Childcare Bill

moved Amendment No. 34:"Page 4, line 33, leave out ““16”” and insert ““18””" The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 34 would place on local authorities in England the duty to secure childcare for disabled children in their area up to the age of 18, where their parents need childcare in order to work. The Bill secures childcare for non-disabled children up to the age of 14, and for disabled children up to the age of 16. I welcome the Government’s determination to support working families who need childcare, and their recognition that the families of disabled children have additional support needs. In particular, I welcome the Minister’s agreement at Second Reading that disabled children may need childcare for longer, to provide parents with the additional support they need. I agree with him on that, but I disagree with him that age 16 is an appropriate cut-off point. The arguments on this issue have been rehearsed several times—indeed, the Minister was kind enough to meet the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and me to discuss this amendment only last week. I do not propose to take up the Committee’s time by repeating them. Suffice it to say that the amendment would harmonise the provisions for disabled children and their families in the Childcare Bill with other legislation designed to help parents to work, which supports the parents of disabled children up to the age of 18, not 16. It would help a group of families who are currently disproportionately unemployed and poor, and help to close a gap in childcare provision for older disabled children. The amendment would help people such as Sophie, who has worked as a school nurse in a south London borough while her three children, one of whom has a learning disability, were growing up. Sophie was able to find adequate childcare for all her children, and to keep on working until her disabled daughter reached the age of 16. After that, no childcare was available. It became impossible to combine working with caring for her daughter. This year, Sophie has been forced to give up a job which was important to her and extremely valuable to her local community. Recent research bears out Sophie’s experience. A survey carried out by Mencap found that only one in 20 local authority children’s information services was able to identify suitable childcare for a 17 year-old with a learning disability whose mother needed to work full time. There is a chronic lack of provision for this age group. I am particularly concerned that, if the Bill sets out in stone that local authorities have to secure childcare provision for disabled children up to the age of 16, it will make it even harder for the families of disabled young people of 17 and 18 years to get the care they need. There is a danger that local authorities will focus on meeting their legal responsibilities only, while neglecting the older age group. Setting a cut-off point at age 16 also goes against the Bill’s provisions on information services. In Clause 12, local authorities are given a duty to provide information, advice and assistance about childcare, and other services and facilities, to families of children and young people up to the age of 20. Why give them a duty to provide information about services which simply do not exist? As it stands, the Bill would put children’s information services in a very difficult position—one which could easily be rectified through this amendment. I know that the Minister shares my intention of ensuring that good childcare is available to the families of all children who need it. For the families of disabled children, these needs continue beyond the age of 16. This Bill provides a perfect opportunity to ensure that they are met. I hope that this opportunity will be taken by the Government in accepting Amendment No. 34, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton—and, I am sure, by Members on all sides of the Committee. I beg to move.