Free childcare for all one- and two-year-olds, and maternity pay extended to a year?

[KateMumsnet]

Employers' organisation the CBI today called on the government to extend the 15 free hours of childcare currently offered to three- and four-year-olds to all one- and two-year-olds; lengthen maternity pay entitlement to one year; and raise the NI threshold.

It says that average families - who've seen their income fall by £2,132 a year in real terms between 2009 and 2013 - have borne the brunt of the financial crisis and the slow recovery, and that these measures will boost family incomes and get more adults into work.

Would this make a substantial difference to your family finances? Do you agree that the government should step in to help families? Do share your thoughts on the thread.

It would really help us.
I can't afford to go back to work atm, childcare here is more per day than I could hope to earn, and as I don't have a career it was never worth it for "keeping my hand in".

Had to leave work early in pregnancy due to severe HG and can't even think about working until DS hits 3 next May. So it would mean I could get a p/t job and get back on the ladder.

Ironically I used to be a financial admin for a branded nursery, and the fees are astronomical - £1200 a month full time with the 15 hours - no wonder women don't go back to work sooner. Unless you have a specific career/ abilities, in this area of the country you have no hope of going back to work.

I think it is getting crazy, whilst cutting benefits and help for disabled people. the government are expected to fork our for free child care.
where is the money coming from??

I think it's a gender equality issue, the careers of so many women are effectively destroyed because of the cost of childcare.

and a more gender-equal country is a better country for everyone, not just for women.

imo it's absolutely justified.

It would really help us, and lots of families like us, if they put more money into funding further education. Too many families are struggling because they are helping their older DC through university but no one ever thinks about that, they just keep increasing the financial burden.

I, also, agree with 2shoes I don't see how any government could do this, while they are cutting benefits for disabled people. It all smacks of skewed priorities to me.

Where are all the jobs for these parents to go back to?
I'm not sure this is the way to go, and agree with others: lets have a living wage to allow people who want to to afford the child care.

The alternative would be to spread the Maternity money over a longer period - so reduce the 90% period, and put the money saved into funding the last 3 months (or a further 9 months - so 18 months) at SMP levels of 138 (??)/wk.

My family would be worse off, as we are already subsidising the so called free education hours. I wish the government would stop pretending they're paying for it.

Where are all the jobs for these parents to go back to?

What about the jobs they already have, but may have to give up if they can't afford childcare?

There aren't that many jobs around that will give you enough extra income to pay £1,100/month (that's the minimum for a FT nursery place where I live - not London.)

What about the jobs they already have, but may have to give up if they can't afford childcare?

It's irrelevant anyway if there are no spaces due to others who aren't working taking up spots yo get their free hours.

People are struggling to find spaces on some areas already with the two yr old funding recipients taking them up. If this extends to one year olds.......

Unless it's open only to those who are working

Bloody hell. I tell you what, as soon as you have a baby the state should just pay for its care so that parents can go back to work for minimum wage.

After all, what would businesses get from that? Oh yes, a very cheap workforce they don't have to fully support.

Bastards

Change I would prefer: maternity leave (in an ideal world pay too, but I know that won't happen) entitlement extended to 2 years. I would have happily scrimped and saved to spend an extra year at home with the DCs. They are still so little at 1 year, and many babies suffer horribly with the separation at that age.

Money to be paid to stay at home parent if free childcare place isn't taken up. This would acknowledge the real contribution to society that SAHPs make.

I am not even a SAHP just wish I could have been

I agree chocolate martini. 1 year is about the worst time to leave a child. 6 months or two would be better.

Having spent all of life in Early Years research, the best thing for a child is to spend their first two years at home with a loving and stable parent. The government needs to look at the big picture but obviously that would mean a massive change in the way society is heading. Pay would need to go up, the cost of living down and families with a stay at home parent need to be able to transfer tax allowances and be taxed as a family rather than individually. Obviously there would need to be support for families who could not offer their children the best start and for parents who did both want to return to work rather than stay at home. However, research suggests that a lot of women would choose to stay at home with their child if it was financially viable and it didn't wreck their careers.

The SureStart initiative has been proven a failure (from its original aims) as it is now largely used by parents who don't actually need the additional support and not used by those that do. We still need initiatives like this for everyone but we do need much more targeted support for those families that struggle as research has shown that it is these children who go on the perpetuate the poverty cycle.

Sadly, although extra funded hours would be good for people financially, I think we are losing sight of the possible damage further down the line.

And the amount of funding the government offers also needs revising. You cannot possibly offer the best care on what the government pays for funded hours. Even now, making some money on ages 1 and 2, it is hard to make ends meet.

I have worked in, advised in and inspected hundreds of nurseries around the country. Some were rated outstanding, some had Beacon status....I would not have left my child in a single one. With the best will in the world, no child can have the best care with current ratios, it's impossible. Children will get overlooked,sustain small but unnecessary injuries, not be given a cuddle when they need it etc.

And the government have flirted with increasing ratios!!!! Which i think will inevitably have to if they offer funding to 1 and 2 year olds.

I'm in favour but the extension should only be available for free to people with both parents working. While I agree that all 3 yo need to be prepared for school so universal free hours are good, I can't see the point of free hours for younger children if both parents aren't in at least pt work.

... the best thing for a child is to spend their first two years at home with a loving and stable parent .... Obviously there would need to be support for families who could not offer their children the best start ... a lot of women would choose to stay at home with their child if it was financially viable and it didn't wreck their careers.

Really CountryMummy1 I didn't know whether to laugh or be annoyed by your post. I work part time and my daughter is at nursery three days a week. I think staying at home with me full time would not be the "best start" for her by any stretch of the imagination. Nursery has helped her become more social, independent and allows her access to activities she wouldn't do otherwise.

I'm what you would call a "loving and stable" parent but I couldn't wait to get back to work and I'd prefer to work four days instead of three.

I should have known this would swiftly descend to a "mums should give up work once they have children"

I have to agree with what CountryMummy said about children spending their first 2 years at home with a primary carer. From a feminist point of view, I am in favour of the burden of impossible choices on women being eased but I have huge doubts about any of these plans being in a child's best interests.
I'm an Early Years professional and I also agree about the standard of care in many nurseries

not everyone gets the 15 free hours anyway - certainly not here in Cardiff.

So - wouldn't make a difference to my finances at all.

I agree with Tanith that it would send many nursery businesses into bankruptcy.

It would be fine if nurseries simply sent an invoice to the local authority for the hours that they had given away for free. But it doesn't work like that. The 15 hours may be free to the parents that take them up, but the nursery owner doesn't get paid the full amount of the fees due. In some cases, it is less than half what they would have received from a full fee-payer.

So, as Tanith says, the nurseries take the hit and many of them lose money on every child that's receiving the "free" hours. Some are able to claw it back by charging higher fees for the remaining hours but many LAs don't allow them to do that.

Sadly the best interests of babies and toddlers will never be top of the agenda as short term gain is necessary in our political system. 2 years at home with a loving parent would surely be the gold standard (are there any psychologists on here who can actually link studies?) but the benefit to society would be shown in the next generation not the next election

Lots of research here. If you really want to create policies that will benefit society then enabling children to experience strong loving attachment to their parents before being put in group care settings, and delaying group care until they understand that being left for a while isn't abandonment would be a good place to start

I'm not saying that mums should give up work to look after their children but they should have the choice. At the moment many don't.

If you prefer to go to work then yes, you will be happier and your child will benefit from having a happy mum. However, studies have categorically shown that children with a willing and happy stay at home mum for the first 2 years (and beyond to some extent) do benefit.

Very sadly you're right chocolatemartini. Governments don't think beyond 5 year terms. If they really gave a fig about society, policies would reflect that

If we are going to fund 15 hours free childcare, what about 15 hours for those who nobly opt to caring for an elderly parent who because of (say) Alzheimers is as in need of full time care as a toddler..... that will be the next headache for government if you ask me....

I don't think we can limit this to childcare anymore...

And I am fed up of hearing people complain about the cost of childcare - I think it scandalous that very often cleaners earn more than childminders. Cheap childcare is nothing more than the explotation of women by women.

They need to decide if the early years funding is about education or childcare before they take this any further.

I think the 15 hours free education for three year olds is fine as it is, with two year olds with a particular need having that benefit as well. Although two year olds don't really need to be in any educational or childcare type setting unless they are being failed in some way by their parents, so I think it would make more sense to tackle that problem first.

IMO, childcare should be subsidised for families where two parents work full time, or where a single parent works full time, from six months of age until they start school. I don't believe that maternity pay should be increased. People don't need to have a year off to have a baby, and while it's nice to be able to do so, it's not essential so it's something that parents should pay for themselves if they want it. Parents should have choice about whether they work or not, but it's not a choice that should be provided for financially by anyone but themselves. Society has no need to pay for SAHPs.