already

under pressure with parents now spending over ?13 hundred more on

child care than in 2010. So anything that attempts to address these

impacts on families is to be welcomed. The question I think is

how it is to be funded. I do welcome the Chancellor's announcements

today, the ?300 million of additional funding four the scream

to increase the hourly rate child care providers receive and the ?50

million of invest to create additional places in nurseries to be

brought in from 1718. As my honourable friend will explore in

her incisive speech, these figures don't quite add up. Again I think we

can reflect on the irony that we were told during the election

campaign that 25 hours was unrealistic and undoable and now the

Government have come up with different figures. I am sure

chairman Mao had an aforism about that. This ignores the crisis

hitting the sector. As the shadow Secretary of State suggested, the

free child care policy is behind schedule and Ofsted is announcing

11,000 places, we are seeing a drop during the course of this year. This

is leading to many providers having to close, resulting in further

shortage of places. In my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent there

are 74 less registered providers than in 2009. This is evidence that

the underlying infrastructure needed to deliver the Government's

announcements today is creaking to breaking point. The industry for

public policy research in their report on the implementation of bill

warned that if more providers close, driving down quality, with poorer

outcome for children and less choice for parent as the market shrinks. In

the face of increasing demand and decreasing provision the Government

will have to deregulate provision. I am delighted to give way. On staff

the child ratios, there are no plans and we have said in the other place

to reduce the ratios for three and four-year-olds. I am delighted that

this is the third or fourth U-turn of the day. It is hard to keep up.

But it is important as I shall go on to suggest that when we think about

this question, we also focus not just on the economics, but we also

focus on the quality of provision for those in early years. As he

knows the shadow Secretary of State said there was evidence between a

judgment of outstanding and the presence of better qualified staff.

The education select committee in its report set out that poor child

care is worse than no child care and can be December rimental. It --

detrimental. It is depressing when you see young women who themselves

are having a struggle in terms of their own educational' Tainment

working with children from deprived back grounds. All the challenges we

are seeing means the quality of provision is essential. I will give

way. Thank you. Is he aware that what is happening here is we are

doubling the entitlement, but not necessarily the demand. So there are

a lot of parents who are already buying more than 15 hours, which is

the current free entitlement. What changes is who pays for it. All the

scaremongering about quality being reduced doesn't necessarily stack

up. I am not really arguing about the reduction of quality, I'm

arguing for an improvement to quality. I understand the point

about the doubling of the provision, but the argument has to be when we

see such ingrained inequality and such disadvantage that the quality

of provision needs to improve. We know investment in the early years

is about more than just announcing more child care. There is a huge

part of the infrastructure that has been ignored, cut and undermined by

this Government. Time and again children's centres has come under

assault from this government. We know that the last Labour Government

tried to make sure start centres an essential part of welfare state and

part of this government's ambition to dismantle the welfare state is

strip away one of the elements that we think is such a civilising part

of society. With more centres being forced to close and cutback, due to

inadequate funding, there was no announcement for funding today for

children's centres or support for the early intervention grant. Indeed

according to the children's society the total value of the early

intervention grant which funds children's centres was around 3.2

billion in today's prices. By 2015 the value of the grant has been more

than halved to around 1.4 billion. By the end of 2016 the allocation

provided to local authorities through the support grant would have

been reduced by 6.8 billion pounds compared to funding for come par

sieve services prior to the - comparative budgets prior to 2010.

They reduced funding by some ?700 million in real terms s. This

amounts to spending reductions of over one and a half billion. With

Eno e - we know with local authorities under pressure the

outlook for children's centres looks bleak. Over the last five years the

Government, over 700 centres have been closed. We know that effective

early intervention does not begin at the age of three, it begins with

anti-natal classes, drop in clinics and open access provision. It begins

with teaching parents the importance of bonding and attachment. If

anything those fist years of a child's life are the most important

in terms of child development. The more we discover about development

and the effects of the growth of the brain in the early months and years,

the more startling it is that the Government have piled on the cuts in

the earliest years. They're not serious about tackling disadvantage

and inequality, because if they were, they wouldn't be putting all

the cuts into that area. So it is no wonder that great charities say poor

kids do worse under this Government and it is no wonder we see the

effects of that in our schooling and education system. The Government's

record on protecting the architecture of the delivery of

education in the early years is lamentable. Labour protected the

budget in our election promise. This Government protected only schools.

Today's announcement about six form and further education is well, but

it means an 8% cut to their budgets over the coming five years. The

Labour Party despite the global crash with the help of the sure

start architecture slashed child poverty by 900,000. What is what

Labour governments do. That is what progressive Governments do. Under

the latest figures, we know we are going to see child poverty rocket.

Time and again the early years have been deprioritised. We on this side

have a commitment to the power of early years education and our belief

it is the most effective way of narrowing the achievement gap so no

child is left behind when taking their first steps in a reception

classroom. We are, I am supportive of measures to help working

families. I am very supportive. We are all united in this house on

measures to help work families. But we need a much richer, deeper and

more sophisticated focus on the quality of early years provision and

what it can do to tackle the inequality and disadvantage. I would

like to support this bill. It is a pleasure to follow the member for

Stoke-on-Trent. He said it is a Labour policy. I do not remember it

being chiselled on the Ed stone, but perhaps the honourable lady can

refresh our memory. Anyone who saw the photographs of Prime Minister

and the visit to advantage day care nursery in toll worth will know was

this policy had blue fingerprints all eve it. I'm pleased the bill was

one of the first the Government introduced and the Government made

it clear that promoting social aspiration is at the heart of its

agenda. Ensuring young people get the best start in life, no matter

what their background is at the core of Conservative mission. For me it

is one of core duties of any Government and what I hope to

achieve as a member of Parliament. It is what my parents worked to

achieve in the teaching profession. 30 hours free child care has two

objectives. First, is to ease the burden on parents who want to go

back to work. Parents who are either prohibited or restricted in their

ambition to do so by the gap between their low pay and the high cost of

child care. It is right that 30 hours free child care formed a

central plank of our offer to hard working families during the general

election and we are working to deliver that now. The second

objective of 30 hours free child care is significantly to improve the

life chances of our next generation and it is that aim of policy that I

want to speak to this afternoon. Early years education has been the

Cinderella of schooling policy, more and more evidence has pointed to the

fact that emotional and physical health, the social skills, the

linguistic facilities we develop in early years are the prerequisite for

attainment in school, the work place and in the community. It is not

surprising therefore that research suggests that early years education

is the critical ingredient to close the educational achievement gap

between children from low income and high income households before

starting primary school. Investment in early years education is cost

effective and more than one study from the US has found Nat average

benefit tohe found the average Nat -- found the average benefit was

almost $200,000. Recent Department for Education figures show in

England one in four children are starting primary school without the

expected level of early language skills and save the children have

carried o' ought survey last week which found that 75% of teachers see

children struggling to speak English properly. This is simply not good

enough. Children in my local authority perform above average in

their speech and language development at age five. Thanks in

part to the excellent teaching we part to the excellent teaching we

have in the area. However, the poorest children are almost twice as

likely to fall behind and are about a year behind at the age of five.