19 November 2004
Bill Clinton had better watch out. His old friend Tony Blair is trying to steal his clothes. The prime minister's speech on childcare to the Daycare Trust last week says much about Labour's strategy for next year's likely election – it will target the 'forgotten middle classes' whose cause Clinton championed and who rewarded him with two presidential victories.
Not to be outdone, Conservative leader Michael Howard came up with childcare proposals of his own that sounded less like traditional Tory family values and more like the New Labour mantra of 'choice'.
Public services and security in its broadest sense (from the war in Iraq to the policing of our streets) will be major election battlegrounds, but so too will be support for families.
Howard says a Conservative government would offer parents 'flexibility'. As their families often needed more support in the months immediately following a birth, mothers could choose to claim more maternity benefits over a shorter period of time. This could mean £150 a week rather than the current £102.
He adds he would reform the childcare tax credit so it is paid in cash. 'Parents will be in the driving seat. They can spend it on the childcare they want – not the childcare ministers think best. It might be an au pair or even family and friends.'
Labour's vision is based on its goal of removing the barriers to employment and supporting families that fall outside benefit thresholds. The prime minister promises to expand school opening hours from 8am to 6pm, all year round. A third of secondary schools will offer this service for children aged 11 to 14 by 2008, and this will cover all secondary schools by the end of a third Labour term, he says.
'We will legislate at the first opportunity in a new Parliament to give local authorities a new duty to ensure the availability of sufficient childcare, underpinning our guarantee,' he adds.
In the long term, he also wants to extend paid leave for fathers and mothers, with each choosing how much time they will take off from a shared entitlement.
Kate Stanley, head of social policy at the Institute for Public Policy Research, is pleased the family-friendly debate has moved on to the election agenda.
'I see this as an opportunity as the politicians are talking about this seriously, particularly the Conservatives who perhaps haven't thought about this so much,' she says.
Universal childcare of the type Blair envisages will not come cheaply. It is believed that early years spending in the UK for 2004/05 amounts to around £10bn – about 0.8% of gross domestic product. Universal childcare in Sweden and Denmark costs around 2% of GDP – and that excludes the cost of parental leave.
This is in line with last year's Daycare Trust and the Social Market Foundation report, which estimated that universal childcare would cost 0.7% to 1.3% of GDP (between £8bn and £15bn a year) by 2020, after taking into account benefits, such as higher parental employment, which would boost the economy by 1% to 2% of GDP.
'Childcare services need to be as much a part of the community as doctors' surgeries and primary schools. Universal childcare is a bold goal. We need a long-term vision and a long-term funding commitment for childcare services for all families,' says Daycare Trust director Stephen Burke.
He will get a chance to examine the government's plans on December 2, when a ten-year strategy will be published alongside the chancellor's pre-Budget report. The Conservatives have promised to publish 'fully costed' plans soon.
Public sector employers will be watching the debate closely. While many have more advanced family-friendly policies than their private sector peers, the return of parents to work and extended parental leave could affect their recruitment and retention of staff.
'The public sector is a big employer of women and is almost seen as the employer of choice. In a sense, any of these policies could allow the private sector to catch up a little. The policies could improve retention in the public sector but the impact will depend on the exact nature of the policies put forward,' says Stanley.
However, she adds: 'There are a number of agendas here, including social justice and full employment, but little is being said about the importance of children and the impact on children's outcomes. We need to check all the policies against the evidence of how different scenarios of childcare impact on children's outcomes.'
Childcare is now firmly on the political agenda but campaigners will wish to see the debate widen.
PFnov2004
