Children: Affordable Childcare

Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Graham of Edmonton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a joy and a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. Our Thursday debates are very precious to me because one hears more about the background of Members of this House—which, quite frankly, is a counterargument to those who talk disparagingly about the make-up of this House. I thoroughly enjoyed the last speech. When I reflect on all the speeches I have heard today, first, I very much want to congratulate my noble friend Lady Massey for providing the peg that allowed so many noble Lords to get these issues off their chests and to recognise, as I do, that no Bench in this House is entitled to say, “This is our issue”. I made the point in my notes that everything that could have been said has been, but not by everybody. The more one hears of contributions from colleagues around the House, the more respect one has for the fact that they have made it to this place, which is of course a great achievement.

I can speak of childcare in the 1920s and 1930s because I was there. My mam and dad had five children. I was the eldest. Dad was on the dole from 1930 to 1939, when war broke out. In fact, it was not the dole but worse—the means test. The means that you had were tested to see if they were right. In 1937, I remember speaking to mam and dad after that test. They had 37 shillings a week to look after seven people. A factor in that was that the princely sum of two shillings—that is, 10 pence—was allocated to each child. I come from a background that was not poverty stricken but where we managed because everybody else was in the same boat where I lived in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I survived and had a very interesting life. I am proud now to have this platform here.

The Minister who will reply to this debate—whom I respect very much—will have her own contribution to make, but I have learnt from my experience and that of other people of the enormous difference in circumstances now. When my mam had to look after seven people, the question of her going out to work never figured. The way it was, if you had five children and seven in the house, your place was there to look after them. One reflects upon the opportunities now, and my noble friend Lady King of Bow was able to illustrate just how wide the gap has grown from my circumstances to hers. That means that, as in the very first words of my noble friend Lady Massey, it is the responsibility not just of this but of every Government to take seriously what has been said here.

When I moved on into the 1950s, I married and had two children. We were not hard up, but the vogue of going out to work certainly came about and was there. That vogue has grown and grown. I read of the circumstances of young married women who try to do what the Government urge them to: get a job, and get out and work. Then one looks at what is available to enable them to do that. All parties are guilty of not looking at the two ends of that spectrum. We are very good at recognising the concerns of the elderly—pensions, grants and so on—but not this sector for one reason or other, bearing in mind that we are talking about flesh and blood, and the future of our society. As my noble friend Lady Bakewell said very well, how did we get into this mess? The priorities need to be readjusted. The Minister has a responsibility to do that because she will speak to her colleagues and be briefed by civil servants. She has her own experience to bring to the House, but she has a major job to take from this debate the fact that priorities need to be readjusted. There need to be opportunities like that.

When I looked at the marvellous brief produced for this debate by the Library, I was interested by the words of the Minister, Elizabeth Truss. She said:

“Every parent wants the best for their child. They expect childcare to be safe and of good quality, because high quality childcare promotes children’s development in the early years. The availability of affordable, safe and stimulating care is crucial in supporting families by enabling parents to work. It is equally crucial to the development of babies and young children as the foundation for their future success at school and in life”.

How many people could argue against that as a statement of aspiration? She goes on:

“That is why this Government is determined to ensure that the system delivers high quality and good value for children, parents and the tax-payer. I am clear that we can do better. We need consistently high quality nursery education and childcare that attracts the best possible staff”.

No one would disagree with that but only the Minister—that is, the Government, with their priorities—has the opportunity to do something about it. We can stand here, preach, reminisce and urge, but the power to reorder the priorities in the Budget is not in our hands.

At the bottom of the briefing, there is a statement by a journalist, Kathy Gyngell, who states:

“High quality affordable universal child care is a myth and Elizabeth Truss has, unwittingly, exploded it. That’s why her deregulation proposals have offended our sensibilities”.

She goes on to make her case, stating:

“It’s hardly worth a typical second earner going out to work more than a couple of days a week, because the family will be barely better off”.

One has reached the stage where exhortations to work are made by Ministers, policies are created and rules and regulations refashioned, yet the wherewithal to do it is—I will not say denied, because it is acknowledged, but it is not made available.

The debate today has sent a powerful message: first, that Members of this House have their feet on the ground; they have experience and a contribution to make. I hope that when the Minister reports to her colleagues on the value of this debate, she will be successful in reorganising the Government’s priorities. I repeat that we are not talking about bankers, journalists, police or anyone else, but about our own flesh and blood. They have the opportunity to make progress, but they need the Government to take initiatives in this matter. I rest my case.

Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012

Lord Graham of Edmonton Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

My Lords, it is a joy and a pleasure to have this opportunity to take part in this debate. I begin as every other speaker has by warmly congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on her initiative and on the spirited way she made her speech. It was very well received. The maiden speech that we heard today was a joy and a pleasure to listen to.

When I reflected on the best way to make a contribution, I knew to begin by saying that in 1950 I married my lovely wife Margaret, who came from Dagenham and came to Newcastle where I lived. At dinner parties in 1950—some of them were at my house—two years after the 1948 Games, inevitably the conversation would stray to the Olympics. We would talk until someone said to Margaret, “You have been silent. Have you nothing to say?”, and she would smile and say, “I was there”. She was there. In other words, living in London and with an interest, she attended more than once. When we talked about Fanny Blankers-Koen, Maureen Gardner, Zatopek, Wint, and McDonald Bailey she could say, “I was there. I saw them”. When I spoke earlier on this subject, I simply said that I would love to find in 2012 that more and more people could say, “I was there”, not necessarily in the stadium but that they had had a touch and a feel.

The brief that so many of us received, which I appreciate very much, gives figures. I will remember all my life the enthusiasm of those who watched on the streets. Of course, more people went to the stadia and participated, but it was the enthusiasm and good-heartedness shown by the public who had the opportunity to watch. One of the strokes of genius by the organisers was to organise the torch parade throughout the land. It provided everyone with the chance to say, “I was there”, because in the future they will say, “I saw the torch”. I know from experience in other places that a number of people who were chosen by whatever means to carry the torch are minor celebrities now. They were proud. The public were applauding not only the carrier but the spirit of the torch.

When one looks at the participants performing and doing their jobs on the day, one thing that impressed me was the number of times that the participants said that they were inspired by the crowd. The crowd were absolutely non-partisan. Of course, most of them were British—schoolchildren and others—but they were not partisan in their cheering on of the participants.

One of the things that we can take away from this is that we did it, and we did it well. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Coe, is not here today, although I understand why. I would have liked to have shaken his hand in some way and said, “Well done thou good and faithful servant. Thou shalt be well rewarded”. He was well rewarded. Not only he but, because of the part they played, others in this House such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Ford and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, were fortunate, as were Tessa Jowell and Tony Blair, to have the opportunity to do what they did. They did it successfully and enthusiastically.

When one talks about the legacy, it is plainly there. I hope that we have an opportunity to carry on the spirit of the Olympics. I can record that, in every conversation the day after an event, if I said to a colleague, “Did you see the Olympics last night?” they all said, “Yes I did. I was there”. It was the spirit of what took place that I will recall for so very long. It is a joy and a pleasure to have had such a big non-partisan success. Although there were niggles and disappointments or potential pitfalls, they were all overcome because the spirit of non-partisanship was there. We did it proud and if we ever have a chance to do it again, I know that we will do it just as proudly.