Is extending 30 hours childcare to parents on benefits fair?

[GimmieABreakOr3]

30 free hours of childcare to those in receipt of benefits is not fair.

Currently, the 30-hour childcare scheme requires parents to be in work to qualify. However, the UK Education Secretary has called for this to be extended to parents on benefits.

Many argue that those who are unemployed don’t need childcare. I agree. How is it fair that those of us in work are always propping up those who are not? It’s proper two tier Britain if you ask me when it comes to those in work compared to those who are unemployed and on welfare. I think Labour are ruining this country.

I think it should be universal. It seems very unfair to not extend it to people paying the most for it. I do think it could be good for the children of families on benefits, if the provision is good quality. It isn’t always, and it’s underfunded by government too, which exacerbates that. To fund it at an appropriate level, with universal access is a great goal - but is it feasible at the moment with our economy? Maybe not.

it's early years education, not childcare.

Would it not be mostly with the aim of reducing the childcare availability/costs as a barrier to work? As pp says above, it can be difficult to get a place at short notice, so people end up stuck.

I can 100% see the argument for it but I think it is part of a reform of child benefit. My view is that the majority of money should be pumped into universal childcare. Everyone who has a child older than 6 months has to pay for it themselves. They shouldn’t receive money directly from the state. By giving free childcare it means people can go off to work without that worry and can have the satisfaction that they are responsible for paying for their own children. It breaks the cycle of welfare dependency.

I imagine it's stereotyping rather than exaggerating
lazy work shy parents who CBA to work because they want to sit around smoking and drinking and gambling whilst you fund their lifestyle blah blah blah can't be bothered to raise their kids and shove them on expensive screens working parents can't afford cos they're just worthless losers etc etc etc. Not my opinion, but pulling a rough group of MN stereotypes together

I can see the logic, but it seems slightly ludicrous to give 30 hours to the unemployed, while higher earners get 0 hours and so effectively pay double - while also funding all these policies through their higher taxes.

I think it depends on the situation. I work part time at the moment and this would have helped loads when my kids were in nursery due to the hours I do. Sessions are usually morning, afternoon or all day. You can't just pick them up because you finished work you have to wait till their pick up time. This could help loads of families get back into work if theres no reason for them not to work.

I agree for the year before school starts to get them ready
but Nothing more

Many places lack spaces for working people and that has a knock on effect to being able to work. If there’s an additional pool of kids it will make it much harder on them

Then there’s the additional expense which the nhs and schools aged children could use up quite easily if they had it

At some point Govns need to stop spending money they don’t have

Nor did I, so see what you're saying.

If you don’t have childcare in place it can be hard to find a job so if parents are accessing early years education then that will hopefully help them be able to get back to work.

Some children really benefit from the early intervention that can come from being in a nursery setting - especially if they have a less than ideal home life.

If parents can’t work because they are disabled or are carers for someone with a disability it gives them a break.

families don’t need to use the hours (and they should be much better funded!) but many families benefit from them

The parent’s job is to potty train though.

If a child is at nursery daily then it’s also the nursery’s responsibility

Yes because it’s not about the parents, it’s about the children. Those kids need those 30 hours in an education setting.

It’s to benefit the children. Whilst there are plenty of low income/non working families who are amazing parents and are bringing up their children really well there will be plenty who perhaps aren’t the best or have significant health issues which are why they aren’t working or other complex issues… their dc are better off in school/nursery

For what it’s worth I think all
kids should have access to good early years education.

nursery and/or preschool is important.

I’m confused - parents on UC can get 85% of childcare costs paid, which is presumably cheaper than the 30 funded hours which are often still quite expensive?

Parents on UC often work though. This is for all children regardless whether their parents work.

I think the 30 hours should be universal. I don’t think people on benefits should get it if those in higher incomes don’t. There’s only so much you can ask people to subsidise others. But I can see an argument for giving people on benefits the childcare hours. It would reduce the barriers to getting in to work, no one would be able to say they can’t work due to lack of childcare as they’d option would be there. They should tighten work requirements if they put this in place though.

It is to ensure all children get the best start in life and start school as ready to learn as possible

Seems a reasonable use of my taxes

I can see why you’re cross, but… my DD is a reception teacher in a school in the middle of a very deprived housing estate. Most of her class have had little or no pre school education and it shows. They are so disadvantaged and take months to get the hang of basic behaviour requirements so that she can even start to teach the curriculum. In the mean time, the well behaved ones miss out.

I love it. My youngest two got 30hrs of preschool a week. I took full advantage of it to do what I wanted! I am in Scotland and it's been this way for several years now.

By extending the benefit, surely it is with the intention of making it easier for people to actually be able to find a job.

Of course it's fair. Those children deserve stimulating childcare too.
If not, there will be a huge gap between working parents who use nursery and non-working parents who keep their kids at home.

Quite!

and for the record, I am all for supporting the ill, disabled etc, but it needs to be fair on those who are working and contributing to the tax system too - they cannot prop everyone up - it is unjust and leads to increased resentment

Early years education benefits the nation, it's an appropriate use of taxation.