| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Morris of Bolton: If we really are committed to helping the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children in order to pull up the standards of childcare across this nation, it is especially important that we look at minority groups. These were concerns for the Early Childhood Forum, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children and the National Children's Bureau. I very much support the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on Amendment No. 27.
I was pleased to see the commitment in the government paper over the Recess that,
"local authorities should work with providers to secure childcare that is suitable for and inclusive of: children from minority ethnic groups, including refugees and asylum seekers; and children from disadvantaged and socially excluded groups such as looked after children, families with a teenaged parent, and families with a parent who is homeless, mentally ill, disabled, misusing substances, in prison or experiencing domestic violence".
I thought that was an admirable list. I hope that the Minister can go into more detail and explain how the Government propose to target these groups.
Lord Adonis: I am in the embarrassing situation of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, having given my reply to the best part of the amendment. She has set out the Government's view of the importance of local authorities ensuring that there is a sufficiently diverse range of provision in an area to meet those needs. How a local authority goes about it will, of course, very much vary depending on the circumstances.
I also stress that, in the wider issue of cultural sensitivity, the needs of black and minority-ethnic children and their parents in under-five settings, the foundation stage explicitly states that no child should be excluded or disadvantaged because of ethnicity, culture, religion, home language, family background, disability or gender. There is therefore a requirement on local authorities to ensure that provision meets those concerns. The curriculum guidance for the foundation stage also gives detailed, practical examples of how the needs of children from diverse backgrounds should be met. The noble Baroness's amendments would include a specific reference to the needs of black and minority-ethnic families in this part of the Bill. As I have said, the legislative requirements already meet those concerns. We absolutely agree about the importance of these groups.
In addition, the assessment duty in Clause 11, again, plays an important role in ensuring that local authorities can identify the particular needs of their communities. As well as the duty to assess sufficiency, there are other provisions in this Bill and existing
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC127
legislation promoting the interests of these families. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 already places a duty on local authorities to exercise their functions with a view to promoting equality of opportunity between persons of different racial groups. Through our statutory guidance under this Bill, we will give information and examples which highlight practical ways in which local authorities can ensure that childcare provision is inclusive, reflecting the cultural backgrounds and needs of black and minority-ethnic families. Ofsted also takes these issues extremely seriously in its inspections, and I will invite the chief inspector to write to the noble Baroness directly, setting out the particular steps it takes to ensure that its inspections show sufficient cultural sensitivity and actively promote the fulfilment of this duty.
Evidence suggests that the biggest barriers to access to childcare by black and minority-ethnic families are cost and lack of information. The issue of cost will be addressed through our duty to have regard to lower-income families. The duty in Clause 12 to provide information, advice and assistance will help all families to access suitable childcare that meets their needs. The duty in Clause 13 on local authorities to secure information, advice and training to providers will help them to address the individual needs of all children, including those from black and other minority-ethnic groups. We are confident that, given all these provisions, there is no need to make reference to the specific needs of black and minority-ethnic families in the Bill, and therefore hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with our response.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his response, which has given me considerable comfort. One often likes to see something as important as this actually in the Bill. Given that we are not going to get that from the Government, however, the reassurances and statements the Minister has given on the record are particularly useful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 33 not moved.]
5.30 pm
Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 34:
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 34 would place on local authorities in England the duty to secure childcare for disabled children in their area up to the age of 18, where their parents need childcare in order to work. The Bill secures childcare for non-disabled children up to the age of 14, and for disabled children up to the age of 16. I welcome the Government's determination to support working families who need childcare, and their recognition that the families of disabled children have additional support needs. In particular, I welcome the Minister's agreement at Second Reading that disabled children may need childcare for longer, to provide parents with the
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC128
additional support they need. I agree with him on that, but I disagree with him that age 16 is an appropriate cut-off point.
The arguments on this issue have been rehearsed several times—indeed, the Minister was kind enough to meet the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and me to discuss this amendment only last week. I do not propose to take up the Committee's time by repeating them. Suffice it to say that the amendment would harmonise the provisions for disabled children and their families in the Childcare Bill with other legislation designed to help parents to work, which supports the parents of disabled children up to the age of 18, not 16. It would help a group of families who are currently disproportionately unemployed and poor, and help to close a gap in childcare provision for older disabled children.
The amendment would help people such as Sophie, who has worked as a school nurse in a south London borough while her three children, one of whom has a learning disability, were growing up. Sophie was able to find adequate childcare for all her children, and to keep on working until her disabled daughter reached the age of 16. After that, no childcare was available. It became impossible to combine working with caring for her daughter. This year, Sophie has been forced to give up a job which was important to her and extremely valuable to her local community.
Recent research bears out Sophie's experience. A survey carried out by Mencap found that only one in 20 local authority children's information services was able to identify suitable childcare for a 17 year-old with a learning disability whose mother needed to work full time. There is a chronic lack of provision for this age group.
I am particularly concerned that, if the Bill sets out in stone that local authorities have to secure childcare provision for disabled children up to the age of 16, it will make it even harder for the families of disabled young people of 17 and 18 years to get the care they need. There is a danger that local authorities will focus on meeting their legal responsibilities only, while neglecting the older age group.
Setting a cut-off point at age 16 also goes against the Bill's provisions on information services. In Clause 12, local authorities are given a duty to provide information, advice and assistance about childcare, and other services and facilities, to families of children and young people up to the age of 20. Why give them a duty to provide information about services which simply do not exist? As it stands, the Bill would put children's information services in a very difficult position—one which could easily be rectified through this amendment.
I know that the Minister shares my intention of ensuring that good childcare is available to the families of all children who need it. For the families of disabled children, these needs continue beyond the age of 16. This Bill provides a perfect opportunity to ensure that they are met. I hope that this opportunity will be taken by the Government in accepting Amendment No. 34, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the
26 Apr 2006 : Column GC129
noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton—and, I am sure, by Members on all sides of the Committee. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |