Childcare Bill

moved Amendment No. 16:"Page 4, line 9, leave out from ““area”” to end of line 13 and insert ““for the provision of childcare which is suitable for disabled children””" The noble Earl said: I had not intended to move this amendment, but following the earlier comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, about concerns from the Local Government Association on whether local authorities have the capacity to deliver what is expected of them by the Bill, I feel it is important to comment. I apologise if I have confused the Committee by returning to the matter. Amendment No. 16 is intended to pave the way for the clause-stand-part debate. It would narrow the duty on local authorities to provide sufficiency of childcare simply to parents of children with disabilities. Given the Committee’s particular concern for disabled children and their families, I thought it fit to offer an option, should Clause 6 not stand part of the Bill, which would pose a far lesser threat to the coffers and capacities of local authorities. The purpose of my tabling the Question on whether Clause 6 should stand part of the Bill is to allow us to consider the wisdom of introducing this duty. My principal concerns relate to the capacity of local authorities to deliver on this duty, and, in particular, whether they have the necessary funds to do so. I thank the Minister for his reassuring comments on the first day of Committee, but I would like to probe him further. It is important to consider the history of this country’s care for ““looked after”” children—in the care of the state. We are very far behind our continental neighbours in the quality of care we provide. Other English-speaking countries, such as the United States of America and Australia, have been as dilatory as us. I am speculating, but there may be something in the nature of dynamic economies and more liberal states such as ours that makes us good at performing economically but less good at providing good-quality childcare or care for the elderly. That may be to do with the level at which decisions are taken, but while we negotiate the level of allowances for foster carers, in Denmark and France foster carers are already well paid for the care they give. They are paid a fee for their work, not just an allowance for costs—although some fosterers in this country are paid fees. Failing to value our foster carers has contributed to the shortfall of more than 8,000 foster carers in England and Wales. Young people have to leave care at age 16 or 17, before they are ready. Too often, I meet young people who have to fight to stay with their foster carers. My concern is that by passing down responsibility to local authorities, even in the limited way proposed here, we risk repeating the history I have described. Local authorities have often failed looked-after children because they lacked a strategy—a common and considered approach—and resources. Even with considerable additional resources, local authorities have been finding themselves in deficit because of the cost of caring for their looked-after children. Good-quality childcare is a resource-intensive service. While today we are discussing care for a more prominent group of children, it is still possible to overlook their needs. According to Her Majesty’s Government’s childcare strategy document of 2005, research suggests that parents are poor at judging quality, may undervalue it and may trade it off against price. The purpose of this debate is to ensure that the Minister is mindful of the risks of leaving local authorities holding the baby, as it were. Specifically, I would like to hear his response to the finding by the childcare charity 4Children that Her Majesty’s Government would need to invest twice as much as they have committed if they are to meet their aspirations in this area. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.