Childcare Bill

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 17 and 23. I have great sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said—it would have an effect similar to Amendment No. 17, under which Clause 6 would place a duty on local authorities to secure sufficient childcare for all parents. Should we be discriminating against parents who choose as their work, not salaried employment, but rearing their children? Should we be in effect discriminating against the children of such parents, reducing their opportunity for access to the benefit of good-quality childcare? It is crucial that we do nothing that might in any way undermine parents’ commitment to their children. It is parents’ commitment to their children that grows into a mutually reinforcing attachment—adult to child, and child to adult. That allows parents to make the sacrifices that they do for their children, and children also to sacrifice some of their desires. We are at a time when parents have every reason to lack confidence in their parenting capacity. They may not have grown up with a father, families are increasingly fragmented, and generations grow up with less awareness of other generations. It is no wonder that parents who have been given parenting orders have so often welcomed the imposed support with such alacrity. If the state implies to parents that it can do a better job of rearing their children than they themselves can, some parents will take the hint. We must recognise that in many families children experience neglect, but our first approach must be to support those families, not to infantilise the parents by taking on the parental responsibilities ourselves. Neither Denmark nor Sweden, which are exemplars in childcare, discriminates against parents who choose the work of bringing up their children; neither should we. Of course one respects Her Majesty’s Government’s efforts to take children out of poverty, but overzealous pursuit of that aim should not be allowed unwittingly to compromise the commitment of some parents to their children. I may sound too harsh, but the drive to take children out of poverty, which is so worthy, has to some extent eclipsed the need to support parents in their choices about whether they spend much of their time caring for their children or allow somebody else to do that job. Yesterday a mother who was 16 when she gave birth to her child received an award for how she approached the media about her situation and that of other teenage mothers. On receiving her trophy, she made the following point: ““Don’t push young people back into education immediately their child is born””. A lack of sensitivity in seeking to do the best for young people—getting them into education or adults into work—may be unwittingly compromising their choice of commitment to their child. I am speaking too long again; I apologise. Briefly, Amendment No. 23 would prioritise parents who are actively engaged in a pre-school playgroup. My knowledge of these groups is slight and second hand, and I look forward to any comment my noble friend Lady Howe may have on their work. However, I understand that pre-school playgroups normally involve parents in the day-to-day care of the children and the running of the institution. Such day-to-day involvement may allow parents to develop their parenting capacity through formal supervision and education. They are likely further to develop their parenting capacity through informal means such as observing early years workers and parents at play with children. Actively participating parents who are supported in learning about the care of their own and other children may choose to become members of the childcare workforce. Furthermore, these parents may benefit by developing a network of contacts in the setting, which may help them to find employment. I hope that the Minister will consider how the work of parents in these settings might be better recognised, perhaps in this clause.