Why do parents working 16 hours need 30 hours free childcare?

[shaggedthruahedgebackwards]

Even if you have a long commute then I can't see why more than about 20 hours should be necessary?

Surely it would make more sense to fund a smaller number of hours properly instead of promising 30 hours but not funding it properly?

As I recall when mine were pre-school age, we got 15 free hours once they were 3, for which we were very grateful. We needed 3 full days childcare so obviously paid the difference from our income.

I'm all for supporting parents to work but 30 hours seems totally excessive for the majority of parents.

I know there are plenty of parents who do work full time and therefore do next 30+ hours childcare but it seems fair that parents should have to pay a chunk of the childcare themselves and somewhere between 15 and 20 hours free is a pretty generous subsidy surely?

I wish that the free childcare started at an earlier age. It's madness that people have to give up work after maternity leave because they can't afford childcare (especially if they have more than one child).

How does it help anyone with (mainly) women dropping out of the workforce and then being unable to re-enter it at a later date at the same level and unlikely to ever get the promotions they could have if the weren't forced out in the first place?

Oh and for another totally nonsensical aspect and to add a little irony, the job i do (did) is a public sector job which has a massive national recruitment and retention crisis and which broke my heart to leave after 20 years. Well done on that particular outcome for this scheme!

It's certainly very complicated. We qualified for the 15 free hours in April & I thought great our childcare bill will come right down. DC does 20 hours at £500 per month, however our bill only reduced by perhaps a third as we had to pay a hourly top up fee.

We will be starting the 30 hours in Sept (I work 20 hrs a wk) at the school nursery, however on the days I work we will still have to pay a childminder to pick up/collect & we have to pay the lunch break so bill will be approx £400 a month, plus we will have to pay for childminder during holidays.
I actually didn't want the full 30 hours but we were only given the option of 15 or 30. I'm hoping after the first term I can reduce to perhaps 25 hours.

I don't see why the taxpayer should be expected to provide funding for childcare. What ever happened to people paying their own way? a.k.a. If you can't afford seven kids then don't have seven kids.

The government would be better giving every child 15 hours from 9-12 months to help support parents who want to work but financial can't.

I had to give up work once I had my 2nd DC and it's resulted in me back in a min wage, less than 16 hours a week job when I used to manage a department. It's madness.

kpo
I get your point, but all of the evidence shows that the children who most need the care are those whose parents are not in jobs that give maternity leave

sparkly
its barking isn't it - a targeted use of child care could solve all sorts of problems but the muppets in whitehall seem to not understand data

I agree that it's unfair that a household income of 199k allows you to qualify but an income of 110k might not. The same as the child benefit situation.

My understanding is 2 yrs old from lower incomes get help as it's beneficial to the child. I have zero problems with this.

I think the Torys want to discourage SAHP & want to collect taxes from all workers hence why they are doing the 30 hours but I'm unsure why it's necessary to do this in the first place.

getout
The bigger issue is that why is any family in the top 1% (which £110k most definitely is) needs its nursery bills subsidised?

When people get the nanny to collect the child from 50 hours in nursery, of which 30 was free and then the housekeeper fixes supper, you know its gone wrong .....

Ideology again. The government is more interested in getting each person earning, not a household.

Because economically speaking it's preferable for John and Jane to earn £60k each and employ the services of Happy Tots Nursery at £20k to look after James and Juliet, than for John to earn £100k on his own and Jane herd the children at home (adjust exact numbers for tax but you see what I mean).

Numnom
Your friend will qualify, you only need one working parent if the other parent is sick, disabled or a carer.

Ta1kin I defo see where you are coming from but childcare can be extortionate. I decided to give up my career as 2 kids at my local nursery (the only one that opened longer than 8-6) was 3.2k a month, 1 person earning 100k would be bringing in maybe 5.5k pending pension contributions. That is a hefty percentage.
Runs off & hides

getout
UK childcare is a broken market
the ratio requirements are outdated
the payroll costs have risen astronomically
the tax breaks are incredibly badly targeted

I took a choice to not work full time (so I'm on £65k less than those who were there with me) but I've saved darned near that much a year in child care !

At least we are not like the USA with no maternity pay
then again, come Brexit and the removal of EU potections ....

The universal hours thing is a total nonsense. We live in an area with some extremely wealthy families who do indeed have the whole housekeeper, nanny and even chauffeur in some cases and it's outrageous that taxpayers money is funding free hours for these children. We're nowhere near that (not in our wildest dreams!) and although we're technically in the top 1% we really are only just in it by a whisker and have taken a big hit with no longer qualifying for child benefit or the 30 hours and having to pay the nursery top ups because of the funding shortfalls. I understand there has to be a cut off somewhere and we are by no means struggling but it's so sad I've had to leave my job and it makes zero sense that families on a combined income of twice what we are still get both child benefit AND the 30 hours.
Combined Household income should be the reason for a cut off and then at least that way it's fairer than further penalising women like me who have to give up careers because their partner is a higher earner - that's definitely a step backwards for women in my view.

It's shit & what makes it worse is that I'm sure the staff at the nursery would of been on minimum wage.

All these parents that will be possibly increasing their hours then all these parents going onto Universal credit and having to find jobs when their kids are 5 and not being able to have a sahp any more ( and be funded for it ). Makes me wonder where all the jobs are coming from ?

I am confused by the nurseries that are going out of business. Are they not allowed to ask for top ups from
parents?

@KitKat1985 I agree with you completely. I know the argument is that the free childcare is for the benefit of the children, not the parents, but you make your point well that it is patronising to assume that just because someone is out of work, doesn't mean they can't and won't provide an appropriate environment with age appropriate socialisation.

Frankly if parents are as bad as some of the examples cited on here as being examples of why kids from benefits claiming, non-working households NEED free early years provision at 2 are true, then I'd actually question whether these people should have kids at all. Kids who start school unable to use the toilet by themselves?! When they are 4?! I'm sorry if their parenting skills are that shit then I'm worried about the kids being with them for the other hours of the week where they aren't getting their 15 hours of free childcare!

It's ideological isn't it.

When I was young you could stay home with family support/whatever it was called then until the youngest was 12 ish.

Then it was expected single mums (as it usually is) should work 16 hours once their youngest starts school at 5. That then becomes the norm.

The new norm will be 16+ hours when youngest is 3 (then 2?). They couldn't have gone from 12 straight to 3 but as each new norm is accepted its reduced.

I can see "full time school" basically starting at 3 rather than reception. :(

recluse
Your child is exactly the type that the policy should be picking up - to ensure that they settle in well. Glad it panned out OK

sparkly
50% of UK households earn less than £26k a year
50% of households in London earn under £35k a year
nobody earning above the median should be getting the nursery subsidy
simple

getout
Nursery staff are almost universally on NMW

Is that housegolds with children talkin? I thought households with children had a higher average but the points the same either way. It does seem bizarre.

Are they not allowed to ask for top ups from parents?

They can't ask for any more contributions, no. Nor can they charge non-funded children more per hour to make up the shortfall (they can I think raise prices for non-funded hours eg only allow funding for 9-3 and have higher "wraparound" pricing).

pizza
Households, unspecified - so includes pensioners and childless
BUT
its insane that those who can afford housekeepers are getting free nursery time at the same time as schools and hospitals and councils are facing austerity

Ok thanks MrsHathaway as my childminder charges a top up I assumed nurseries could too.

mrsbendybaker I know a couple where the dad works in a low paid job and the mum is a sahm with a mild learning disability. She is devoted to her daughter and they do lots of activities but she can't quite provide the stimulation her daughter gets from her 15 free hours at preschool. That 15 hours are a godsend to that child's development. However the child is still in a loving home with parents who care about her very much and would do anything for her.