Childcare Bill

The Minister said a moment ago that she had not given us much comfort. I agree, and I shall explain why by returning to the figures. The key word that she used was ““churn”” and she said that there is a churning of places. She also said that matters had improved since December 2004. From 2003–04 to 2004–05, according to the parliamentary answer that the Minister kindly provided, 16,000 new places were provided, but some 60,000 were closed. We find it hard to see how that can be a churn. Either there is over-supply or there is not a level playing field in the way that the CBI and the National Daycare Nurseries Association have suggested. It must be one or the other. In her reply, the Minister essentially said that these amendments are a duplication. That was a lawyer’s answer. Saying something is a lawyer’s answer is not necessarily an uncomplimentary remark; after all, my party was led by a lawyer until recently, and the right hon. Lady’s party still is. I was not for a moment claiming that the right hon. Lady is a lawyer, simply that her answer was a good lawyer’s answer, and I am sure that she was assisted by her Department in that. However, it seems to us that although the Bill may contain the measures necessary to ensure that a level playing field is established, it is hard to see them. We do not intended to press these amendments to the vote, but our colleagues in another place will require more reassurance about how the Minister’s Department is going to provide a level playing field once the Bill comes Into effect. At the moment, there is a very strong suggestion that the playing field is not level. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.