House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 May 1990

Mr. Boateng : I am obliged to the Chief Secretary for his kind words, but I do not intend to allow them to go to my newly exposed head. I fancy that he is unlikely to be so welcoming to these amendments.

The amendments, sadly, are necessary as a result of the defective and stunted clause 20, which the amendments seek to improve. It is defective and stunted because the Government have been the subject of two competing forces. The first is an impulse, for public relations purposes, to appear to be doing good, in this case to hard-pressed parents, and women in particular, who are at a tax disadvantage when they are in receipt of child care benefits from their employer. They are the recipients of what the Government would have us believe is their largesse.

The second competing force is a compulsion that characterised every aspect of the Budget--to do as little as possible at minimal cost. We therefore have this push-me-pull-me provision, which fails to address the

Column 912

central issue of removing obstacles to the provision of workplace nurseries and child care provision for working parents.

Given the past of the Chief Secretary, it is perhaps not surprising that clause 20, which he will seek to defend this afternoon, is stunted and defective, because at every turn he has opposed the reasonable suggestions made by Labour Members on every Finance Bill since 1985 to overcome the hurdle to the expansion of child care provision for working parents. He fought us tooth and nail, and the last time that he replied to a debate on this anomaly in the taxation rules he was scathing of the arguments ably and convincingly put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He told us--and he will remember the debate well :

"There is no reason to believe that the present tax treatment of child care expenses is a barrier to the employment of women with children."--[ Official Report, 11 July 1989 ; Vol. 156, c. 894.] On 11 July 1989, there was apparently no reason to believe that a barrier existed, yet today he accepts that there is a barrier, which the Government are belatedly seeking to remove. We look forward to learning what changed his mind.

We must not look a gift horse in the mouth ; we are glad to see the Chief Secretary in his place at all. He was not present yesterday ; he left it to his minions, pleasant and engaging though they are, to do the business. We are entitled to ask why the right hon. Gentleman has taken the time out this afternoon to address the Commitee on this issue. It may well be that he does not trust the Economic Secretary or the Financial Secretary to resist--

Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East) : Understandably.

Mr. Boateng : My hon. Friend is being slightly, and

uncharacteristically, uncharitable. I am sure that the Chief Secretary trusts his colleagues' understanding. Indeed, he fears that their understanding is such that they may concede the reasonable points that he has already heard and that he knows will be forthcoming not only from the Opposition but from at least one Conservative Member. Not trusting them, the right hon. Gentleman has come here to ensure that there are no concessions.

5 pm

We should not be surprised that Conservative Members speak with a forked tongue about child care. I do not mean to be unkind--[ Hon. Members :-- "Oh."] Well, perhaps on reflection, I do mean to be unkind. We have become used to such behaviour by Conservative Members. Indeed, there is a game that can be played, "Spot the quote". One wins a prize--a day out in the Kingsway day nursery, surrounded by photogenic children and attentive staff--if one can say who said what.

Let us look at some of the comments that Conservative Members have made about child care. First, there is this advice on how working mothers might be helped :

"Can they in fact go out at all at that stage in their children's life"?

Should not

"several women get together and arrange that one looks after the children while the others work part time"?

I wonder who said that. Any offers from Conservative Members? It was someone to whom they should pay attention--indeed, someone to whom they must pay

Column 913

attention day in, day out. The Chief Secretary suffered more in that respect than any other person. It was, of course, the Prime Minister, no doubt speaking from her vast experience while other women took care of her children as she practised part time at the Bar and practised part time as a politician. [Laughter.] One may well laugh, because the right hon. Lady did not ever practise part time in that way, nor did she come to a cosy relationship with other part-time working mothers to look after her delightful twins. Another well-known Conservative Member said :

"If they want or need help in this task they should make the appropriate arrangements and meet the costs."--[ Official Report, 12 July 1988 ; Vol. 137, c. 150 .]

Who said that? Any offers from Conservative Members? It was not the same lady but none other than the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)--a figure from the past, but one who speaks with the authentic voice of many Conservative Members when talking about child care.

There is another example, and this is the choice quote. There is a double prize for any Conservative Member or, indeed, any Opposition Member--I shall extend the offer--who can guess who said this : "I don't think the State should step in to help the working mother unless her life has collapsed."

Who said that?

Ms. Hilary Armstrong (Durham, North-West) : The chairman of the ministerial group on women's issues.

Mr. Boateng : Indeed, it was none other than the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), whose job is to chair the ministerial group on women's issues. That comment shows the attitude of Conservative Members to working mothers and to child care. If they come to the Dispatch Box expecting us to be thankful for clause 20, they have another think coming. We are here to bury these little Caesars, not to praise them, and they should be under no illusions about that.

We need to reflect on the response by those who have the responsibility for the day-to-day care of children and those who have the responsibility for the day-to-day management of these facilities. What is their response to the largesse in what the Government would have us believe is their generous little clause? The Busy Bees consultancy works with companies that are interested in subsidising child care in order to help them establish child care provision, and it is doing important and valuable work. The managing director states :

"This tax exemption will not in the end benefit anything like the numbers of employees we had originally hoped. Only employees of very large companies stand to benefit. Many firms have a need for 10 or 20 places, for which it is not economically viable to set up a nursery. With very little more imagination, a lot more could have been achieved."

Why has that imagination not been applied to what the Chancellor described as this small supply-side measure? It may be a small supply-side measure, but it gets smaller by the hour. The orchestrated fanfare that greeted the Chancellor's comments on this measure would have led people to believe that we would be dealing with a growing number of workplace nurseries and other forms of child care provision based in the nursery. That has not happened. The 3,000 children who benefit from existing workplace nursery provision are unlikely to be joined by

Column 914

large numbers. We are not tackling the demographic time bomb in relation to women at work and not freeing parents to maximise their contributions to the economy.

This is not just a child care issue or educational issue, although it is both ; it is also an economic issue. It is about maximising the pool of skills if our economy is to go forward, but the Government have failed in that respect.

Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng : I shall give way in due course because I know that the hon. Gentleman has a valuable contribution to make.

The scale of the problem shows that it is all that much more of a pity that the Government have missed this opportunity. A survey by the Department of Employment and the Training Agency found that only 198 of the 1.1 million persons surveyed had kids in employer-provided creches. That is the scale of the inadequacy of existing provision. Only 3 per cent. of the institutions or organisations surveyed provided workplace nurseries, with only 20 in the private sector and the rest in the public sector. Despite the trailing of this measure in the run-up to the Budget, only 5 per cent. of the companies surveyed even considered establishing a workplace nursery. Hon. Members ask whether this measure effectively encourages employers-- even the 5 per cent. who were considering it--to take the plunge. We must reach the sad conclusion that it will not, because it fails to have the flexibility necessary to bring about the expansion that we all seek. That flexibility would enable companies which wish to provide nursery places to buy them in existing community nurseries and to choose between what local authorities and the voluntary sector offer. Companies would be able to buy places and in so doing encourage the expansion of existing provision.

Companies are specifically excluded from doing that under clause 20 as it is presently drafted unless they can show that they are involved in the management and financing of centres. That is why we tabled amendment No. 9. I hope that the Minister will concede that our amendment would enable his provision to have the effect that it should have of expanding the present supply of workplace nurseries and places for the children of working parents in nurseries. We look to the Minister to make an early response on this matter and to concede that our amendment will have the effect that I have outlined. If not, we shall have no option but to press amendment No. 9 to a Division. It is absolutely vital if we are to succeed in expanding child care provision.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general sentiments, but why is he willing to accept so many of the Government's own restrictions, such as the rule that nursery care cannot be provided on domestic premises? Will he bear in mind the fact that many well-organised playgroups start in domestic premises? If the hon. Gentleman accepts so many of the Government's restrictions, rather than supporting the type of amendments that I have tabled and the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has tabled, he will leave the Bill restricted.

Mr. Boateng : We know that the Chief Secretary has set his mind against any expansion on that scale. As the hon.

Column 915

Gentleman rightly says, our amendments are modest. We ask not for the world but merely that the Chief Secretary accept amendments which are within the spirit of the Chancellor's Budget statement. At the end of the day and at the beginning, fiscal measures such as the Government propose are not the best and certainly not the only way of providing the level and standard of child care that we seek. There is no alternative to a comprehensive child care policy. There is no substitute for a policy that is designed to maximise choice and flexibility for working women while maintaining standards at all times. We are not prepared to tolerate a policy by which the Government simply seek to meet the economic needs of the time and to overcome the demographic time bomb. We are not prepared to sacrifice the life chances of young children. We do not believe that that is right.

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West) rose --

Mr. Boateng : That is why we say that the Government should attend to the generation and release of resources to enable local authorities to play the co-ordinating role that we believe that it is right for them to play. Local authorities have the necessary expertise and know-how. They are ideally placed to exercise a strategic function in the provision of child care. We want to hear the Government's proposals on that matter.

Should we take it that the Government's only concern is a minimal extension of child care provision by the means that they have outlined, which would involve little effort or attention from the Government? Do they cling to the mistaken belief--the Chief Secretary expressed it on 11 July last year- -that the market will mysteriously meet the needs of children and working parents? There is every reason to believe that it will not.

Mr. Tim Smith : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng : Simply by mentioning the word "market", I have prompted an immediate response from the die-hard monetarists who still lurk on the Conservative Benches. I feel obliged to let the hon. Gentleman have his say.

Mr. Smith : It was the word "mysterious" that prompted me to intervene, not the word "market". There is nothing mysterious about the way in which the market will work. If employers want to employ more mothers and women, they will make the necessary arrangements. The market will accommodate them.

5.15 pm

Mr. Boateng : The hon. Gentleman may say that that will happen, but the Confederation of British Industry, which is certainly aware of the mysteries of the market, calls more and more frequently on the Government to intervene to moderate the operation of those mysteries, which seem to work so obviously against the interests of the British economy. The Institute for Fiscal Studies specifically warns against some of the measures promoted by the monetarists. I make no apology for mentioning the CBI or the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Why should a Treasury Opposition spokesman apologise for calling in aid of our case the CBI and the Institute for Fiscal Studies?

Column 916

It is a sign of the extent to which Conservative Members have slipped from reality, with regard not only to child care but to the economy.

We are committed to a comprehensive child care policy.

Mr. Stern : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng : In due course.

Our amendments must be seen in that context. I hope that the Chief Secretary will address himself to amendment No. 41 specifically and assure us that it is acceptable. Surely this matter should not divide or stretch the consensus of the House. It seeks to recognise the position, which will not be uncommon, when provision is made by an employer for child care but the employer says to the employee, "We expect you to make a contribution." It seems right that in those circumstances the philosophy that underlies section 156(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 on contributions that might be deducted from benefit should apply and the employee should not have to pay tax on the part of his or her emoluments that goes towards child care provided by the employer. That does not seem unreasonable. Certainly it does not make excessive demands on the Treasury. We look to the Chief Secretary to take that on board at an early stage in his reply.

All the experience of recent years is that unless measures are taken to encourage employers to make provision for child care and to facilitate take -up by employees, the hoped-for expansion in child care simply will not take place. We want that expansion to take place, for the benefit of the child and of the economy. It is in that spirit that we have tabled the amendments and look for a positive response from the Minister.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : It ill behoves the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) to berate the Conservative party on any change of mind because his party has changed its mind on so many policies in the past 10 years that it is hard to keep up with them. It has changed its mind on nationalisation and council house sales, and has practically ditched clause IV--the backbone of its philosophy. It is squirming around trying to find some new policies and has hit on the woman's vote as one opportunity to make hay while the sun shines in the lead-up to the next election.

Nevertheless, I find myself largely in sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman, most of all because it is an almost straight crib from my recent ten-minute Bill. Labour Members knew from my discussions with them that my ten-minute Bill attracted enormous attention, not least from trade unions, which wrote to congratulate me on the forward-looking views of the Conservative party in making such a point to the House.

I received a number of letters from women who said that they had never before written to a Conservative Member of Parliament, but were absolutely 100 per cent. behind the Conservative party as the party moving such ideas into the public arena. Even the National Union of Teachers wrote to me congratulating me on my success in the House of Commons. It wrote to tell me that there was a major shortage of teachers in schools and 400,000 qualified teachers, inactive at home, looking after children. It said that it greatly welcomed the Conservative party's

Column 917

initiative in putting that fact in the public arena. It is the Conservative party that is at last putting that principle into legislation, with clause 20.

My only quarrel with clause 20 is that it limits the opportunity for employers to pay for workplace nurseries to the workplace itself. My amendments seek to expand that idea so that an employer may pay for child care provision other than at the workplace, but in a formally constituted nursery. That would mean that a mother would not have to take her children to her workplace, but could leave them near home in a nursery, knowing that they were properly cared for and having the peace of mind to go about her job for the rest of the day.

I am sure that, when the Treasury decided to make this concession, it did not realise that it was so limited in scope and that perhaps only about 3,000 women stood to benefit. I hope that today we can persuade my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that it would be equitable to expand that provision so that a great many more women can have that opportunity.

At present, the proposal is also limited to large employers who can afford to pay for a workplace nursery. I wish to extend it so that a number of small firms can combine to use nursery places. That would stimulate the growth not only of new nurseries but of the labour force available to small businesses. It therefore falls in with the pattern of Conservative Administration ideas to stimulate the market economy.

I understand that the Treasury will be concerned about the likely cost of such a concession. I appreciate that the Treasury does not like opening up new tax allowances, but we give tax allowances for things of which we approve. The Conservative party is the party of home ownership and gives tax allowances on mortgage interest. We are the party that, recognising the importance of pensioners building up savings as they grow older, has given tax allowances on those savings so that they can be added to income and allow pensioners to be self-supporting. In the past, we have also agreed that it is a good idea to encourage people to have meals during their working day, so we give a tax allowance on meal vouchers. The principle of tax allowances in support of things in which we believe is thus a well established practice in Conservative philosophy.

I estimate that the concession to allow a nursery to be provided somewhere other than at the workplace would cost about £25 million--a small amount of money--for one year. What is more, that money will come back to the Treasury, partly through the increased economic activity of women going to work and partly from the taxes collected on the prosperous new nurseries stimulated by imaginative extension of the principle. The Treasury, which usually anticipates a 100 per cent. loss on any concession, could thus look forward to a gain in revenue if the idea were extended to a broader spectrum of women. As the first woman to speak in this debate, I wish to consider the matter from a woman's point of view. There is nothing new about married women with children going out to work to supplement the family income. That has been done for generations. In poorer families, women often went out to do domestic work. In the cotton towns of the north they provided much of the labour in the factories.

The needs of modern society have widened the type of work available, and the changing status of women, for which we have all fought in the past 50 years, has meant

Column 918

that many of them choose to carry on some form of paid work outside the home. Every girl these days earns her own living between leaving school and getting married. Some undertake a long training and become so absorbed in the subject that they want to continue that work after marriage. For many of those girls, the sort of work involved in running a home is insufficient to use all their abilities and they feel that they are not working to their full capacity.

Some men I know are far too ready with the phrase, "a woman's place is in the home", forgetting that their own daughters will almost certainly earn their living outside the home, and that some of them will want to carry on their careers. While they condemn women in careers in round terms, they would be thrilled if their own daughters were to achieve those new career heights. The choice is up to the woman--if she has no particular interest and finds work in her home satisfying and absorbing, clearly she will develop her interests in that centre. If she has a pronounced interest in some other direction in which she has already achieved some measure of success, it is essential for her own satisfaction and the happiness of her family that she should use all her talents to the full.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : I am sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to suggest--if she does, it is incorrect--that women, whether married or not, do not have the right to economic independence in their own right. Their right to pursue their careers, whether or not they have children, should not be frustrated by the lack of child care facilities or some out-of-date idea that once women marry they should be satisfied to stay in the home and not have economic independence in their own right.

Mrs. Gorman : I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that women and their families should be able to make provision for their own needs, and it should not be a matter for state intervention. However, there should be tax provision, as I am arguing.

People in general, apart from men with working wives, are often unsympathetic to working wives. It is a pity that so many women with young children have to be out of their careers for 10 years or more. After 10 years it is often hard to pick up again, especially if it is scientific work because things change and develop so rapidly. "It would make a tremendous difference if part of the expenses of employing other people to run her home were allowed against tax." I must make a confession--those are not my words, but the words of a working woman in the 1950s. Clearly, she is a woman with hands-on experience of the problem and great sympathy for the woman's point of view--a woman's woman. The woman concerned was, of course, our great Prime Minister and I hope that as First Lord of the Treasury she will seek to influence the thinking of the Treasury in this respect. I am sure that Treasury Ministers will wish to broaden these measures to include a much wider spectrum of women, just as I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, whose sentiments are clearly my own in these matters, would wish them to do so. All women who go to work will benefit from such an extension.

5.30 pm

Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Mid-Staffordshire) : I welcome the opportunity to make my maiden speech in the House. In so doing, I am mindful of and will respect the traditions

Column 919

and customs of the House. I should like to record my thanks to right hon. and hon. Members and to the staff of the House for their warm welcome, many offers of help, numerous pieces of advice and several offers of pairing.

I should have liked to enter the House under different circumstances, and I wish therefore to pay tribute to my predecessor, the late John Heddle. He was a Member of the House for a decade and he represented the Mid- Staffordshire constituency following its formation in 1983. I extend my sympathy to his widow and family. Although I did not have the privilege of meeting him, I know from comments made by my constituents that he was regarded as a man who worked hard and conscientiously to represent them. I am sure that he is missed by his former constituents, and not least his family. I look forward with enthusiasm and confidence, however, to the challenges that the electors of Mid-Staffordshire have given me. My constituency was formed by the Boundary Commission in 1983. It is a long, narrow constituency stretching from the north to the west midlands and it is not based on a single community. It is predominantly rural, but it contains three main towns.

Lichfield is a pleasant cathedral town and the birthplace of the wit Samuel Johnson, who dubbed it a city of philosophers. In the middle of the constituency is Rugeley, a predominantly industrial town dominated by two power stations and a mine. Thirty miles to the north lies Stone, a canal- side market town which has attracted a wide variety of national and international companies.

During the time I have been associated with Mid-Staffordshire, I have learnt why the people there have a pride and affection for the area, which many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House visited during the election campaign. Indeed, the influx of so many politicians and representatives of the media gave a mini-boost to the local economy which was much appreciated.

Although peace and tranquility have returned, many of the problems in the area remain. The constituency is set in the heart of middle England and comprises industrial, commercial and rural concerns, with large housing estates, small picturesque hamlets and a work force of professional, managerial and skilled people, so it can rightly be seen as a microcosm of the United Kingdom. That is why the issues that concern my constituents affect the whole country. The continuing increase in the rate of inflation is bringing misery and a hard financial struggle to many home owners and making it impossible for others to get a foothold on the property ladder. Industry is looking for more stability to give it the confidence to plan ahead for the investment and growth that are essential for the prosperity of us all.

The Health Service and education were also issues in the election campaign, but one issue came to dominate it and it would be remiss of me not to mention it. I refer to the poll tax--the harshest, most regressive and unfair tax to be imposed on the British people in more than 600 years. It is misleading to pretend that the rebate system offers any real protection because even the least well of will have to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. The many debates and Divisions in the House on the poll tax have resulted in a majority for the Government, but I find my views best summed up by Dr. Johnson, who said :

Column 920

"Though we cannot out-vote them we will out- argue them. They shall not do wrong without it being shown to themselves and to the world." Today we have been debating workplace nurseries, which are meant to provide access to employment for parents. There is, however, another group of people for whom access to employment is difficult--people with disabilities. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys records the fact that about two thirds people with disabilities depend on state benefits. Because of the additional costs incurred from chronic illness and disability, this means that many face added problems in trying to live on an inadequate income, which further affects the quality of their lives.

The current benefit system is both chaotic and unjust. It should be replaced by a single system of assessment of disabled people and their carers. Benefit should be paid according to need, not according to how people became disabled or whether they were in employment at the time. Only 31 per cent. of all disabled adults of working age are employed, compared with 69 per cent. of the general population. That is certainly not due to any lack of motivation or ability--it is due to lack of opportunity. Many of us take the challenges and rewards of employment for granted. Those who have experienced a period of unemployment will know that it brings not just a loss of income but a loss of dignity, self-esteem and social contact.

Even if people with disabilities have the qualifications and expertise to do a job, they have to overcome discrimination on the grounds of their disability. Studies conducted by the Spastics Society in 1986 and 1989 provide scientific evidence to back up what disabled people know from their own experience--that they face discrimination often from the moment of initial inquiry about a job. The Spastics Society's research shows that two in every three valid applications from candidates with a disability will be treated in a discriminatory way.

The society attempted theoretically to place a secretary in appropriate vacancies advertised in newspapers. For each position, two applications were sent and similar characteristics were described in each letter, except that the applicant's disability was mentioned in only one of them. Nearly twice as many interviews were granted when the disability was not mentioned as when it was. Such results spell discrimination in capital letters.

Discrimination means seeing an applicant's disabilities rather than his abilities, and although many employers would like to behave in a more socially responsible way, they fail to recruit people with disabilities because of ignorance and fear that it will involve them in extra work, expense and special consideration. Yet often these are small considerations such as a handrail, a ramp, a flashing light on a phone, or a lower desk or work bench. For some, the requirement may not be a physical adaptation of the office or factory but a flexible working pattern--flexi-time or part- time working.

It is important to make a distinction between physically and mentally disabled people, because people recovering from mental illness often face even greater hurdles when trying to return to employment. The illness or breakdown may have been a long time ago and the person may be completely recovered, but although the person may have the best qualifications and the right experience for the job, a history of mental illness can lead to the second-best applicant getting the job.

Column 921

It is not only the private sector which fails to employ disabled job-seekers. Government Departments and, with some notable exceptions, local authorities also fail to meet the quota set in the 1944 Act. In view of demographic changes, skill shortages and the challenge of 1992, the Government should be taking a lead in ensuring that there are no obstacles to encouraging people with disabilities to enter or return to the employment market with appropriate schemes of rehabilitation and training. However, that in itself is not sufficient. Having acquired skills and regained their confidence, the hopes of such people are dashed when the door of opportunity to employment remains closed. I am convinced that, if real progress is to be made in providing equality of opportunity for people with disabilities, a more active approach by employers is necessary and legislation to outlaw discrimination is an important step. It has been a privilege to address the House and I thank hon. Members for the courtesy that they have extended to me. Following my success in the by- election, I was reminded of the words of Aneurin Bevan when he said :

"Election is only part of representation. It becomes full representation only if the elected person speaks with the authentic accents of those who elected him"--

or, in this case, her.

"That does not mean he need be provincial and that he speaks in the vernacular. It does mean he should share their values, that is, being in touch with their realities."

I believe that I share the values of the people of

Mid-Staffordshire and I shall endeavour to represent them in the House to the best of my ability for a long time to come.

Mr. Stern : I am delighted to have this opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) in what the whole Committee will agree was a most distinguished maiden speech. We are grateful to her for her kind and perceptive comments about her predecessor, who was well liked by all hon. Members As the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) knows, because she is another veteran of attempts to define disability benefits when we sat for many hours in Committee on the 1985 and 1986 Social Security Bills, I am delighted to welcome an hon. Member who has such a clear and deep understanding of the issues that are involved.

My two words of warning are, first, that the hon. Member for Mid- Staffordshire should not assume that on subsequent occasions she will be surrounded by so many of her hon. Friends and, secondly, that any mention of pairing will inevitably give rise to about 150 letters arriving in her pigeon hole.

My speech is a breach of about four years' silence on Finance Bills, because it is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to speak on a Finance Bill since last year, when I ceased to be a PPS. I shall take the opportunity to support what the Government are trying to do by way of the clause and to oppose the thinking behind some of the amendments. As the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, I share with Ministers something of a Damascene conversion on the clause, because for years I was opposed to the principle of workplace nurseries. However, I have come to support it because the form of tax relief proposed in the clause will achieve the limited objective that has been set out for it.

Column 922

5.45 pm

The clause is not designed to provide general tax relief for child care. If it did, I and many hon. Members would be wholly opposed to it. It is designed to do what a new tax relief can at the right time and place and on occasions achieve. It will give a limited nudge to an existing market in order to help it expand without at the same time distorting that market. If we were to give the tax relief that is blithely set out in amendment No. 41 or, I regret to say, in the amendment spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), not only would we not achieve the objective of the clause, but we would set up a vast new distortion for about one third and what we hope will eventually be almost a half of the working population. No system of tax relief should be designed to do that and I should not support such a system.

The hon. Member for Brent, South made several blithe assumptions. He has fallen into a trap, as so many people do when looking at a particular tax relief. He looks at what the tax relief would cost and what it would achieve, assuming no change in circumstances. However, it is plain that if tax relief of the range and extent that he proposes in amendment No. 41 were to be given, it would affect not a few thousand people but a few million, and it would affect them to the extent of what is probably their greatest living expense. My estimate--I invite the hon. Gentleman to challenge it--is that to give tax relief to all working mothers, or to working fathers when they have the responsibility, on what they have spent out of their income on child care would cost several billion pounds. So much for the value--

Mr. Boateng : The hon. Gentleman invites an immediate response. Will he give way?

Mr. Stern : I shall do so in due course. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall give way to him more quickly than he gave way to me.

Amendment No. 41 deals with an employee making a contribution, which will be determined by that employee, towards the cost of child care. The other conditions in the clause would then have to be satisfied. Apart from the provisions in the clause, there is no limit to the size of the contribution that the employee could choose to make. One assumes from the wording of the amendent that the employee could spend up to the limit of income. We read with some surprise the document that came from Walworth road yesterday because it says that there will be no uncosted pledges. However, any pledge of this nature is wholly uncosted because it is wholly uncostable. We read that all pledges about future public spending would have to be based on what the economy could afford. Within 24 hours of that document being issued, we have heard a pledge that I assume will cost the Exchequer several billion pounds. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Brent, South.

Mr. Boateng : I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but he pushes me and I am happy to answer him. He misunderstands the import of amendment No. 41, either unintentionally or mischievously, and seeks somehow to undermine the good sense of the provision. The amendment seeks to deal with a relatively rare but important occurrence when an employer provides a work-place nursery for his employees. He would provide such a place within the restrictions of the current clause and would then require the employee to make a

Column 923

contribution. Let us take a fairly typical example from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid- Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal)--the Busy Bee nursery. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on her excellent maiden speech.

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member was invited to intervene, but I hope that he will not make a second speech at this stage. He must remember that this is an intervention.

Mr. Boateng : That is why I was reluctant to intervene. I was brought to my feet by a Conservative Member. I shall deal with the example when I wind up the debate. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) is misdirected and his ideas are misconceived.

Mr. Stern : I look forward to the hon. Gentleman making his second speech.

The amendment says nothing about an employee being required to make a contribution. It refers merely to an employee making a contribution. As several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the hon. Member for Brent, South has eschewed the invitation, as no doubt he will again when he winds up, to put a cost on the amendments. So we see, within 24 hours, yesterday's Walworth road document being discredited.

We are not talking about general provision of child care with tax relief, nor should I support such a move because the cost would be astronomic. We need to decide what we mean by child care to realise how astronomic the cost would be. People think, particularly when they read the briefings with which we have been showered, that when we talk about providing for child care we are talking about something that is done through a workplace nursery or through a registered child minder. However, we must take it into account that that is only a tiny proportion of child care as it is borne by most families and principally by most women.

For example, many local authorities have estimated over the years, although no reliable research is available because of the nature of the subject, that unregistered child minding vastly exceeds registered child minding.

Next Section

Home Page