Beginning 1st September, the Government extended its childcare scheme to 30 hours a week from the age of nine months for eligible working parents. The Prime Minister claimed he was “making family life easier”. In reality, it looks more like sacrificing parenthood on the altar of GDP.
I spoke to Anne Fennell of Mothers at Home Matter about this headlong rush into mass childcare. She makes the case starkly. The policy puts the labour market first and babies second. As she says: “The original motive is not about what is in the best interest of the child – it’s what is in the best interest of the labour market.” You can listen to our full discussion here.
Look at what is being sold. The Prime Minister’s letter boasts of “30 hours of government-funded childcare… from the end of parental leave to the start of primary school”, a “free… Breakfast Club… in every primary school”, and “saving an average working parent up to £7,500 per year”. That is not a saving. It is a tax-funded transfer that leaves families more dependent on the state and less free to parent.
Outcomes should matter more than headlines. A third of children still do not reach a “good level of development” at the end of the Reception year. School-readiness remains stuck or falling depending on the report. Kindred’s 2024 survey finds roughly one in three children are not school-ready and staff lose hours each day tackling basic issues. Pouring more babies into group care from nine months does not fix attachment or behaviour issues. It risks entrenching them.
Of course, some parents feel they have no choice but to use childcare because of the cost of housing and daily life. For them, provision can be a lifeline. But if the same level of support went directly to families, many would prefer to care at home or choose trusted, more loving arrangements, rather than being pushed towards state institutions.
The evidence on family structure is not fashionable but it is solid. UK studies find children born to married parents, on average, record stronger cognitive and socio-emotional scores. Stability counts – marriage delivers more of it. Policymakers must face this fact.
I’ve written a fuller critique of the conveyor-belt model and why GDP-first childcare corrodes family life. Alongside my interview with Erica Komisar, whose research on attachment highlights why the first years of life are so critical, these set out what a child-first, marriage-friendly settlement should look like.
At C4M the aim is to champion real marriage and to press for a reset that backs parents to raise their own children in the early years without penalty. That means tax and benefit reform that recognises the family as a unit, financial support that can be used at home, and freedom to choose care that supports real marriage, family and wellbeing, not just GDP figures.