Downing Street Says » Childcare Implementation

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman briefed journalists on the Government’s plans to reform childcare provision in the UK, he said the following:

The Prime Minister will tomorrow say all parents of primary school children will have the guarantee of affordable school based childcare all year round over the lifetime of the next Parliament. He will say we want latch key kids to become a thing of the past.

In a keynote speech he will say that Britain has improved the quality of its childcare and family friendly provision considerably since 1997. We were once among the worst in Europe now some of our provisions are better than many of our EU competitors. There has been the biggest expansion of nursery provision since the Second World War. Virtually all 3 / 4 year olds are in part time nursery education. There are 500,000 new childcare places, 500 Sure Start programmes, help for 350,000 low income families with the cost of childcare. But he will argue that we need to go to the next level and ensure provision meets the modern reality of parents’ lives. He will make clear that choice and support should be available not just for parents at work but also for parents at home.

This is already available in some parts of the country but we need to make it universal. The provision will be available to parents in work and those who choose to stay at home. It could be used throughout the week or for just one or two afternoons when needed. Parents will be able to organise the hours that suit them and the needs of their child. It will be a service which offers clubs, sports and arts activities, study support, play, rest and healthy snacks. Parents will as now be charged for this guarantee of childcare (typically at the moment c£2.50 – £3.50) but where parents are on low income they will be able to claim the childcare element of the WTC to help cover up to 70% of these costs. Provision would be either on the school site or nearby with supervised transfer arrangements. A service could be provided by the school itself but more often than not will be in partnership with other schools, with the private and voluntary sectors and with networks of childminders. Local Authorities will be given a responsibility in statute to ensure that the guaranteed provision is available. He will also have more to say tomorrow about provision at secondary schools.

He will say that this area used to be peripheral and relegated to the bottom of the political agenda but he believes it now lies at the heart of creating a fairer Britain for families and children. He will say that this is not about dictating to families or the march of the nanny state but about giving parents real choice and and providing support for parents whether they are at work or at home. It complements family life. It does not replace it. He will acknowledge that many parents want to stay at home in the early years of their child’s life and that we are providing more choice and opportunity for them to do so (as the extra money paid through the WTC is enabling a parent to stay at home.) He will say that research to be published shortly by the DfES will show that early years childcare provision can make a significant difference to the life chances of children.

He will say that school aged childcare is just one element of the Government’s strategy. There will be more to follow in the PBR and beyond setting a long term direction with clear milestones on each stage of the journey. Whatever we announce will be costed, workable and takes account of what parents want and need. There will be more on work life balance for parents, affordable childcare for 3 and 4 year olds, and the development of Sure Start.’

Asked how this differed from the plans already announced by Charles Clarke, the PMOS told journalists that this announcement contained more detail concerning implementation, in particular the commitment to implement the policy within the lifetime of the next parliament. Asked if this care would be provided over a five-day week or a seven-day week, the PMOS said it covered the five-day working week. Asked who would run it the PMOS said that it was expected to be a mix of provision. Asked how much it would cost the Government, the PMOS said he did not have any information on that yet. Asked how many people would need to be recruited to provide the service, the PMOS said that if people were assuming this would just be provided through schools that would be a mistake. There would be a range of provisions. Schools might amalgamate to provide the service or it might be privately operated. Asked if this was a UK provision or only for England, the PMOS said that his understanding was that it was for England only as these were devolved matters. Asked if it would paid for through central or local Government funds, the PMOS said that he had no detail about that. Asked about whether it was fair that people without children would have to pay for the care for those with children, the PMOS said that there was a benefit in terms of the future of the country. Research showed that early age childcare provision could make a significant difference to the life-chances of children. Therefore in terms of building up the skills-base in the country it was a worthwhile investment.

Asked what provisions there would be for pre-school children, the PMOS reminded journalists that the Government had already achieved a lot of progress with respect to pre-school children. Virtually all 3-4 year olds were in part-time nursery education; there were 500,000 new child care places; 500 Sure-Start programs; help for 350,000 low income families with the costs of their childcare. This had already been achieved.

Asked how this would affect private nursery care, the PMOS said that since provision would be mixed it provided opportunities for private childcare providers. In response to further questioning the PMOS said that private child minders were part of the whole range of providers used. That provided an opportunity. What these provisions did do was provide a guarantee that childcare would be provided at a reasonable cost. At present the costs varied enormously across the board.

6 Comments »

This isn’t one of the sexy, high profile subjects on Downing Street Says, but all political parties are trying to see who can come up with the best deal for parents and families. This Government has really led from the front on this and has pushed the issue, from being a minor concern, to being very high up on the political agenda. There’s a whole range of policies being targeted at particular voters; childcare, working family tax credit, baby bonds, expanded maternity/paternity leave, and so on. The Conservatives are currently struggling to catch up, and the only real debate is as to which party can out do the others.

This whole move strikes me as being as being totally unjust. And is taking place virtually unopposed. It entails a huge expansion in the Welfare State, which is being pushed away from its old Beverage roots into offering targeted bribes at particular sections of voters. I have no problem with the welfare state targeting the demons of povery, disease, ignorance, idleness, etc. But I can’t see why it should attempt to relieve people of the burden of looking after and paying for their own children. It escapes me why this is happening at the same time that the Government is shrinking other areas of welfare provision.

Both main parties are explicitly favouring an increasing redistribution of wealth from people who do not have children to people who do. The system that is being set up is offering expensive perks to people who are not by any means poor or in need of Government aid. It’s also spreading into other sectors of life, including business. In the past men were paid more at work than women on the basis that they had a family to support. This was – thankfully – replaced by the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. I can’t see why this is now being demolished and replaced with a systen where people with children are, in effect, being paid more for doing less work. I don’t see how any of this can be justified as something the state should be doing. I also can’t see anyone trying to justify it, it’s basically just a electorally motivated bribe.

I’m going to sign off now, before this degenerates (further?) into a rant. But I’d be very interested in hearing anyone elses opinions on this aspect of Government policy that is, more-or-less, completely uncommented on.
Comment by square peg — 7 Jan 2005 on 3:38 am | Link
This would almost look like the government was trying to encourage more people to have children? Could this be something to do with the declining birth rate and ageing population?

If people aren’t procreating then we will have to get our future workforce from another source. Increased immigration is the obvious answer but that means taking on the racist bigots in the tabloid media and the general public – something neither Labour or the Tories seem keen to do.

One way or another, in 30 years time there had better be enough people working and paying taxes in this country or we are going to have a lot of pensioners starving in the streets.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 7 Jan 2005 on 1:34 pm | Link
"This would almost look like the government was trying to encourage more people to have children? Could this be something to do with the declining birth rate and ageing population?"

I really don’t think this is the case. The government hasn’t ever used this rationalisation, and people only ever bring it up as a fall back position when it’s pointed out that people don’t deserve being given other peoples money for having kids. The "we need more children" lines is just hyperbole, plenty of perfectly successful nations have had a much worse situation than us for a while. UK birth rates have increased spontaneously recently, before the government did anything to influence them. The measures are a solution looking for a problem.

It’s also worth bearing in mind. (1) This aim on the part of the government is totally inconsistant with it – at the same time – spending a lot of effort getting people not to have children (i.e. teenage mothers, abortion provision). If you really wanted to increase the birth rate, this could be done at the stoke of a pen by ending state funding for contraception and abortion. (2) There’s no empirical evidence at all that the policy encourages more people to have children. No one is even claiming it does. (3) Logically, how on earth does giving benefits to people who have had children in the past – before the system started – encourage people to have children? They’ve have already made the decision to have children without the bribe. You’re giving away public money for no benefit. If you were to try and bribe people to have children, it’d only make sense (and would be much cheaper) to do it by bribing people who have children starting from now.
Comment by square peg — 7 Jan 2005 on 3:09 pm | Link
"plenty of perfectly successful nations have had a much worse situation than us for a while." I’d be interested to know which nations you were thinking of and over what periods.

For UK data I would look at fig.4 and table 4 in this document for projections of the aging poulation:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/PT118_V1.pdf

On your point 1, while I agree that there does appear to be a contradiction between the policies you mention there are two ways of looking at it.

It could be argued that this is all about politicians current favourite word ‘choice’. If you stop contraception and abortion you are restricting choice by removing the option of not having children. If you introduce support for people with children then you are merely creating an incentive but still leaving the individual with a choice.

A slightly more sinister argument is that this is all about social engineering. If you stop free contraception and abortion then the people most affected are those that cannot afford to pay for it themselves – end result is lots more children in the C1DE classes. If you offer tax breaks and contributions towards childcare as an incentive then the people most incentivised are those earning enough to benefit from the tax breaks or pay the rest of the childcare fees – end result is lots more children in the ABC1 classes. In blunt socio-biological terms, do you want more shelf fillers for Tesco or more scientists for Glaxo?

On your point 2 I agree. I haven’t seen any data to prove that these policies are leading to an increased birth rate. All I am doing is speculating.

On your point 3, these people are called the ‘free-riders’ i.e. people who benefit from a policy who benefit from a system without putting in any extra effort – they have already decided to have the children. These people could also be viewed as marketing agents for the policy. Anyone who works in marketing will tell you that the best way to get people to buy your product is to get all of their friends and family to tell them how great it is. What better advert could their be for the rewards for having children than being told by everyone around you how much extra cash/help they are getting? It may not make you think ‘lets go out and procreate’ but if you were already thinking about it but worrying about whether you could manage it could make all the difference.

Of course you could ignore everything I’ve said and believe what the Government says. Poverty is a hard habit to break. If you can give children a better start in life then they are likely to be better off in adulthood. Its a theory based on good data and I’m not saying its not true. I just like speculating around the edges.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 10 Jan 2005 on 10:03 pm | Link
owhere can I obtain details of the new government rules and tax reliefs which I understand wil be effective from 5 April 2005 ? What are the provisions applying to my company which may offer the facility to staff ? Where are the government leaflets obtainable for this?
Comment by B.C.BAILEY — 24 Feb 2005 on 6:45 pm | Link
I am a retired Grandmother who is helping my Daughter and her Husband to raise their children ie .They go out to work and I do the school runs and cook the lunches.I do this because I adore the children and want to help all I can to aid my family.In this age when Governments pay family allowance,family tax-credits and assist with payments towards child-minders -Can you tell me what help us retired Grandparents are entitled to and if not why not?
I supply Breakfast,lunch for youngest and most days snacks after school.Any school activities that cost –Nana pays,Ice-cream man at the gates –Nana pays,Hair-cuts ,School trips,OPen day Harvest festival, and the list goes on.Couples work hard to put a roof over their childrens heads,Buy new clothes etc.Perhaps with help more Grandparents would take a more active role instead of leaving our precious little children with strangers.
Your view would be appreciated.
Comment by Margaret Tickle — 31 Jan 2008 on 8:46 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Childcare Implementation

6 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries