Childcare Bill

My Lords, I like to think of the Government’s Childcare Bill as one of two twin Work and Families Bills, both of which, along with many of your Lordships, I largely support. Both Bills are part of the Government’s welcome, ambitious and farsighted 10-year strategy, as set out in the 2004 report, Choice for parents, the best start for children. The Government deserve congratulations and they certainly get mine. The Bill will undoubtedly be a big help to families by giving parents access to the childcare services that they need and allowing them to balance more easily the demands of both their careers and families. As others have said, the Bill’s provisions rightly target for extra help those working families with multiple needs and those with disabled children. That list, over time, needs extending, as there are many vulnerable children in non-working households. But there are some real concerns about what is proposed, not least, as we have already heard, about the role of local authorities and how they will exercise their proposed new duties to secure rather than provide themselves sufficient childcare for their areas. Your Lordships will have noted the considerable anxiety throughout the voluntary and private childcare sector about its future within this structure. There is good reason for that. We owe a tremendous vote of thanks to the voluntary and private sector for its determined, sustained and, in the end, widespread pioneering efforts, from the end of World War II onwards in providing an increasingly flexible range of childcare. For that reason, we should pay particular attention to its concerns about the Bill. After World War II, the UK government, decided to close what had, up to then, been almost universal childcare provision, made available so that mothers could play their full role in munitions factories and elsewhere in support of the war effort. But in contrast with what happened after World War I, women were no longer content just to return to their domestic roles. The push for equal opportunities in employment and in pay had begun in earnest and with it an inevitably growing demand for reliable childcare places. For a mother such as myself, involved in the late 1950s in the playgroup that our own children attended and as the author of a pamphlet on this subject entitled Under Five, the inadequacy of provision was all too clear. So too was the lack of financial support from most local authorities for those attempting to start voluntary groups. The great pioneering champion was the Pre-school Playgroups Association with the amazing network of grass-root playgroups that it built up nationwide. By involving and training mothers in running those playgroups, those mothers gained the confidence that was invaluable to them and their children later in their lives. The vigorous campaigning of the PPA and others eventually worked. The Department of Education and Science Circular 8/60, which had prevented local authorities opening any new nursery facilities of their own, was finally withdrawn. The name of the Secretary of State for Education and Science who deserves full credit for that action was none other than Margaret Thatcher. It is certainly time that the less than flattering one-liner that remains attached to her tenure at the DES is replaced with the recognition of that considerable achievement. What already exists in childcare is one example of the blueprint that this Government are determined to bring to areas where those most in need of the services have repeatedly been let down. In education, the National Health Service and indeed in the management of offenders, the rescue plan is roughly the same: to bring in extra financial help and expertise from the private and voluntary sector and let competition, privatisation or contestability—depending on your political interpretation of those words—have its way. There are certainly problems with this radical solution, but with childcare, where private and voluntary initiatives—PVIs—have been and remain major players, there is a real opportunity for the Government to demonstrate the kind of partnership that works. Certainly we should be encouraged by the Bill’s apparent enthusiasm for the mixed economy and for partnership between local authorities and private and voluntary providers. Clearly, it makes, as other noble Lords have said, no sense whatever for the state to reproduce what is already working well in the private and voluntary sector. However, the fears that have been expressed by leading childcare charities, such as the National Day Nurseries Association, the Pre-School Learning Alliance, and others, and which I certainly share, are that the legislation as drafted may not be anything like robust enough in a number of areas to guarantee the survival of, and future prospects for, this vibrant mixed economy in childcare. An example quoted is that of children’s centres. There is clearly merit in the notion of integrating children and family services through Sure Start centres, but it is worrying that a proportion of local authorities seem to do nothing to involve existing daycare providers in developing children’s centres. The experience of day nurseries offers an insight into some of the problems. In some cases, these centres are emerging either adjacent or very close to an established day nursery, but they are not involving that day nursery in the children’s centre being set up. This is particularly worrying since Ofsted had rated 99 per cent of day nurseries as either good or satisfactory. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, and other noble Lords have said, in some instances day nursery occupancy levels have dropped below a sustainable level. If this situation persists, we shall not only lose that investment in quality childcare providers, but parents will no longer enjoy that wide range of choice that is so important. One must hope that the Bill will curb this trend, but how can we be sure that by then the level of duplication will not have forced many private and voluntary providers to pack up shop? That would certainly not help to enhance the volume and diversity of childcare. I acknowledge that the Minister’s department has published guidance advising local authorities on how to team up with the private and voluntary sector but, so far as I am aware, these recommendations are not mandatory. How many local authorities are listening and should not far more be doing so? I have taken rather a lot of time over the concerns of PVIs because of the very special history of childcare development in the UK. I really hope that the Government will be prepared to think of far more convincing ways to reassure that sector that it will be an equal and valued partner in this vital area. The quality of what is being provided and the right balance to be achieved in the early years foundation stage have been mentioned, and I very much support what has been said. There will clearly be many opportunities to look at these in detail in Committee. But I want to touch briefly on other concerns. The Bill places special emphasis on assisting parents in work or training who are eligible for the working tax credit—as well as parents of disabled children. Both of those things are good, but we must not forget those other families on low income who are not eligible for the WTC. Only 337,000 families benefit from the childcare element in the WTC. Families that are eligible for working tax credit are not necessarily the poorest families. The Bill does not take into account parents who do not work at all because they cannot afford both to work and to pay for childcare. So those families will still be stuck in a cycle of deprivation, something which we must address. Perhaps the Minister will give this point some attention when he replies. Last but not least, as other noble Lords have stressed, there is the question of funding for the considerable role local authorities are being asked to play. This is a good Bill, which I warmly welcome, but I hope the Minister can reassure the House that local authorities really will be provided with the necessary funds to achieve the objectives that we all share.