If ‘free’ childcare can help people back to work then that’s a good thing - Bill Carmichael

I remember when my eldest child was born in the late 1980s and we decided that we could just about afford for my wife to pack in her job, and give our daughter the benefits of being with mum full-time.

I suppose we had the idea, considered old-fashioned even back then, that the best person to care for very young children is a parent.

In terms of money the decision hit us hard, but with some scrimping and saving, and me taking on lots of freelance work in addition to a demanding full-time job, we could just about keep our noses above the water.

Over the years I have learned that in terms of personal finances timing is everything - and ours was terrible.

As inflation began to rise in the late 1980s the then Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, reacted by cranking up interest rates.

As our daughter changed from charming baby to precocious toddler, mortgage rates grew at an equally rapid pace, until they reached the eye-watering level of almost 15 per cent by the end of the decade.

Our monthly payments rocketed, and we reluctantly decided that although my wife loved being a stay-at-home mum, she would need to return to work, and we would have to organise child care for our daughter, who was then about two years of age.

So one day I took time off work and we went to see the only childminder in the village where we then lived. The smell of urine hit me before I reached the front door. We found the childminder smoking a fag, watching a daytime show from a blaring television, half a dozen flies circling a bare lightbulb, and three babies in soiled nappies crawling around on a sticky carpet.

My wife and I exchanged a quick glance, and we both knew that there was zero chance of us entrusting our precious daughter to this woman, and the planned return to work never happened.

We survived on one salary - just - but I can vividly remember regularly waking up in a cold sweat in the early hours worrying if I could put food on the table and make the next monthly mortgage payment.

I recalled those days this week as the government rolled out its new “free” childcare plan this week. Back when I had young children there was no such thing as “free” childcare. You paid for it until your children were old enough to go to primary school.

And of course nothing in life is actually “free” - someone, somewhere, always has to pay for it. In this case childless and older taxpayers are effectively subsidising childcare used by younger families.

But I don’t object to this scheme, largely because one of the big problems faced by modern Britain is the huge number of “economically inactive” people of working age. If free childcare can help people back to work, paying taxes and growing the economy, then that’s a good thing.

The plan rolled out this week offers 15 hours of free childcare to two-year olds, and the government says 150,000 families have already registered.

The government - that is the taxpayer - already funds 30 hours of childcare for three and four year-olds, and the scheme will be extended to nine month olds from September.

The idea of handing over a tiny baby for childcare sent a shiver down my spine, although I am sure current childcare provision is far better than I experienced over 30 years ago. But it did get me thinking. I am sure for many families it is an economic necessity for both parents to work, and many value the money and sense of fulfilment that a rewarding career can offer.

But that is not true of everyone, and I am sure there are many parents, dads as well as mums, who would love the chance to stay at home to care for their children.

Couldn’t they be offered financial support to make that choice, perhaps through the income tax system by transferring all or part of the stay-at-home parent’s tax allowance to their working spouse to reduce their overall tax bill?

Young families play a vital role for our country in raising the next generation. They deserve our support - both those who go out to work, and those who keep childcare within the family.