| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Pickles: I still think that that is a yes to my original question. We need to have a look at the potential take-up rate. We know from 1996 Trades Union Congress general council survey that half the women with children below the age of four years work. We know that 16 per cent. are in full-time work and that 33 per cent. are in part-time work. We also know that 78 per cent. of pre-school children regularly spend some time being looked after by some person other than their mother.
It is not unreasonable to say that the IFS estimate of £4 billion is probably wrong--that suggests 100 per cent. take-up. However, the figure for the number of children in the informal care network is about 78 per cent and if we round that down to 75 per cent, the cost of the child care tax credit is probably £3 billion. If grandparents, as the Minister suggested, were used as child minders, 30 per cent. of children would be involved, so the cost would be £1 billion. No matter how we stack up the figures, the cost is considerably greater than the £200 million that the Government are suggesting. The point that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) rightly made is that we should have some suggestion of the sums involved.
There appears to be nothing in the Bill or the suggested regulations to prevent neighbours from mutually looking after each other's children, with both generating child care tax credit and working families tax credit. I cannot see how it is to the benefit of children or the families, or how it helps to get people into work, if we set up a scheme by which people can generate tax credit simply by splitting their child care among themselves.
The Minister must deal with that point and the others that I have raised. She must give an indication of cost. She must say when the various regulations will be ready; otherwise, we are writing more than a blank cheque because the money allocated for working families tax credit will simply be eaten away by a rapid expansion of child care tax credit, on a self-generating basis.
Mr. Webb:
It is some weeks since we concluded the Committee stage of our deliberations. The feeling of walking through fog that persisted throughout those deliberations lifted briefly, but has suddenly returned this afternoon when the Paymaster General described the new clause. Throughout the Committee, we asked a series of simple, straightforward questions that were amenable to simple, straightforward answers, but straightforward answers came there none. I feel that we are getting the same thing this afternoon.
I find it incredible that the money resolution relating to new clause 5 has just gone through on the nod, but, when pressed, the Minister was unable to tell us--she could not even tell us the number of zeros--how much money would be spent by the Secretary of State under the new clause. I am astonished that there seems to be no indication of the number of organisations that the new accreditors will have to accredit--whether it is hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands. It is somewhat depressing that the Minister was unable to give any answer to that question.
I reiterate the concerns that have been expressed about the lack of scrutiny. The memorandum that we saw this week says:
I know that the Government do not have a lot of respect for parliamentary scrutiny of their legislation, but it is deeply distressing that they should table a new clause almost the day before the debate on Report and not produce draft regulations until afterwards. It does not encourage us to feel that the Bill will be properly scrutinised.
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire):
Can the hon. Gentleman give any instance of the Government's
Mr. Webb:
There is an interesting contrast between this debate and what happened in Committee, when we were presented with draft regulations that helped our deliberations.
Let me now raise the issue of which form of child care should be subsidised by the state. My party wants to give parents--mothers, typically--choice in two regards. They should be able to choose whether to bring up their children themselves or pay someone else to do it, and if they decide to pay someone else they should be able to choose the most appropriate form of child care. The new clause provides neither of those choices. It offers no financial assistance to a mother who prefers to bring up her children herself, rather than taking paid employment and paying someone else. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) pointed out, that could lead to neighbours looking after each other's children, which would be bizarre in the extreme.
The new clause identifies yet another category of state-approved child care; but the second most popular category of child care is provided by nannies, who are no longer the preserve of the rich few but are widely employed, for example, to provide support for mothers who have flexible employment patterns--such as nurses--and who would not be catered for appropriately by registered forms of child care.
We do not think that child care should be subsidised only in the case of certain providers, as the new clause suggests. We want the money to be paid to mothers whether or not they choose to take paid employment, to be spent on the form of child care that they prefer. We want mothers to be able to choose whether to work, and to choose the child care that they want. Regrettably, new clause 5 allows them to do neither.
Mrs. Lait:
I hope that the Paymaster General did not think I was persecuting her; if she did, I apologise. I was merely trying to establish the precise meaning of new clause 5, given that, regrettably, there are no draft regulations--as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and some of my hon. Friends have already pointed out.
At least the Government have finally recognised the problem posed by children aged between eight and 14, and I am grateful for that. Does the provision extend to disabled children of 16, thus plugging a gap in the Children Act 1989?
Mrs. Lait:
I assumed that was the case, but it is as well to put it on the record.
Welcome though that is, some problems remain. The Paymaster General said that only organisations that currently exist, such as breakfast clubs, after-school clubs and holiday clubs, will be eligible to provide child care
whose cost can be recovered. As some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, there are many other forms of care for children aged between eight and 14.
Dawn Primarolo:
I thought I had made it clear that new providers would not be excluded. The point is that the quality assurance threshold must be reached, and an assessor would make that decision.
Mrs. Lait:
I thank the Paymaster General, but that is not quite what I meant. I took on board her confirmation that there would be room for new entrants into the market. That is, in fact, almost inevitable, as large parts of the United Kingdom do not provide many clubs of the kind that the hon. Lady said would be most likely to be recognised.
We should think more about the provision that children between eight and 14 need. However unstructured breakfast, after-school and holiday clubs may seem, they nevertheless provide a structured set-up which not all children will fit into. Children of that age may want to do other things, but they may still require child care of some sort if their parents work. I may be castigated for saying this, but more and more children enjoy riding. Would pony clubs count as registered child minders, given that they would, in effect, be looking after the children during the day?
Many special interest groups provide child care in that sense, and the Government should consider enabling them to apply and be assessed for quality status. Children between eight and 14 do not want Tonka toys; they are at a crucial stage, when they are exploring possibilities and expanding their horizons. I understand that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has a child of that age, and I am sure that she will back me up. Indeed, she may be able to advise her fellow Minister on the potential eligibility of other forms of child care.
Might a child minder, or a group of child minders, be a better option? I shall not go into the potential for families to provide child care, but children between eight and 14 may well want one-to-one child care, and their parents may want that as well. To rule out such provision would be short-sighted, and might not benefit children.
A school of thought is emerging in the world of education. As we all know, after a day at school children are tired and their blood sugar is low. In my day, children went home and had tea and sandwiches to raise their blood sugar levels, went out to play and then did their homework. [Interruption.] An interesting dispute is in progress on the Government Front Bench. I suggest that it is best for a child to work off excess energy, or perhaps build it up again, and then do homework before turning on the television. I agree with the Financial Secretary if that is what she thinks. There are different formats and formulae, however. The education world seems to be moving towards the view that a long day of continuous education is not the best way of enabling children to perform properly at school the next day, as well as getting the best from their homework. I completely accept the principle that we should emphasise homework, but I do not believe that the best way of educating our children is to send them straight from school to homework.
There is still a need for diversity in child care for children aged between eight and 14. I am concerned that the new clause would only force children between parallel
lines--the last thing that they need is to be forced into one, narrow type of after-school care. As the Bill is being considered in the other place, I very much hope that the Government--who have already re-thought some issues, for which I am grateful, such as our original suggestion that they should broaden the scope of after-school care--will also re-think the different types of child care to which the provisions will apply, so that children aged between eight and 14 might benefit to the maximum from the care that best suits them.
Our amendments would deal with another concern expressed in Committee: who will be able to register as a child minder. The Government have not yet recognised that concern, which perhaps poses a conundrum for them. The issue arose initially from a question in the Social Security Committee from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who asked:
As I said in Committee, people will act in their own best economic interests. Many people may say, "My best economic interests are served by keeping my child in the family circle, but it would be economically better for us all if a member of my family circle could register as a child minder." The prohibition in the Children Act 1989 would therefore be got round.
Although I laud the Government's belief that people will not change their patterns of behaviour merely because of tax or benefit provisions, I deeply and fundamentally disagree that people will not change their behaviour for those reasons. People will act to maximise their income--which is one of the reasons why the poverty trap exists: some people feel that they will receive more income by staying on benefit, rather than going out to work.
"Draft regulations will be exposed shortly, while the Bill is being considered by Parliament"--
viz, not by the House of Commons.
5.15 pm
"There is nothing to stop mum becoming a registered child-minder?"
The Inland Revenue official replied:
"there is nothing to stop anyone, if they can meet the conditions, and it is not for us to make a judgment on that, if they passed the conditions in previous years."
The Inland Revenue is effectively saying that there is a loophole, as it would be possible for someone in the family circle to become a registered child minder if he or she meets the local authority's criteria. Although we dealt with the matter exhaustively in Committee, I am not satisfied that that loophole has been closed. One rather suspects that, should the loophole remain open after the Bill is passed, then, before long, test cases will be heard on it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |