Childcare Bill

: I have no great disagreement with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). I certainly share his concerns about sustainability. We should, however, also be mindful of the problem of affordability. I am sure that there is a desire for child care, but it may not translate itself into demand for reasons connected with funding. That is an enormous problem for the Government. Large sums are needed to make child care affordable, and I cannot offer an easy solution. I want to concentrate on amendments Nos. 5, 13 and 35, all of which deal with the same issue. The Bill does not cover the provision of child care when parents are workless. In Committee, we pointed out that parents might be workless because they were caring, or because they had disabilities themselves. In such circumstances, access to child care might be even more important. I tabled an amendment suggesting that a local authority ““may”” rather than ““must”” have regard to providing child care for workless parents. We could be storing up greater costs in the long run by not providing child care, because of the prioritisation of a hard-pressed local authority, when it is deeply needed by both parents and children. I remember saying that two deaf parents might have hearing children. The children would really need child care, and the ability to socialise more generally. I am still concerned that the Bill does not even use the word ““may”” to indicate that in some circumstances local authorities throughout the country—not just the best-funded authorities—may need to provide child care. It could be said that amendment No. 10 is slightly in disguise. Let me explain. I spent a good deal of time in Committee, and indeed on Second Reading, speaking about quality, because I think that it is crucial. However, humbled and crushed into the ground by all the Ministers’ answers, I tabled this minimalist amendment. I listened carefully to Ministers who kept telling me that I need not worry about local authorities’ monitoring quality, because there were Ofsted inspections. I therefore suggested the additional instruction that local authorities"““must consider the quality of local child care provision with reference to the Ofsted inspection process””." I merely suggest that local authorities should look at Ofsted reports across the board. I hope the Minister will accept that modest, basic requirement in the spirit in which it is proposed by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). We recognised that we must define what we meant by ““quality””; defining a baseline in Ofsted terms could do the job. In February the Government issued ““A Code of Practice on the Provision of Free Nursery Education Places for Three-and Four-Year-Olds””. Its emphasis on quality is welcome. It states"““Local authorities may also require other providers of nursery education to participate in a quality assurance scheme””." In Committee, I pressed the Minister for answers on the Investors in Children kitemark scheme. Although the answers that I received were reassuring, at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for children it was clear that early-years providers were again concerned about the future of Investors in Children. It would be helpful if the Minister could update us on the progress of consultation, and tell us whether there is a commitment to maintaining a generally recognised kitemark, or something similar, for quality assurance. I stress that such monitoring by Ofsted would be minimalist. The problem would be that monitoring might happen only once every three years. However, Ofsted reports can bring strands together. For example, one report observed that there was a high proportion of child care settings in which not all staff were in place at the time of their opening. There is a need for local authorities to keep an eye on such nurseries. Amendment No. 31, which we tabled, picks up on the idea that we must have a level playing field. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) said that there is a worry that it does not exist. The amendment is fairly modest. I favour neither state nor private provision. I have no agenda on that because I come from an authority that relies on the private and voluntary sector for the bulk of its provision, which is good. However, there are reports from all over the country that some of our important private providers are not satisfied that there is a level playing field, so it is critical that that problem is taken on board. I tabled amendment No. 59 so that we could return to a matter on which we touched in Committee: consultation with all partners and participants, including young children. I have tabled the amendment to a different clause than I did in Committee because the Minister explained to me that it would not be appropriate for young children to participate in making overall strategy. Amendment No. 59 is a probing amendment that tries to encapsulate the importance of listening to all children. Would it not be groundbreaking to include in the Bill a reference to listening to young children? The Government have funded exciting work on listening to young children, so why not have some recognition of that in the Bill? I think that the amendment could be incorporated in clause 11, but I wait to hear otherwise.