I wish to speak to an amendment that I have in this group. I follow entirely the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, about the need for things being child-centred. My noble friend was kind enough to embarrass my wife by saying that she was Montessorian of the Year, so I am obviously particularly attached to the Montessori system, which is quintessentially child-centred.
I will not repeat the remarks that I made at Second Reading but I think that, as the Select Committee said, there is a little bit of a risk of a conflict at the heart of the Bill. It is presented by my noble friend as an Education Minister but much of the rationale is that it is an employment measure. Indeed, the Minister for Employment is creating a task force that is intended
to enhance the take-home pay of a two-owner household doing whatever the regulations—when we see them—will define as work. We do not know quite what that is, but we know that it is work done outside the home or work done inside the home, other than anything to do with caring for the children, as far as I can see. At the same time, we are moving from 15 to 30 hours and bringing in something that was never there before—a barrier against women who stay at home and provide that affective affinity which is so vital. Heaven knows, my mother was never a graduate—she did her bit in the war—but I do not like to think there was anyone better than her at providing childcare. I hope that we can find a way in going forward with this policy to explore whether that barrier is necessary. It will be costly in terms of administration for local authorities, and potentially to providers, and potentially socially costly in what it says about the role and enormous social, and therefore economic, contribution made by mothers who stay at home.
I fear that increasingly, given the comments I have received since the remarks I made at Second Reading. I have had a number of emails from groups and individuals about what I said at Second Reading about not venturing to put in second place the role of the mother who stays at home and cares for a child. That has certainly struck a chord. We must have care as we tread forward. If we really do believe in a big society, is that a big society that we wish to build? I unashamedly think that that is a marvellous phrase of the Prime Minister’s, and I strongly support the principle.
6 pm
Regarding the nursery education provision, surely it must include children in families were one partner does not work but instead devotes her time—or his time, in some cases—to childcare. That role is absolutely fundamental and I worry, not about an iron curtain but about the net curtain that is slightly coming down. Is that for reasons of cost? We do not know because we have not yet explored all the business of costs. If cost is the reason, there is a question of choice. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, slightly hinted at that when she said that we should perhaps explore this issue as things go on. It may be that, if there is limited extra cost, we should skew that extra spending, as we discussed at Second Reading, towards areas of disadvantage, those in most need, those with special needs and so on. It is simply a question.
My amendment is framed far too widely and can easily be swatted down by my noble friend. It is intended only to provoke a debate on how this Bill contributes or does not contribute to addressing the relationship between one set of carers and another.
A new report has just been released by the social policy charity CARE, The Taxation of Families — International Comparisons 2013. It says that the tax burden placed on one-earner married couples in the United Kingdom with two children and an OECD average wage is about one-third higher than the OECD average. I have not had time to analyse and explore that, but if it is true, in this context, what we arguably would not need is a new provision that further assists two-earner families while ignoring one-earner families.
This is a manifesto commitment and we will support it, but can we in some way extend inclusion? The importance of affective relationships between stay-at-home parents and their children links to what my noble friend said entirely correctly at Second Reading: the formation of attachments at an early age is crucial, so we must support them.
Even the Guardian—not my normal reading, my Lords—had a comment piece last week by Alice O’Keefe entitled, “Stay-at-home mums are heroes. The left should stand up for them more”. I agree with that, actually—take note, editor of the Guardian. Alice O’Keefe said that,
“mothers – and fathers – who prioritise staying at home and caring for their families are a valuable and grossly undervalued asset to society. Rather than focusing solely on pushing women out to work”—
and this is a woman writing in the Guardian—
“we should be making space for them and their partners to enjoy a stable and happy family life”.
I agree with that and hope that this Bill does not close the door a little on those people in the generous provisions that we all want to make.
My amendment is really designed to remind people outside this House—this House does not need any reminder—and perhaps in another place to reflect, as this policy discussion goes forward, not only on the balance between education and employment, between enhancing income and enhancing love, learning, socialisation and the formation of character, but on the balance between one-earner families and two.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be looking at this area overall and bringing policies forward in his Budget to address what seems to be a potential gap in this measure—we do not know. If so, it is one further reason why it is good to have a delay so that as the Bill progresses, we can look at the overall fiscal, social and educational climate in which we advance childcare, as well as the narrow measure before us.
I add just one final thought before ending wearying your Lordships: please let us not overregulate. I wholly endorse everything that was said about quality. But by making more and more graduates in nursing, have we guaranteed that everyone in our hospitals is cared for? There are some things that are instinctive. By making every teacher in every maintained school have qualified teacher status, have we guaranteed axiomatically that all teaching that goes on in our schools is good? As we aspire to quality, I ask that we do not rush to regulation uniformity, which may not answer some of the deeper questions about how we deliver true quality in providing child-centred care for the future.