Childcare Bill

moved Amendment No. 15:"Page 4, line 9, leave out ““parents”” and insert ““families””" The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 21, 22 and 29 in this group. As I have said many times, I welcome the Bill and its emphasis on providing more childcare for parents who want it. However, one thing I regret is its emphasis on providing childcare only for working parents or those training to work, as touched on by my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford. One of the Government’s objectives, of course, is to assist parents back to work to alleviate child poverty, and we all support that. However, we must not ignore children in workless households, who may not need wrap-around care or care for such long periods, but need it all the same. That is what this group of amendments seeks to address. Workless households may share certain criteria apart from a low household income, such as low educational attainment, stress and poor parental relationships because of that stress and low income. Although the parents may well love their child as much as, or more than, any other parent, they may not have the knowledge and skills to understand what best to do to help the child in its development. A placement in a good-quality childcare setting for part of the week will alleviate or correct those situations as appropriate, and as parents decide they need it. Good professional staff can assist children in their intellectual and every other kind of development in ways that their parents may not be able to. They can also help parents to do that. They can identify problems that need early intervention. A good centre will work with parents, helping them to understand what the centre is doing with their child and how they can continue with learning through play when they get home. It may be able to lend toys or direct parents to a toy library. Having time without the child for a few hours while he or she is being safely cared for and educated elsewhere will help to alleviate stress and contribute to parents’ relationship. It would give them time to explore the job market and decide what they want to train for, thereby ensuring the future stability of the child’s family. That is surely the primary thing in the child’s best interests. Another group of workless households is those where a child has a disability. I have had a briefing from the National Autistic Society, among others, which raised this matter. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will have something to say about it. One of its surveys found that 70 per cent of carers for children with autism could not return to work due to a lack of appropriate care facilities. Securing suitable provision for those families requires workless families to be addressed in a high-priority way. For all those reasons, I have sought to amend the Bill to include non-working families in the local authority’s brief to provide childcare; not just to have regard to it, but make sure that what they want and what they need is provided. Of course cost is involved, but such families are likely to qualify for the assistance available through benefits and free places. However, it is important that the places are provided where they are needed just as much for those families as for those who are working. It is also important that the provision is suitable for such children and that staff training is adequate to understand the needs of such children. I shall say no more about that at the moment, as I have a later amendment on that. This group of amendments brings workless families further up the pecking order in the Bill than they are at the moment. There are many good reasons why that should be so. I beg to move.