Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Business
  2. Economics
25 May 2010updated 09 Sep 2021 7:53am

There is no good reason to scrap the Child Trust Fund

The government’s decision to abolish the Child Trust Fund is staggeringly short-sighted.

By Lisa Harker and Carey Oppenheim

The decision not only to cut the Child Trust Fund but to abolish it completely from next year may look like an easy win for a coalition of two parties never deeply committed to this policy. It is nonetheless staggeringly short-sighted.

The government wants to see families save more and borrow less, so why axe the one part of the welfare system that encourages them to build up a nest egg for their children? And why abolish this important step in ensuring that all children get a fair start as they enter adult life?

The answer, the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Laws, tell us, is that it is unacceptable that “government payments into the scheme are essentially being funded by public borrowing”. But this, of course, is nonsense. Public spending in the UK is not hypothecated to particular taxes or borrowing. It would make just as little sense to say that the police force was being abolished because it was being funded by borrowing.

The real reason is that this is a policy still in its infancy whose sceptics were too impatient to test its effectiveness. Introduced in 2002, the Child Trust Fund could never prove its worth until its first recipients received payments when they turned 18 — another ten years from now.

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

And despite 4.8 million families having taken up the scheme, the government could be pretty confident that most would be too weary by the comings and goings of family life to take to the streets in protest.

Content from our partners
How do we secure the hybrid office?
How materials innovation can help achieve net zero and level-up the UK
Fantastic mental well-being strategies and where to find them

So there you have it. Tomorrow’s generation of adults gets to pay for the mistakes of today’s.

No doubt every cut that the government announces this week and in the future will be greeted by squeals from some vested interest. But before we develop the stiffest of upper lips, could we just clarify some basic principles?

The new coalition government has made great play of its commitment to fairness. Indeed, in reference to the impending tide of cuts, the coalition agreement states:

Difficult decisions will have to be taken in the months and years ahead, but we will ensure that fairness is at the heart of those decisions so that all those most in need are protected.

Hasn’t this government failed its own fairness test already?

Lisa Harker and Carey Oppenheim are the co-directors of the Institute for Public Policy Research.

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of “Liberty in the Age of Terror” by A C Grayling.