Welfare Reform Bill

There is absolutely no doubt that childcare, which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, will remember came up strongly when we debated the original order on lone parents some two years or 18 months ago—I do not know; it does not matter—is vital to the whole scheme of things. The question is how you deal with it. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord made an impassioned plea for considering the importance of childcare. This obviously ties in with our opening debate on school-age children when I pointed out the obvious: parents will understandably be reluctant to get involved with any scheme that they might consider to adversely impact upon their children. Many of your Lordships agreed with me, including the noble Countess, Lady Mar; I was listening. For those parents with children over school age and therefore subject to the new proposals, the availability of childcare is a vital consideration in helping them make decisions about what they feel that they are able to do for themselves: preparing for work, being in work and so on. I may have misunderstood the problem, but I was informed that it was a particular concern in Scotland, where the Childcare Act 2006, which put a duty only on councils in England and Wales to provide sufficient childcare for working parents, does not apply; I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to comment on whether I am right or wrong. This Bill covers Scotland as well. I expect that childcare will form a major part of the agreement reached between the adviser and the parent seeking work. Perhaps the Minister will be able to develop this point for us when he responds. What will happen to those parents who need childcare but cannot find any suitable? The Minister has already said this afternoon that, in that case, there will be no need for lone parents to be subject to the rigours of Clause 2. Indeed, that comment was made both in Committee and, I think, on Report in another place. The important thing is for us to discover how flexible the new provisions will be when taking childcare into account. The Liberal Democrat amendments raise the question of predictable access to childcare. The wording of the amendments is perhaps a little problematic, but I shall come to that in a minute. I am interested to hear the Minister explain how the "work for your benefit" schemes can be applied satisfactorily in cases where access to childcare is available—but they may well change. For example, a programme which is agreed with a parent may take account of there being childcare available after school hours from 3 pm to 5 pm—the noble Lord said 6 pm, but it does not really matter. What if, two months down the line, when school breaks up for its first holiday, it turns out only then that the necessary childcare is not available? Will there be sufficient flexibility built into the system to cope with that? The problem I see with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, important as it is, is that it is very difficult to legislate explicitly for predictability. Having childcare available when it is needed is, of course, highly desirable; in fact, it is more than highly desirable, it is essential. However, it is rather more difficult to guarantee it. Rather, we need to make sure that the scheme is sufficiently tailored to allow maximum flexibility, so that, instead of fixing events into a back-to-work plan, the plan is adaptable enough to react to events. I hope that the Minister will agree that this would be the right approach, rather than trying to put words into legislation.