---

Childcare Bill

I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. I shall read it in Hansard and I particularly look forward to the bit on gloop. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has put his finger on it: the trouble is that if you have a high turnover of staff or staff working rotas, and a baby is in a nursery or day care setting for a long time, the key worker may change. It is not just about being named as the key worker; it is about what that key worker does for the baby. That is why I mentioned that it must be the person who receives the baby or young child at the beginning of the day, and that they should do as much as they possibly can for it. We could not go through the whole of this debate on the Childcare Bill without mentioning that lots of newspaper articles now talk about babies being put in nurseries from nought to two. I am not in the business of making mothers feel guilty. We feel guilty enough as it is: we never feed our children the right foods or we are not doing the right thing for them. Some mothers have to go to work and other mothers need to go to work because they are the movers, shakers and entrepreneurs, the doctors and teachers. They need to be there, but they also need to know that their children are being given the very best care. I take on board what the Minister says about the rigidity of the distinction between nought to two and two to five, which depend on when the birthday falls. That moves us away from the child developing at its own individual pace, and I am the last person to want to be so prescriptive. But somewhere there must be a fundamental understanding of the importance not only of physical development—the noble Lord talked a lot about that—but also of the development of the brain and a sense of self. That is done almost one to one and is why, in the end, the very best person for the baby to attach to is the mother—or possibly its grandparents, which is why many working women choose to have their parents looking after their children. I take on board what the Minister says but I still think that we need to consider the provision. We may need to be less prescriptive about the ages, but we need to consider including something so that people who provide for children from nought to two have a further obligation on their training. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 19 agreed to. Clause 20 [Meaning of ““early years provision””]: [Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.] Clause 20 agreed to. Clause 21 agreed to. Clause 22 [Duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents]: [Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.] Clause 22 agreed to. Clause 23 [Powers of local authority in relation to the provision of childcare]: [Amendment No. 62 not moved.] Clause 23 agreed to. Clauses 24 to 32 agreed to. Clause 33 [Requirement to register: early years childminders]: