---

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments. I am greatly encouraged by it.

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I shall reflect on what he said. I also thank him for his reassurance to me. I thank, too, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, very warmly for attaching her name to one of my amendments in this group, and for her encouraging words. In addition, I thank all Members of the Committee who spoke to my amendments, and for their helpful, constructive criticism.

Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his response and all those who have taken part in this very interesting, wide-ranging mini-debate. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, raised the issue of unpaid voluntary work, and was encouraged to hear confirmation on that from the Minister. I, too, recognise the value of unpaid voluntary work. I know of a village in Cheshire whose elderly people would certainly not manage without a couple there who help them out. There are examples like that all over the country, are there not?

The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, mentioned my Amendment No. 22. I can tell her that it does not mean what she thought it might mean. We are in danger here of a circular argument because, if its purpose was not to improve the well-being of young children in the area and to have childcare, it would not be happening.

5 pm

In response to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about the word "care", I would rather use the phrase "education and care". I am a little worried that the phrase "nursery education", which we
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC120
 
used previously, has gradually morphed into "childcare" or even "babysitting". That is an unfortunate tendency.

In response to my amendments the Minister talked about the choice of parents to go into work, to go into training and so on. I am sure that most Members of the Committee would agree with me that a very important choice is to stay at home and look after your own child. That choice should have equal status with those other choices. That is why I am so keen to get workless families up the pecking order.

I welcome the free places for three and four-year olds that the Government have introduced. It is a great step forward for parents and children. But I am focusing on young children, where the equal status of the choice to stay at home is most important, because the best interests of some of those children are served by the mother or father being able to stay at home.

I have other comments, but I will not extend the debate. I thank the Minister for his response, which gave me some cause for encouragement and comfort. I still worry about the pecking order in the priorities of local authorities. I know that some things always have to have priority. Many speeches have been made in Committee already—and we are only on day 2—about the importance of supporting families who, for one reason or another, cannot or choose not to go to work but who still have an enormous need for good-quality childcare. In the interests of their children, I hope that those needs are not left forgotten at the bottom of the pecking order. By raising the issue of workless families, I hope that we have at least done something about that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Listowel 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
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC121
 
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.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: I shall speak very briefly in support of the Question tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on whether Clause 6 shall stand part. I will comment on disability in the debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I do not know whether noble Lords noticed, but I tried at an earlier stage to move an amendment to deal with looked-after children or children in the care of the state, but I realised that it did not really sit with the Bill. I know that it is a huge concern for some people, and the figures published last week show that the state is not a good parent. Therefore, local authorities have serious concerns about managing their huge task,
 
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC122
 
given the concerns, which many of us who speak in our debates have, about children in the care of the state. I share the comments made by the noble Earl.

Lord Northbourne: I absolutely agree with everything that the noble Baroness has said, but it ain't just a question of money. I sincerely believe that the people who want to do these jobs are not out there. There is a need for a careful elasticity analysis to see what increases in pay would attract the necessary number of people, and to what extent they would simply be attracted away from other services for children. I have a great fear that we are trying to do too many things and that the people will simply not be out there whatever we do to get them out, to get them up and to get them trained to do the job well.

---