Clause 6 - Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents
Childcare Bill
4:00 pm
Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Children and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)
The hon. Lady nods, which assists me. However, I do not think that replacing “parents” with “families” would quite achieve what she says she aims to achieve. If amended, the clause would read “sufficient to meet the requirements of families”, but the duty would still be subject to paragraphs (a) and (b), which include the requirement to enable parents
“to take up, or remain in, work”.
The amendments appear to alter the focus of the duty away from working parents towards families, which I think is what the hon. Lady intended to do, but it would still require local authorities to secure sufficient child care so that parents in families can work. Therefore, the amendments would not move the focus of the clause away from that link to the employment needs of parents in the way that she seeks.
Earlier, in what I might describe as a bit of a tour de force, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families talked in detail—she is now leaving the Room, which worries me a bit—about why the present focus on working parents is the best way in which to help the children in those families to achieve quality outcomes. She also covered in some detail, which I do not want to go over again, how the current drafting allows authorities to shape and support the child care market.
The duty ensures that there will be a sustainable child care market that will have flexibility to meet the needs of the parents. That is not to say that the needs of children are not central—they are completely central to the Bill—but the clause is about what parents can expect of their local authority, so it is right that it should focus on working parents, given that clauses 1 to 5 place children’s well-being at the forefront of the Bill. Children are the entire focus of the Bill, but that does not mean that we need to focus every clause on them. We cannot put the entire Bill into each clause; some clauses inevitably have to deal with other things. I do not want the meaning and focus of this key clause to become muddied and less clear. The Bill is about giving children the best start in life, but the clause is about what support parents can expect the local authority to give them, through the child care market, to assist them, particularly with their employment prospects and work.
The amendment would unnecessarily restate the objective of the Bill and would risk creating confusion, which is never good in primary legislation. I understand that the hon. Lady wants to focus on families, which is entirely laudable, but the entire Bill focuses on families, and it is not necessary to focus every single clause on families and the word “families” to achieve what I think she seeks to achieve. I hope that she can understand my point. She looks a little bit like she does not agree with me.
It is quite difficult to see what replacing the word “parents” with “families” would add beyond the hon. Lady’s feeling that it would be nice and helpful to emphasise that, when we are talking about child care, children are as important as parents. I can understand her desire to keep stating that, but I have not been convinced that it is important enough to muddy the meaning of the clause. I hope that I have convinced her. I managed to unconvince her on Tuesday on another amendment. I hope that I have done better this time. I await with baited breath to see whether she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.