Childcare Bill

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I completely agree that we are talking about a new role for the state. The state is the commissioner. Of course there needs to be a mixed economy of provision—I said that at the outset—involving the private sector and the voluntary sector, but I urge her to recognise that there is a big change in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland pointed out, it has never been set out in statute that a local authority, or indeed any agency of Government, has a responsibility for ensuring sufficient child care. That is a significant step forward and change. Indeed, I come to clause 6, the relevant clause. This is an important crossing of the rubicon in terms of the state’s responsibility for child care provision, from which it will be difficult, I hope, for any Government to resile. The problem is that parents have never until now had an accountable body to which they can turn. Local democratically elected representatives are the right people to carry out that function. Local authorities have access to information on the ground and are best placed to audit and plan provision. They are also best placed to ensure coherence and efficiency of provision in respect of schools. There are two key questions about how the duty of sufficiency will work and to whom it will apply. I have made it clear that I believe in a mixed economy of provision, and this answers a point that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) asked another hon. Member earlier because clause 8 makes it clear that we will maintain a mixed economy of provision: child minders, nurseries and other provision, provided by the voluntary sector and the private sector, as well as the state. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who is not in his place, raised the concern that the Daycare Trust and others have about the position of non-working parents, and about specifying that duty only for the parents on the child care element of the working tax credit and that that might be too modest. With the kindest respect to Opposition Members, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that the problem with the Bill is that it places enormous upward pressure on council tax bills and then say that it does not go far enough in extending provision. This is a sensible and modest first step. It covers parents going a long way up the income scale. Working hand in hand with the increased limits and the increased proportion of costs payable under the child care tax credit, it will make an important difference. We will have time to assess the duty as it beds down, after it comes into force in April 2008. I am pleased also that, significantly, the Bill extends the duty to those undertaking education and training preparatory to work. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified how that will work. I am conscious, from talking to people in my constituency, that funding in this area tends to be quite patchy, and I know that it is not covered by the child care tax credit.