Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest post: “The jury is still out on whether the Government is sufficiently funding providers for 30-hours free childcare”

61 replies

MumsnetGuestPosts · 26/03/2018 10:24

In the summer of 2017, the Government launched two new childcare schemes: ’30-hours free childcare’ and ‘Tax-Free Childcare’. Around the same time, I became Chair of the Treasury Committee in the House of Commons. We launched an inquiry into the Government’s childcare policy and its influence on the economy earlier this year, and yesterday, we published our report.

High quality and flexible childcare is important for getting parents into work and supporting working families. Throughout our inquiry, we examined how childcare can deliver benefits to the economy and support labour productivity and participation. We also looked at the effectiveness of Government initiatives at making childcare accessible and affordable.

A key objective of the Government’s childcare policy is to improve productivity by allowing parents to return to work at a level more consistent with their skills. However, the impact on the UK’s overall productivity performance is uncertain and more research would be welcome.

One possible way to improve productivity is to remove age restrictions on childcare support for parents entering training or education. As it stands, childcare support is provided by the Government to parents under the age of 20 and for full-time university undergraduates. But outside of these groups, support is very limited.

The rapidly changing nature of work makes it ever more important that Government encourages lifelong learning and promotes the acquisition of new skills. As it stands, however, most parents considering entering training or education would be deterred by an absence of proper support for childcare costs. Many parents may need to retrain or upskill to return to work after having children. It’s short sighted for the Government to exclude such parents from receiving proper childcare support.

As part of its efforts to improve the UK’s productivity performance through the launch of the National Retraining Scheme, the Government should remove age restrictions on childcare support for parents entering training or education. This would enable more parents to build their skills in order to enter high quality work.

Recently in the House of Commons, the Government agreed to a six-month extension of the workplace childcare voucher scheme. The scheme was due to be discontinued on 6 April 2018 and would no longer be open to new applicants. This 11th hour stay of execution is no way to manage childcare policy. It is likely that many parents who were better-off under childcare vouchers will have already made arrangements with childcare providers and their employers to start using the Tax-Free Childcare scheme.

The Government’s U-turn underlines the Committee’s concerns about the difficulties that parents face in making the right choice about which schemes to use. It should keep the voucher scheme open until it understands the extent to which parents will be made better or worse off as a result of discontinuing the scheme, and simplify its range of childcare support to address the complex interaction between schemes.

The jury is still out on whether the Government is sufficiently funding providers for 30-hours free childcare. The Committee received evidence from numerous organisations highlighting the measures that are being taken by providers to make up for shortfalls in funding. This includes restricting the times at which parents can claim the 30-hours free childcare, which reduces flexibility, cutting back on higher qualified staff and increasing child-to-staff ratios, which reduces provision quality, and charging for services that were previously free, such as food and activities, resulting in providers in higher income areas being able to better mitigate funding shortfalls than those in more deprived areas.

If the Government wants to avoid these consequences, it should pay a higher hourly rate to childcare providers that more accurately reflects their current costs.

The Committee also notes that many parents choose to care for their young children at home, rather than returning to work, and that the economic value of this activity is not measured in the national accounts. This is a legitimate choice that the Government should take care to respect in setting its objectives for childcare policy. In particular, the over-riding policy objective should be to support parents who decide to return to work, rather than to increase labour force participation among those who choose to stay at home to care for their children.

The Government will respond to the conclusions and recommendations in the Committee’s report within eight weeks. In the meantime, let us know what you think.

Nicky Morgan will be responding to questions and comments on this post later this week.

OP posts:
Figgygal · 27/03/2018 09:32

Sort of a side point here that has been mentioned by someone that thread if the government want to get people back into work support is needed at the point maternity leave and not just once they turn three. I have an 18 month old I returned back to work when he turned one because we pay the nursery four days a week his older brother to go to after-school club three days a week and breakfast club one day a week we can easily be £1000 a month even with a tax-free childcare savings were looking £800 a month that is just not affordable for a lot of people and some people require more childcare then we do at an even greater cost.

We are just counting down the days until he gets to three not with any expectation that 30 hours free means 30 hours. I would be worried that the whole initiative would be pulled by then were it not for the fact it would be within this Parliament and the government are not going to want to admit defeat or failure on a major policy.

Makingdinner · 27/03/2018 11:24

I'm not using the 30 hours yet, as ds isn't old enough. I assume though, that it isn't well enough funded. Nursery put their fees up £3 a day and I guess this is to cover the shortfall by charging paid places more.

I don't know how the 30 hours will work when I do claim it but I am prepared for the fact I will have to pay for extras on top (plus more hours as ds is full time and will continue to be full time.

I am however using the tax free childcare, and whilst it definitely is saving me money which is nice, its awful to use. I set up my first payment for yesterday, which hasn't gone out and has now totally disappeared from the system. I am now going to have to call them as they don't have live chat facilities like every other sector of gov.uk does.

I don't think any of it has been very well thought through!

seafoodeatit · 27/03/2018 12:19

Isn't it telling that so many childcare providers want the name changed from free to subsidised because that's what it is. It's very misleading as it is currently is, the government has consistently ingnored the underfunding issue and are now just saying we've misunderstood them all along.

purili · 27/03/2018 13:03

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Hookedoncatnip · 27/03/2018 15:46

The jury is not out. It is clear to anyone involved that the 30 hour funding falls short and that those who do not qualify end up subsidizing it. This is wholly unfair.

SemiConsciousRobot · 27/03/2018 16:46

As others have said the funding is insufficient and the free hours need to be available from when maternity leave finishes onwards. Many people have been forced to give up work before they get any significant help. The so called "tax free" childcare is not a sufficient discount to make much difference. Given the aims of the policy stated above, it makes no sense whatsoever that families with two working parents and a child aged 0-3 do not qualify for the 30 hours, yet a family with a SAHP and a 3 year old do qualify, when they do not need it.

SemiConsciousRobot · 27/03/2018 16:50

Also, the "tax free" childcare system is appalling. Government contributions are miscalculated frequently and complaints aren't dealt with for months. There is no need for the system to be so complex, leasing to errors and then need to employ an army of "customer service" staff to try to fix the constant mistakes. It would be mich more sensible to simply check eligibility then adjust the parents' tax codes to give them the discount automatically. This would drastically cut administration costs and that money could instead be directed at actually providing adequate support to parents to pay the costs of childcare.

Kangar00 · 27/03/2018 19:57

Do many place can't provide 30 hours anyway so only do the 15 hours. I agree that most families need some assistance with care from the age of 12 months. I would prefer 10 free hours from the age of 12 months rather than 30 at 3. I would be happy to have the grant paid to me so that childcare providers can charge what they need to and I pay the grant.

Carrotcakeorchocolatemuffin · 27/03/2018 20:26

The jury isn’t still out. I read the full report. The gov is underfunding these hours by using out of date information.

Carrotcakeorchocolatemuffin · 27/03/2018 20:27

2 sentences:

"The government MUST ensure that the hourly rate paid to providers reflects their CURRENT costs. It should also ensure that the hourly rate is updated annually in line with cost increases"

Page 42 of Treasury Committee report into Childcare.

Carrotcakeorchocolatemuffin · 27/03/2018 20:28

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmtreasy/757/757.pdf

TooStressyForMyOwnGood · 27/03/2018 22:31

Lots of these issues were raised in the last guest post about this topic (as stated by PPs) yet nobody from the government ever came back to discuss it Hmm.

BackforGood · 27/03/2018 22:53

Jassmells - not in 2017. It was a thing that David Cameron came up with or one of his backroom staff but you get the gist when he defeated Ed Milliband.

boboismylove · 28/03/2018 01:15

Parents need childcare from age one when maternity leave ends. What do you think women do for the next two years?

Even on a top income bracket, I would be in the negative balance after paying tax & student loans, rent, and full time nursery in London. If I had just a few hundred left to eat and travel with, I would probably find a way to make it work, but the sums just don't add up. You can see here, women want to go back to work, even if every penny they earn goes on childcare and their partners are subsidising them - but for lone parents, even that is not an option.

If you provided childcare for working parents from age 1 I'm pretty sure you would offset the cost in what you currently pay out on tax and child credits, income support and housing benefits.

Babytalkobsession · 28/03/2018 08:15

I hand appreciated people on salaries up to £200k can claim it - that is ludicrous!!

We have benefited from the scheme. I paid full time childcare with my first, then went back 3 days a week after my second. There was a few months where even 3 days a week the bill for 2 children was almost my entire salary, but once oldest turned 3 we were able to claim for his share so effectively I'm only paying for the youngest. That's still 1/3 of my salary.

The struggle we had was find a setting that accepted the funding across 3 days a week. Our nursery take 15 hours for just one day a week, and then we use the remaining at a preschool and pay additional wrap around. It got really complicated!

SemiConsciousRobot · 28/03/2018 08:23

People on salaries of £200k cannot claim it. If either parent earns over £100k the family is not eligible.

snozzlemaid · 28/03/2018 08:48

But both parents could earn £99k each and qualify. That's not far off £200k.
It's ludicrous.

SemiConsciousRobot · 28/03/2018 13:36

@snozzlemaid that's a highly unlikely hypothetical situation.

snozzlemaid · 28/03/2018 13:50

Of course it’s not.
It’s perfectly possible to have two high earners in a couple. Whilst exactly 99k is unlikely. They could be both earning 80/90k each and qualify. I’m not talking about exact figures. But a couple earning such high amounts each should not qualify.
If those high earning families didn’t get the funding LAs could pay a higher hourly rate for those that really need it.

LOliver123 · 28/03/2018 14:07

We get the 30 free hours from next month, and it will be a massive help! We will however have to pay for food now and other charges, but happy to pay this. Just glad to have our crazy childcare bill substantially reduced!

Twofishfingers · 28/03/2018 14:34

@SemiConsciousRobot, there is no need to patronise anybody here. We know that it's unlikely that a couple will each make exactly £99,999 a year. But that's where the line has been drawn by the government; what the argument is here is that line is too high.

SemiConsciousRobot · 28/03/2018 15:21

I haven't been patronising at all. I simply stated that a scenario where a couple both earn just under £100k is unlikely. An the few cases that exist will have a minimal impact on the overall funding available to the population as a whole.

In any case it's been shown repeatedly the means testing these things is counter productive for a number of reasons. It generally costs more in administration than it saves (as the limits on child benefit entitlement have) and it undermines support for public goods. We should recognise childcare as a public good that should be state subsidised for all, as we do with education and health. Otherwise it simply becomes an exercise in redistribution, not a public service. Everybody benefits if people are enabled to rejoin the workforce after having a family. Countries that provide universal, good quality, subsidised childcare see gender inequality decrease and tax revenues rise. I think your frustrations are being directed at the wrong target.

wwwwwwwwwwwwww · 28/03/2018 15:26

Clearly not enough funding is available per hour to cover what a provider would normally charge and they need to make up the cost somewhere. I looked at what my lea funds and it is below the cost of even the cheapest local nursery. Though 30 hours was headline grabbing I think parents need flexibility and childcare at all ages. I'd prefer the tax free voucher system fit the equivalent funding instead. It would just need to be made accessible

wwwwwwwwwwwwww · 28/03/2018 15:27

*to the self employed. Or maybe they could get a tax rebate instead.

Swipe left for the next trending thread