Childcare: the gaping hole in the government’s growth plans

High-quality childcare should be seen by government as an issue for business and a key infrastructure priority. But ministers have nothing to say on the subject.

As the dust settles on the 2013 Spending Round, it is perhaps no surprise given this government’s abysmal record on supporting families – and mothers in particular - that the Chancellor failed to mention childcare. This is a key issue at the centre of the cost of living crisis yet it is absent from government plans for growth.

Parents face a childcare triple whammy of this government’s making. Prices are rising year-on-year, outstripping earnings and inflation; places are plummeting as a result of cuts to Sure Start and early years funding; and support for parents to make childcare affordable has been slashed since this government came to power.  This crisis is creating disincentives to work, or work more, and the lack of affordable childcare has a negative impact on women’s participation in the labour market.

Government proposals will create more problems than they solve. We’ve already had the debacle over childcare ratios; childminder agencies could increase costs for business and parents, rather than reduce them; and quality could also suffer with the loss of individual inspection of childminders. Tax-free childcare will not be introduced until 2015 and will benefit the richest the most.

Childcare is a vital part of improving the economic prospects of this country, of critical importance to the economic future of many women, and in some cases men so they can return to work at a level and pay they were receiving before having children. 

It’s time for a new deal for parents and mothers particularly, to make work pay and to improve the prospects of women in low paid limbo-jobs after they return to work. Research this week shows that more than three quarters of part time workers feel trapped in jobs unable to get promoted and on low pay. Childcare should support women back to work immediately after maternity leave if parents choose this with help at six, nine, twelve or eighteen months. 

All the evidence shows us that women who take a break from work and their careers suffer a pay gap for the rest of their lives, very rarely returning to the level, hours and pay they were on previously. 

Labour needs to think big and to think BIS. Childcare is not just a Department for Education issue. It should be a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills issue too. While early years education is vital for child development and early intervention, childcare should be seen by government as an issue for business and a key infrastructure priority to promote growth and get people back to work, linking in with BIS responsibilities for flexible working and shared parental leave. That’s why I’m proposing that a future Labour government should have a Childcare and Early Years Minister with cross-departmental responsibilities in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education coordinating support for working parents across government including working with Ministers in the Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions. Support for families should be shaped by what parents need rather than falling between the silos of government. Ensuring good quality early years education and child development goes hand in hand with getting the quality parents want to have so they feel happy leaving their children to return to work.

Sufficient high quality childcare should be used as an engine for growth. It is as important for a strong local economy as transport infrastructure and skills. This government has nothing to say on this. Labour needs to make the infrastructure and growth case for childcare to support women back to work linked to a radical agenda of real shared parental leave, flexible working and childcare to meet the needs of all families, particularly those working anti-social or unusual hours. Business has a big role to play in this and we should look at how we can incentivise workplaces to support wraparound childcare.

A Childcare and Early Years Minister working across DfE and BIS needs to make the case to the Treasury of the added tax-revenue over the long-term of women returning to their existing jobs as well as eradicating the perverse work disincentives that exist today. IPPR argue that over a four year period there would be a net return to the Exchequer of over £20,000 per parent of a returning mother, even when 25 hours a week free childcare is provided over that same period.

We should then look at using the extra tax generated from parents earning more and working more to increase up-front investment, in more radical childcare support focused on the points at which parents make the decisions about how and when to return to work, especially when their maternity leave comes to an end, or when they have had their second child. 

Labour should make it our business to make the case for better support for mums and dads to balance family life. Childcare will be a key battleground at the next election.

Lucy Powell is Labour MP for Manchester Central

A Sure Start centre in Long Stratton in Norfolk.

Lucy Powell is MP for Manchester Central and Shadow Secretary of State for Education. 

John Moore
Show Hide image

The man who created the fake Tube sign explains why he did it

"We need to consider the fact that fake news isn't always fake news at the source," says John Moore.

"I wrote that at 8 o'clock on the evening and before midday the next day it had been read out in the Houses of Parliament."

John Moore, a 44-year-old doctor from Windsor, is describing the whirlwind process by which his social media response to Wednesday's Westminster attack became national news.

Moore used a Tube-sign generator on the evening after the attack to create a sign on a TfL Service Announcement board that read: "All terrorists are politely reminded that THIS IS LONDON and whatever you do to us we will drink tea and jolly well carry on thank you." Within three hours, it had just fifty shares. By the morning, it had accumulated 200. Yet by the afternoon, over 30,000 people had shared Moore's post, which was then read aloud on BBC Radio 4 and called a "wonderful tribute" by prime minister Theresa May, who at the time believed it was a genuine Underground sign. 

"I think you have to be very mindful of how powerful the internet is," says Moore, whose viral post was quickly debunked by social media users and then national newspapers such as the Guardian and the Sun. On Thursday, the online world split into two camps: those spreading the word that the sign was "fake news" and urging people not to share it, and those who said that it didn't matter that it was fake - the sentiment was what was important. 

Moore agrees with the latter camp. "I never claimed it was a real tube sign, I never claimed that at all," he says. "In my opinion the only fake news about that sign is that it has been reported as fake news. It was literally just how I was feeling at the time."

Moore was motivated to create and post the sign when he was struck by the "very British response" to the Westminster attack. "There was no sort of knee-jerk Islamaphobia, there was no dramatisation, it was all pretty much, I thought, very calm reporting," he says. "So my initial thought at the time was just a bit of pride in how London had reacted really." Though he saw other, real Tube signs online, he wanted to create his own in order to create a tribute that specifically epitomised the "very London" response. 

Yet though Moore insists he never claimed the sign was real, his caption on the image - which now has 100,800 shares - is arguably misleading. "Quintessentially British..." Moore wrote on his Facebook post, and agrees now that this was ambiguous. "It was meant to relate to the reaction that I saw in London in that day which I just thought was very calm and measured. What the sign was trying to do was capture the spirit I'd seen, so that's what I was actually talking about."

Not only did Moore not mean to mislead, he is actually shocked that anyone thought the sign was real. 

"I'm reasonably digitally savvy and I was extremely shocked that anyone thought it was real," he says, explaining that he thought everyone would be able to spot a fake after a "You ain't no muslim bruv" sign went viral after the Leytonstone Tube attack in 2015. "I thought this is an internet meme that people know isn't true and it's fine to do because this is a digital thing in a digital world."

Yet despite his intentions, Moore's sign has become the centre of debate about whether "nice" fake news is as problematic as that which was notoriously spread during the 2016 United States Presidential elections. Though Moore can understand this perspective, he ultimately feels as though the sentiment behind the sign makes it acceptable. 

"I use the word fake in inverted commas because I think fake implies the intention to deceive and there wasn't [any]... I think if the sentiment is ok then I think it is ok. I think if you were trying to be divisive and you were trying to stir up controversy or influence people's behaviour then perhaps I wouldn't have chosen that forum but I think when you're only expressing your own emotion, I think it's ok.

"The fact that it became so-called fake news was down to other people's interpretation and not down to the actual intention... So in many interesting ways you can see that fake news doesn't even have to originate from the source of the news."

Though Moore was initially "extremely shocked" at the reponse to his post, he says that on reflection he is "pretty proud". 

"I'm glad that other people, even the powers that be, found it an appropriate phrase to use," he says. "I also think social media is often denigrated as a source of evil and bad things in the world, but on occasion I think it can be used for very positive things. I think the vast majority of people who shared my post and liked my post have actually found the phrase and the sentiment useful to them, so I think we have to give social media a fair judgement at times and respect the fact it can be a source for good."

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.