Universal, free childcare - is it a solution?

[KateMumsnet]

This week, Mumsnet Blogger Mummyisagadgetgeek reports back from an event organized by the thinktank Progress on the subject of universal childcare. Should they win the next election, Labour are considering it as a possible policy - so we thought it would be good to find out what it was all about.

So: read her blog report from the event, tell us what you think here on the thread - and if you blog, let us know about it. We'll be tweeting posts next week.

I agree with notenoughsocks

I am also interested in whether Xenia puts down SAHP to her DC. As it may come back to bite you if they choose to be SAHP! I promote choice to my DCs and encourage them them to be in a position to choose through doing well at school etc.

I think many SAHP would still stay home at least till age 3 even if there was free childcare. Many of my SAHP friends would not use childcare as they don't believe it is good for small kids. I agree though that maybe the government want to make it harder for SAHP to stay home as it then means they probably won't have the 'excuse' that childcare would eat all their earnings any longer. It is no secret that Clegg etc. prefer the Swedish model where the minister freely admits they 'pushed' women into work whether they wanted to or not. Perhaps this is the road they want to take? Either way I don't think it will work. Good childcare is very expensive. It is already being suggested to reduce ratios/quality so who knows how poor it would be to ba able to offer it universally.

"I am dead against state monopolies of anything, but the idea of a state monopoly of childcare sends shivers down my spine and turns my stomach."

Bonsoir, I couldn't agree more.

This whole idea makes my blood boil. Yet another reason why I detest Labour.

As if they could ever afford to do this anyway......pie in the sky.

Who says they're proposing a state monopoly on childcare? There is zero chance they would propose that, they're a centre left party with strong ties to business.

Richman: I agree: it's pointless to consider solutions as if there was a bottomless pit of money to pay for it. It's just fantasising. What' the point.

In the country where I come from there is a system of free universal childcare which is based on "points" - you get certain points according to how many hours you work as a family, how much you earn, how many children you have. So if you are well off, both work and have one child you don't stand a chance of getting in. But you wouldn't want to use these nurseries, believe me!

I have seen these settings and they are terrible quality childcare. Having used childcare settings (and quite a number!) in this country, they do not compare well at all. There are virtually no quotas, there are crammed, huge rooms with loads of children of all ages crammed in. Resources are pitiful. Some don't even have an outside space. So what's happened there is that those who can afford it send them to the expensive private nurseries or hire a nanny. Those who can't are stuck with these terrible places.

I much prefer the idea of increasing the 15 hours entitlement to say 20 or 25 hours and keeping the current legislation and standard of care, than having universal, substandard childcare and creating a two tier system of childcare.

nannynick - your points below sound better for employees than they do customers - i've shown my concerns about each of your points below in order (numbered bits)

Same cost wherever you live

• All working to the same standards, may even all have exactly the same equipment (buying in bulk creates savings)
• Staff are on nationally agreed pay scales, possibly with additional allowances in some areas (like civil service)
• Staff can move from nursery to nursery easier as their work history is known
• All nurseries open the same hours, all close the same days.

1. lets hope the standards would be better than some of the public run children's homes we hear of in the press recently where children are abused
2. so you may be OK in wales where the pay is relatively good compared to local costs/pay, but in london if its the same rate you will only get the dross who can't get any other jobs
3. moving staff = upheavel for my child continually getting used to new people
4. so no ability for me to cover early starts (4am) or late nights (10pm) or for people to work weekends perhaps - ie no flexibility to provide cover, despite jobs often requiring flexibility.

This thread is bonkers

You would think Labour is proposing sending all your children to the gulag

Most likely the current system would not change all that much, there would just be more vouchers and tax changes and incentives for local councils, etc and so on.

The UK pays twice the European average on childcare, which is insane. It's a huge factor in women continuing to lag behind men in the workforce, in positions of power, etc. It's a huge problem for single parents, for carers, students, lots of people.

Yet over here on MN the response is Free childcare? Why no thank you

Fair enough to oppose certain means of implementing it even when these are totally imaginary but really I'm surprised how many people seem to be against the very principle of it.

I also live in France. Cheap childcare is a godsend. No horror stories to share either, sorry.

dreamingofsun - you are quite right, it's not an ideal thing. Ultimately I don't think Government could ever come up with a system which caters for everyone. A system of state nurseries I feel has already been tried on a small scale - such as some SureStart centres providing daycare plus the existing state nurseries, and I don't think it has worked.

With regard to point 2 I was thinking along the lines of how they do teachers salary, civil servants salary. When I worked in the civil service, I was outside London but got some additional pay for being near London.

I don't see government run childcare working, but is that what they have in France, Belgium, other places?

Maybe they should just increase child benefit - so paying a set amount based on the number of children, leaving parents to decide what they spend that money on. Can't see them doing that either.

It is a good idea in principle. I cannot understand why the SAHMs on this thread are so against it. If you have the luxury of not having to work to support your family, then why begrudge this benefit to others who have not had the fortune to bag themselves rich husbands! Talk about mean-spirited...

"The UK pays twice the European average on childcare" - but do we know WHY that is the case? What is it that makes childcare in the UK more expensive than in other countries?

Wierd. I seem to be (perceived to be?) coming down on the 'no to universal free childcare' side of the debate. Truthfully, I find this surprising.

I do not share Brycie's views. That is, I realise that there is no endless pot of money, but there are priorities; these can always be challenged and changed. It is not that I believe that universal childcare cannot be 'afforded'.

I am a feminist. I think that women should have the right to work and often the sky high price of quailty childcare makes this difficult. But I also believe in promoting role sharing (why do mothers so often get left to make the choice between work and parenting?) and recognising that parents (usually mothers) work bloody hard for nothing.

The more I think about it, in my 'ideal world', good quality universal childcare would be accompanied by stronger rights to flexible working for men and women (in the hope that this might do more to challenge workplace cultures). Or, indeed, why not provide and additional universal benefit for under-fives which could be spent on childcare, or supplement the income of their carer? I already suggested this upthread. The answer seems 'why pay for something that is already done for nothing?' or 'it would only encourage women to become SAHP's.' This only reinforces my worry that universal childcare might compell parents (mostly mothers) to leave their children against their will whilst they are young in order to take work that most people would never choose.

dreamingbohemian do you have any figures re: the difference between men and women's pay in France? Also, is it relatively easy to, for example, work for four days a week without losing 'full-time status'?

childminders here used to get an extra level of vetting and if they passed would be allowed to go on a list made available to council employees. I was really shocked when i heard this as it said to me that the council didn't trust their own vetting procedures.

I used 2 childminders - 1 excellent (who was also on council list) and another who was dreadful - in part because she had a son with Attention Deficit Disorder and therefore had her hands full anyway. when i complained to the council their response was 'well she needed to earn a living so there was nothing they could do'. no concern for the quality of childcare my children received, that i was paying for.

'It is a good idea in principle. I cannot understand why the SAHMs on this thread are so against it. If you have the luxury of not having to work to support your family, then why begrudge this benefit to others who have not had the fortune to bag themselves rich husbands! Talk about mean-spirited...'

Not all SAHP's have rich partners! many make sacrifices to stay home. Many, such as myself, cannot work because our husbands work away/shifts that change etc. and they themselves would have to work shifts so could not get childcare even if they wanted to.

I suspect some are against it if it means the end to child and top up benefits meaning that they would have to manage purely on one salary.

Being a SAHP is a luxury, not having to work whilst another supports you is indeed a luxury. Thousands of children are raised by working parents so there is no reason a child needs to have a parent at home unless disabilities mean childcare is hard to come by.

I dont usually agree with labour policies but offering free or tax deductible childcare instead of benefits can only be good for the economy. Those whose households can support just one adult working can continue to do so and those that make the choice baed on the state paying will have to do what millions of otheers do and work. Children do not mean an end to working. It would send a better message to young girls in that they can do both and that children come with financial responsibilities that are theirs to bear not the states.

notenough no figures sorry, though I believe the income gap is less in France than in the UK.

Obviously income gaps depend on many, many factors. But anecdotally at least, the MN boards are full of women who took a career break to raise children and now can't get back into full-time work, or have to start over in their career.

I think the new move to parental (not maternity) leave, coupled with cheaper or free childcare, would really help women stay in the workforce, maintain their careers, and hopefully reduce hiring discrimination against women.

I think France has a very high proportion of women with children in the workplace, and cheap childcare is a big part of that.

As for four days a week, I don't know how easy it is. But you can get childcare 5 days a week so not sure how relevant that is for everyone.

"free" "universal"

"free" = nothing is free, the money comes from somewhere, what are you personally willing to give up ?

"universal" = to include visitors to the country even the uber rich wives of the world high finance "community" - who would otherwise pay good wages to UK nannies

UK childcare is more expensive than the rest of Europe for one incredibly simple reason.
The UK has set its staff / child ratio much lower than other countries seem to find works just fine

all that is needed is a change in the ratio regulations, and childcare costs fall through the floor, more places are opened up, and no nursery workers lose their jobs

it really is that obvious.

Re: state subsidy of childcare, I understand there is a bit of controversy in France at the moment about an austerity budget...

Yeah - its an utterly unaffordable reality

wahey, those whose kids are little will be paid for by those whose kids are big

D'oh

Make the ratios sensible, or ban internships and make the minimum wage the living wage - £2.45 / hr FFS

TalkinPeace2

Truss advocates more children in our care, such as 5 under 5 for c/m
I am against it and won't do it ...have you ever looked after more than 3 children of that age?
Our ratios are low and suit parents especially with c/ms. High ratio will not reduce costs...on the contrary it will raise them...fact!

Childcare in Denmark is equally expensive as UK...govt pays 75% parents 25%
If parents had to pay it all it would cost the same. Plenty of statistics out there and all their staff highly qualified and well paid

Childcare has a varied market and plenty of choice...make everyone the same and there would be no competition or need to 'do better'...what is the point of a nursery worker moving to another nursery? to earn the same money?
There are also limited aspirations for some practitioners especially c/ms

Childcare costs are rising for various reasons (have been in childcare 19 years, 8 running my own preschool and 11 as a c/m) during my preschool years fees rose very little
Costs started rising due to regulation and legislation, utilities, food. insurance, paperwork and documentation, red tape...lots of it...having to buy training as LAs charge now or offer repetitive unchallenging training, the Free Entitlement main cause as fees for the hours outside it increased steadily over the last years....better qualified workforce means better pay, minimum wage for nursery staff and so on and so on

Is childcare expensive when a c/m charges... say £5.50 and parents get at least the minimum wages at £6.19 some earn lots more...minimum wage being different to living wage.
Or is it that this govt has cut so many benefits making childcare unaffordable to parents and blaming providers of being expensive?
Cleaners in my area get £10 which parents cannot do without but complain at paying our fees?

We have jumped through many hoops to raise standards and quality..do people think we can still earn as we did 7 years ago?
Most providers are women with families and mortgages
On top of that govt wastes a lot of funding in various streams and duplication of services and ridiculous useless schemes, funding LAs and not making them accountable is another waste....

Also 57,000c/ms are self employed therefore small businesses...I don't want to be employed by a nursery and be told how to look after children by a manager with little experience and a NVQ3 (have met many) who probably spends her life doing paperwork and hardly gets near kids?

jellybeans, not all the SAHMs are against it. I see myself as a SAHM and am (with caveats) in favour, even though I personally chose not to return to my career and would not use the childcare even if it was free. I just didn't mention that I was a SAHM as I don't think individual personal circumstances particularly matter.

i never said they all were against it? It is absolutely fine that some SAHP support the idea even if many of them would never use free childcare. However I still don't think it will ever happen or work due to costs. It won't affect me as my DC will all be school age by the time any proposals would happen which is highly unlikely.