MPs were watched in the public gallery by Zoe and Lewis Steeper who started the petition to challenge the Government’s plan for changing staff to child ratios in early years settings, which received more than 109,000 signatures.
The couple whose son Oliver was just nine months when he died days after he was believed to have choked while eating at nursery, started the petition after hearing about the Government’s plans to increase the number of children nursery staff can care for.
At the start of the debate chair Carolyn Harris made a short statement. ‘I have been advised that the petition being debated today indirectly relates to the death of Oliver Steeper last year,' she said.
‘An inquest relating to the death of Oliver Steeper remains open, and a police investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death is ongoing, so Members should refrain from making any reference to those circumstances.’
MPs offered their condolences to the Steepers and paid tribute to them for starting the petition, with all those speaking, including Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, raising serious concerns about the Government’s plans.
During the debate MPs made reference to research from the National Day Nurseries Association, the Early Years Alliance, the Education Policy Institute, and Pregnant then Screwed, to highlight the overwhelming opposition from both providers and parents to Government plans to increase the number of two-year-olds early years staff can look after from 1:4 to 1:5.
This included challenging the Government's argument that relaxing ratios would save parents money on nursery fees, citing research that just 2 per cent of settings surveyed would be able to pass on any savings to parents should the changes to early years ratios for two-year-olds go ahead.
In addition to safety and welfare concerns, other issues raised by MPs in debating the plans included the impact on the early years workforce – already a low-paid sector under severe pressure – ongoing underfunding in the sector, and the impact on children's learning and development as they recover from the pandemic, as well as on the availability of provision for children with special educational needs.
Opening the debate, Catherine McKinnell the Labour MP for Newcastle North and chair of the House of Commons Petitions Committee, said, ‘I want to put on record my admiration for Zoe and Lewis for being such powerful advocates on this issue, despite how unimaginably challenging that must be’.
She continued, ‘For Oliver’s mum and dad, early years experts, the 109,000 people angry enough about the issue to sign the petition and, I suspect, most parents, these vital regulations help to protect the safety of children. I think everyone will agree that providing childcare comes with immense responsibility. From playtime to lunchtime to cleaning and changing, there are ever-present hazards for children. I am a mother of three, and I cannot imagine safely looking after four two-year-olds, unless they were kept in a contained space, with limited opportunity for physical movement and no opportunity for play, and away from all hazards. Of course, early years staff know the risks, and spend every working hour protecting children from them, but there is genuine apprehension that that may not be possible under the revised ratios.
‘A sense of acute concern came through to me in conversations that I had ahead of the debate. The warning from early years experts could not have been more stark: deregulating childcare ratios without making significant changes to training and funding will put the safety of young children at unacceptable risk. Staff are reportedly already leaving the sector because of the stress, and the overwhelming sense of responsibility to protect the best interests of children. Relaxing childcare ratios would heighten the potential for an accident, and increase the chances of an accident leading to an emergency. Parents share that fear.’
Many MPs urged the Government to publish evidence to back up the Government’s case that changes to ratios would make childcare cheaper for parents, and importantly to reassure the sector and parents that safety would not be compromised.
Conservatives David Simmonds, MP for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and Siobhan Baillie, MP for Stroud stressed the need for the Government to provide evidence on the impact of the plans.
Steve Brine MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Childcare and Early Education, called on the Government for a 'wholesale review of childcare and education', stressing that nursery staff were under pressure and leaving the sector with existing ratios, and that 'dog sitters' in his area were often paid more than they were.
He added, 'As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) set out in her excellent opening remarks, if the proposed reforms are to save money for parents in the cost of living crisis—a perfectly sensible and laudable aim—the evidence to back that up has to be laid before us and the Government have to show their workings out.'
'Right to consult on ratios' – early years minister
In her response, Claire Coutinho, making her debut appearance as the new minister for children, families and wellbeing, told MPs that a response to the consultation would be published ‘in due course’.
‘We are strengthening the requirements on supervision while eating, which I think is particularly relevant in light of the issues we’ve discussed today,’ she said.
‘I think at the heart at this debate sits safety and quality and I want to assure everyone that that will be integral to the proposals we take forward. We’re already taking steps in this area.
‘We have been working with the NHS, the Food Standards Agency and the Department of Health and Social Care on increasing awareness of choking prevention in early years. We have also published dedicated food safety guidance for practitioners in our help for early years providers, through our online support platform. We have consulted on strengthening the supervision while eating requirements in the early years framework. Practitioners will need not just sight or hearing of children while they are eating, but sight and hearing.’
The minister insisted that the Government was right to consult on changing ratios and said that evidence looking at the impact of the plans would be published with its response.
She said,‘It is right that the Government should look at the issue of childcare ratios. Ratios were set out in the 1980s, and we are looking at how they work in practice. We are taking evidence. As hon. Members are aware, we have held a consultation, but we have also looked at the impact, and we will set out that evidence alongside the results of our consultation. Safety has to be paramount in what we try to do, but it is also important that we look at the affordability of childcare, and at giving providers flexibility, and making sure that staff feel that their judgment is trusted. In that context, it was right to carry out the consultation, and, of course, we will come forward with the results of that consultation, and the providers’ impact assessments, which we did alongside it.’
‘Deafening and united opposition’
In a statement published in response to the debate, Zoe and Lewis Steeper said, ‘We are disappointed in the Government's non-committal response and we now eagerly await the publication of the results of the consultation regarding ratios. It is clear that the Government have yet to produce credible evidence that a change in childcare ratios would be safe and beneficial to the development and wellbeing of children in England.
‘We are also saddened that the Government has not taken into account the mental health of the workforce in suggesting changing ratios to 1:5 for over two-year-olds. We feel that the Government unchallenged would have ploughed on with this change and simply expected an already stretched, underfunded, underpaid workforce to simply “get on with it”.
‘Our fight remains strong until the Government abolishes the planned changes to ratios. Children cannot be placed under increased risk in a candid attempt to try and save money.’
Speaking after the debate Neil Leitch, CEO of the Early Years Alliance, said, ‘It is extremely frustrating that more than two months since the consultation has closed, the government has still not reached a decision on whether or not to listen to the deafening and united opposition from the sector and families alike against plans to relax early years ratios.
‘The government knows, that relaxing ratios will do untold damage to the sector, and yet ministers continue to waste time and resources on this unsafe, ridiculous and ill-thought-out proposal.
‘The arguments put forward in this afternoon’s debate clearly showed there is simply no case to change ratios. As such, we hope against hope the government will finally recognise that far from solving the so-called “childcare crisis”, relaxing ratios will only make an already-dire situation even worse.
‘Time and time again the sector has urged the government to rethink this policy, but so far, these calls have fallen on deaf ears. We once again urge the government to rethink this retrograde policy as a matter of urgency, before it does irreparable and catastrophic damage to the early years sector.’
National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA)’s chief executive Purnima Tanuku said after the debate, ‘We need to pay tribute to Oliver Steeper’s parents, Zoe and Lewis, for their petition that led to this debate. MPs from across Parliament came together to highlight concerns about changes to ratios and the challenges the sector is facing in the current economic climate.
‘The strong views of parents, providers and early years experts were clearly set out to the new Minister by MPs. While the Minister struck a listening tone, we now need to see that these views have been taken on board and the challenges are addressed.
‘The early education and childcare system is not fit for purpose and needs urgent reform. This was highlighted in the debate. Any response must look at what is best for our children, address underfunding and the workforce crisis. The regulation needs to be part of wider reform and cannot be done as a cost cutting exercise.’
