Childcare Bill

I am very grateful to the noble Earl for giving me an opportunity to talk about funding. I entirely accept everything that he and other Members of the Committee have said about the importance of training and the adequacy of the workforce, without which none of these services would be provided. An important part of the functions of local authorities in developing their local plans is to see that they provide these services in the context of local capacity. Their role in ensuring training and support for the workforce is essential in that context. In passing, it is precisely because we recognise that there are pressures on local authorities, and do not want to move further than we believe possible for them to meet those pressures, that we do not favour the imposition on them of yet more unfunded duties in Clause 6. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is always clever to add the words ““as resources permit””, or some similar phrase, in her amendments, as the Liberal Democrats so often do, when she proposes a massive extension of responsibilities for local authorities and others. We are at least making an honest attempt to match additional duties with corresponding resources. I get into trouble when I recite figures, but I do not think anyone would deny that significant additional sums are going into local authorities: nearly £3 billion for 2006-08 in general Sure Start grants, which is an increase of £700 million compared to 2004-06 on a like-for-like basis; the transformation fund of £250 million over and above existing outlays to improve workforce qualifications, also to be available between 2006 and 2008; and the additional funding to enable three and four year-olds to be funded at the same rate regardless of the setting they attend, and to provide the extra weeks in the free entitlement that commenced at the beginning of this month, leading to a significant increase in direct funding to local authorities to meet that cost. I could go on detailing the provision we have made for local authorities. We have also provided significant additional sums for parents themselves—particularly, but not exclusively, lower-income parents. Child benefit has increased well above the rate of inflation since 1997. We have focused additional resources on parents to enable them to purchase appropriate childcare for their children. The reforms in the tax and benefits systems mean that families with children are on average £1,300 a year better off, and those in the poorest fifth of households are on average £3,000 a year better off. Significant additional resources are available to families to meet the demands of childcare. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, highlighted the issue of foster carers. This is of great concern to us because of the undersupply of suitable foster carers, the principal providers of childcare for an especially vulnerable group of children. We are mindful of the need to take additional steps—including, where appropriate, additional remuneration—to encourage foster carers. We are soon to consult on guidance on—I need to be careful with my wording—standard levels of remuneration; not levels we would impose, but that we would exhibit for local authorities to have regard to. A good deal of work on this is under way. I undertake to write to the noble Earl and other Members of the Committee to set out what we are doing both to give additional support to foster carers and to increase the supply of suitable foster carers.