---

Childcare Bill

I do not wish to detain the House for too long because we can all agree about a awful lot in the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) that there has been a big improvement in early-years child care over the past decade or so. Most of us would agree that bringing up children is one of the most rewarding things that people can do. However, it is not always easy to juggle the many competing demands of work and home life. The Bill stems from a desire to try to help parents who often find themselves in great difficulty when juggling such responsibilities. When it comes to child care, there are sadly no easy answers or solutions for the simple reason that each family’s circumstances are different. That makes it difficult for any Government to get things completely right. I acknowledge that efforts are being made and that some progress has been made over the past eight years, but I am not convinced that the Bill strikes an effective balance between the competing tensions. It is interesting that the 1998 general household survey found that the most popular category of child care for a mother working full or part time was that given by relatives. Having read all the various briefings on the Bill, I am left wondering how effectively it supports that option for parents. Study after study has shown that many women want to remain at home to look after their children, rather than using child minders, crèches or nurseries. Many women feel extremely guilty about returning to work only months after giving birth. It is also interesting to consider the matter from the perspective of what is best for the child. The effective provision of pre-school education project, which followed 3,000 children between 1997 and 2004, found that large amounts of group care before the age of three were associated with higher levels of antisocial behaviour. Such behaviour also increased if a child had received a lot of care from a child minder. However, the study found that if relatives—usually grandmothers—provided a substantial amount of care, children displayed less antisocial behaviour and were more co-operative. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out what is going on. Young children are much better off in the care of their mother, father or members of their close family in the early years from birth to the age of three. In fact, the Government have agreed that if mothers work full time during the early stages of their children’s lives, it can have a negative impact. Families, and especially mothers, should not feel pressurised—either financially, or emotionally—to put their children’s care outside their families during those important early years. I would argue that even between the ages of three to five, it is extremely beneficial if, in addition to receiving high-quality pre-school education, children have their mother or a close family member with them for part of the day. The Government, to their credit, recognised in the 1998 document ““Meeting the Childcare Challenge”” that many parents preferred grandparents or relatives to look after children. However, rather than thinking about how to support that desire of many families, the Government dismissed it as being"““against the direction of social change””—" the Secretary of State reinforced that belief in her opening remarks today. It was felt that only Government intervention could ““fill the gaps””. That is really what troubles me about the thrust of child care policy. It seems to be more prescriptive than necessary, and choice is talked about, rather than delivered. There appears to be a feeling that the Government know best, or at least better than families themselves. If the Government truly wished to offer choice, would they not be coming forward today with policies that offered the widest possible choice? One gets the slight feeling that the Government still believe that mothers who want to stay at home are a ““bit of a problem””. I am talking not about a bit more time for maternity leave, but about how the Government can help to support a mother through a period of years in which she brings up two or three children. The evidence shows us what is best for the child and wider society, so offering that would give families a real choice, not just a choice from a menu of state-sponsored initiatives. If the Government are really serious about one of their central principles—"““the importance of ensuring every child has the best possible start to life””—" they must engage in such wider thinking and reform. In areas in which Government intervention was needed, there has been some success. For example, Sure Start has made a contribution in some of the country’s most deprived areas. Several areas have benefited significantly, so I give credit where credit is due. However, it is also true that the scheme has acted as competition with voluntary and private nurseries and play groups in those areas and has thus caused some to close.