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.

Watch out there @GimmieABreakOr3. A ‘high earner’ receiving something beneficial without being punished for it ? What on earth are you thinking.

😮

What I'm trying to say is that separating those people can be quite difficult as they are often on the same benefits such as UC.

Disabled would have PIP and
carers would show up on UC applications
but agree
It would be costly to run

Governments do weigh up the cost effectiveness against benefits

Exactly. Trying to pick out some people would probably be costly which is why things like this just tend to be for everyone on UC and is likely more cost effective than the alternative.

I completely agree with you. We’ve spent in excess of £27k in nursery fees for our just turned 4 year old so far.. and that’s not even full time

The alternative is not to give it to everyone on UC

That’s a lot cheaper if cost is the concern

Not necessarily. Just trying to pick out some people on UC may not be very cost efficient.

@whatsaweekend lots of people are on UC (who work) so how would that work out?

Those who are working already qualify for 30 hours free childcare, that includes those who already receive UC.

If you are on benefits and not currently in work, you qualify for 15 hours.

My arguments against the proposals:

• Extending it to non-working parents could reduce the incentive to seek a job.

• Funding 30 hours of childcare for all benefit claimants would place a significant, permanent demand on public finances when our economy is already struggling.

• The UK childcare sector is already facing severe staff shortages and underfunding. Adding thousands of non-working families to the system could overwhelm nurseries and reduce available spaces for everyone…

edited to add: Fiscal Trade-offs: funding this expansion would likely yield low economic returns, as it does not directly generate tax revenue through parental employment, unlike the current working-parent scheme

See OPs post
it’s about not extending it

So many posts complaining about it and benefits on the whole.

I would have thought that people might have considered that by having childcare in place before a job is obtained, it makes it far more likely that claimants would get a job (and be unable to say 'there's no childcare') than before.

Of course any government is going to frame it as being really helpful to families in receipt of benefits - if some realise that it means they won't be able to drop the kid off and then wander back home for a childfree day for the next 2 years and the getting a job bit can't be postponed, they won't enrol them in it. It's also good for the children - as it is becoming clear just what the effect has been on children who didn't attend and were in the sole care of parents over the lockdowns.

But no, instead of things that actually might be seen as good in terms of more conservative values being approved of and the odd eyeroll over how it's punted as a really nice thing to do for parents who don't have jobs, it's all 'How dare they get this?'.

Had it been announced in a Tory Government with the framing of 'We are removing the excuses. We will end worklessness and make it compulsory for unemployed women parents to obtain employment when their children are at an earlier age', it would have been a wonderful, strong response to the society threatening existence of poor women with small children.

Oh, look, it's even creating both an increased market demand and a supply of people with direct experience of small children to look after small children.

But will they actually do that?

Also you would need to do that very gradually as to not outweigh demand. So a blanket offering 30hrs to unemployed in receipt of benefits could still overwhelm the nursery system. Maybe some could be awarded it on the proviso they train in nursery care? I think that’s fair and sensible, no?

I can't believe anybody thinks it's reasonable to give an unemployed parent (whether receiving benefits or not) 30 hours of free childcare! If you're not in work then look after your own children!!

How does someone get into work without childcare available?

You Google it

1. Find a Key Worker

Local councils often employ "parental employability key workers." They can help you find grants, locate temporary sitters, or get you into local daycare schemes. Contact your local council to get assigned a work coach.

that’s what the rest of us had to do

For me, it's about the children and giving them access to early years education. Not about the parents.

Don't have much choice if it's made a condition of receiving UC, do they?

@Kirbert2 15 hours...maybe. 30 hours? Absolutely not.
Young children don't need a formal education - at least, nothing that a parent couldn't provide if they are at home.
I've been a teacher now for almost 25 years and I still firmly believe children in the UK begin formal learning far too early!

So you’d penalise children, to teach their parents a lesson?

I think this could be quite dangerous. Let’s just chuck 30 free hours to people and then they get a job, then berate them when they don’t.

the benefits cycle is a very difficult one to break. It is very unlikely that this would benefit someone who isn’t in employment because the financial gain in employment that you have to make to be better off than on benefits it’s quite a significant one.

If 30 hours is beneficial then I don't see the issue. Especially for children from disadvantaged homes.

Nursery isn't formal learning.

@SleeplessInWherever Why would children be penalised? I kept my August-born son at home until the term before he turned five... it benefited him massively.
And before I have the "well you are a teacher" comments, there was no formal learning. Things like sharing books, playing with play dough, minibeast hunts, going to the shops and weighing things on scales; surely non-working parents can do these sorts of things?