Childcare Bill

I was concerned that my hon. Friend was about to ask me a form of question that he has been known to deploy about whether I was familiar with this clause or that clause in the Bill, which I might have overlooked. I am glad that he asked a question to which I can simply say, ““Yes.”” I certainly hope that the Minister will provide that assurance. The Secretary of State’s brief remarks about the role of local authorities will not quite do. She said that the Bill would place no new duties or obligations on local authorities, but she also said that a mass of money had already been provided in various forms to ensure that they could meet their duties. Those two statements do not add up. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke)—and, by a more roundabout route, the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood—pressed the Government to ensure that any duties placed on local authorities are adequately funded. That will be a pressing issue with those of us whose local authorities already have very stretched budgets and look to the years ahead with some trepidation in terms of the support they receive from the Government. It would be most unfair if local authorities, in trying to meet any obligations placed on them by the Bill, became liable for capping. It is important that the value of childhood is recognised in the Bill. Childhood is not simply a means to the utilitarian end of achieving academic or vocational qualifications. Childhood is part of the ordinary process of growing up and maturing as a human being. That is where much of the controversy about the Bill has lain. Attention has been drawn to an analysis of the Bill headed ““Childcare Bill: Orwell in the nursery?”” Miriam Stoppard claimed that the Government are headed in the wrong direction, because the Bill would introduce children to the prospect of failure at an appallingly early age and was another incursion into family life by the nanny state. The Secretary of State and other Labour Members have rubbished those fears this afternoon, but—like my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who cited the relevant clauses earlier—I think that clause 41(2) is ambiguous. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole was right to concentrate on the ambiguous nature of the word ““taught”” in clause 41(2)(b). Clause 41(2)(a) refers to ““early learning goals”” and clause 41(2)(c) to ““assessment arrangements””. The Government will need to clarify in Committee how far they seek to push the educational process down the age range. It could be suggested that the Bill is pulling in two different directions. Local authorities will be obliged to provide a greater quantity of child care. The question that follows is whether the quality will match the quantity. High quality child care is not always the same as affordable child care, and the question is how the two elements are balanced. Hon. Members have been right to argue that sometimes we need to take the hit on quality to ensure that child care is affordable, but worries have been expressed about what that will mean for children with disabilities, children from minority ethnic groups and children who are at a relative disadvantage to the rest of the community. That is also a worrying aspect of the Bill and I hope that the Minister will be able to address those points when she responds to the debate tonight and that they will be further considered in Committee.