Catherine McKinnell
MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North · Labour · United Kingdom
“The family of a terminally ill constituent contacted me in desperation last month after trying to resolve the pension issues of their family member since January. She died yesterday, with her pension still unresolved. Can the Minister be more specific for that family about what will be done to resolve this issue?”
“As the UK trade envoy to Italy, I thank the Secretary of State for confirming the GCAP funding in his statement. As MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North, I add my voice to those who want to see this as an opportunity to genuinely spread investment and opportunity that will build strength and resilience in our people right across the UK—they a…”
“This report is welcome, but that does not make its existence any less tragic. Far too many mothers and babies have been failed, including mothers like my constituent Amie, who late last year was turned away repeatedly, despite reporting reduced movements. Her baby Seren was born stillborn.”
“Failures to address these issues have significant effects, both on the public finances and on the most vulnerable people in society, and, indeed, they are issues that are often reflected in our constituency mailboxes. I was contacted recently by a young woman who had reported child sexual abuse to the police last year.”
“Her husband was the victim of an assault by the defendant, who had raped his wife. They were forced to wait four hours for the trial to begin. They were eventually told that the defendant would arrive and that the delay to his delivery was causing the delay, but it had a knock-on effect on additional days in court.”
“Friend has said, we need a court estate that is fit for purpose in order to maximise the use of these additional days. I too have visited my local court, in this instance Newcastle Crown court.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,961 lines we hold for Catherine McKinnell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 40 of 100.
“I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us time to debate this incredibly important subject. I also commend my colleagues, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), for setting out so eloquently and passionately the case for focusing on this issue. I had hoped that, as co-sponsors of the debate and co-conspirators on this issue, we would not just repeat one another’s arguments, and I believe that, without co-ordinating in any way, we will not. We agree on the problem—we agree on the challenge and the importance of this issue—but today I want to focus on the enormous challenge presented by poverty in overcoming many of these issues.”
“We can do it again and truly give every child the best start in life. We just need the Government to care truly about achieving it.”
“It impacts our children’s lives directly when parents and carers do not have enough money to meet their children’s material, social and educational needs. It impacts on them indirectly by creating stress, insecurity and conflict at home. These adverse childhood experiences inevitably influence children’s development and wellbeing, creating a vicious cycle. To escape that cycle, we need a coherent, cross-departmental anti-child poverty strategy, backed by proper investment. It is fair to say that we are pretty far from that at the moment when the Government often seem unsure about which Minister to send to respond to child poverty debates. Such pervasive child poverty is not inevitable. The last Labour Government reduced child poverty and the concerns about child welfare that it creates.”
“We should not be pitting local authorities with high levels of deprivation and child poverty, such as those in the north-east, against each other to receive support. How does the Minister see family hubs working in large local authority areas, often with poor public transport links? For example, getting across Newcastle with young children to access services via public transport can be challenging, particularly for my constituents in the Outer West. Large rural areas like Durham and Northumberland face their own challenges. I hope the Minster, will confirm that services will be “within pram-pushing distance” of the families they are intended to help, as was the aim of the Sure Start programme. In conclusion, the crushing pressure that poverty places on families and children is clear.”
“They could set out a clear vision for our children, and our undervalued early years and childcare workforce, and ensure that no parent must choose between their child and their career. Before I conclude, I want to ask the Minister some specific questions on the Government’s proposed family hubs. Given that there are 152 upper-tier councils in England and there will be 75 family hubs, it looks like just under half of local authorities will benefit from the programme. Have the Government already determined the criteria by which the funding will be allocated? We assume it will be based on some measure of deprivation, but will the Minister confirm that? May I urge the Government not to continue their approach of forcing overstretched local authorities to commit their scarce resources to making funding applications?”
“I pressed the Prime Minister on that at the Liaison Committee, and I urge the Government to pass those protections into law as soon as possible. If mums are being discriminated against, it is bad for their children, too. The pandemic has also exacerbated pre-existing problems in the early years sector. Government financial support has been welcome, but it has not prevented many early years providers from seeing a significant impact on their finances, with low pay for staff, many of whom are mums too, and high costs for parents. The pandemic may well contribute to or even accelerate an ongoing erosion of provision. I therefore urge the Government to consider a review of early years funding to ensure it is affordable and meets the needs of new parents seeking to return to work.”
“Many have lost out entirely on the crucial window of support available in the early months of their child’s life, and issues around children’s development and parents’ mental health will have been missed. I have said repeatedly that there is a good reason why we wrap a blanket of support around new mums and their babies—and dads, too. It is needed at the time and the long-term impacts of not providing it are well known. Urgent investment is needed to provide catch-up mental health and health visiting support. The Government have failed to deliver on stronger workplace discrimination protections for new and expectant mothers, and they have repeatedly promised to do that. That is especially concerning as the economic impact of the pandemic continues to be felt.”
“I fear that the Government know that the impacts of all of that are long term, and that by the time the impacts of their failure to invest are seen, they may be well gone, or at least their failure forgotten. This year the Committee decided to revisit those issues with a follow-up report, but unfortunately it is already clear that we are seeing the impact of the Government’s lack of action in this area, including children coming into early years classes behind in their social development; increasing rates of poor mental health among new mothers; and childcare providers going out of business. The Committee found that new and expectant parents’ access to support has remained severely limited.”
“Our first report in July 2020 highlighted the need for urgent catch-up investment to help new parents access support services disrupted by the pandemic, and to do more to ensure employers meet their health and safety duties towards pregnant women. Unfortunately, the Government rejected almost all our recommendations, saying that support was “sufficiently generous” for “the vast majority of parents”. That, however, did not match up with all the evidence we heard from new parents about their struggles. We heard that crucial support for children’s wellbeing and development was being missed, that there were concerns about employers not meeting their health and safety duties towards pregnant women, and about additional difficulties in accessing childcare.”
“It should include a welfare system that prevents and reduces poverty, giving all families a dignified safety net when they are going through tough times. It should tackle unemployment and low-paid insecure work, the kind of work that means most children living in poverty are now in working families. We need concerted action to support families with the cost of major outgoings: energy, housing and childcare. All those things were problems pre-pandemic and they still need to be addressed, but covid-19 and the lockdowns of the last year and a half have brought additional challenges for parents and young children. For the past 18 months, the Petitions Committee, which I chair, has investigated the pandemic’s impact on new parents and children, and expressed its deep concern that it is being overlooked by the Government.”
“Indeed, the country went into the pandemic expecting to spend £36 billion less on social security because of Government welfare policy. That has to come from somewhere, and it is coming from the poorest pockets and the mouths of children. Just as Government action can lead to increases in child poverty, it can bring them down too. We have seen it before, especially under the previous Labour Government. What we need is a cross-governmental strategy for tackling child poverty, something that groups such as the North East Child Poverty Commission and the Child Poverty Action Group have consistently called for. It needs to go a lot further than anything we have heard from the Government to date.”
“Even if we use only the Government’s preferred absolute poverty measure, the proportion of children living in poverty rose by an average of four percentage points in every north-east local authority area between 2014-15 and 2019-20, while the number of children living in absolute poverty across the north-east rose by more than 21,000 during that period. The latter point is particularly concerning as absolute poverty is a measure that has always tended to improve naturally over time as living standards rise, but in the north-east it is going in the opposite direction. Troubling as the pre-pandemic figures are, none of that should come as a surprise given the direction of Government policy over the last 10 years.”
“Government statistics on households below average income published this spring show just how many families were struggling before covid-19: in 2020, 200,000 more children were pushed into poverty than in the previous year, using the measure of relative poverty after housing costs. That means 4.3 million children living in poverty: real children living in real hardship. I know the Government do not readily accept the concept of relative poverty, but Ministers should listen to the recommendation of the Work and Pensions Committee to end the sole focus on absolute poverty and look at broader measures. After all, if the Government are committed to levelling up, improving the position of a child in Newcastle relative to a child in Middlesex is surely more relevant to comparing a child in Newcastle today with a child in Newcastle 11 years ago.”
“Yes, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. As the Chair of the Petitions Committee, I can say we received petitions on that issue and debated it in Parliament. We have been given some assurances from the Government, but it is imperative that all of us in this House ensure an improvement in both the statistics and the reality for those who experience it. It is well established in education research that on average the longer a child has been disadvantaged the worse their performance will be at school, particularly in key stage 4 assessments. Even where children from more deprived backgrounds do achieve the same results as their better-off peers, they are still likely to have lower lifetime earnings. How unbelievably disheartening is that? Sadly, child poverty is getting worse.”
“I apologise for interrupting an excellent and very timely speech, and congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. I do not know whether he has seen the data, but does he share my concern that there seems to have been a much steeper increase in the mental health challenges faced by girls throughout their secondary school years than has been the case among boys? By the time they leave secondary school, girls have had almost twice as many contacts with mental health services as boys. Many of those challenges could potentially have been avoided if there were proper counselling in schools, for which I am sure my right hon. Friend will be making the case. Moreover, if boys are more reluctant to come forward for that help, is that not also a problem demonstrated by the data?”
“It would be catastrophic if we were to achieve net zero domestically at the expense of triggering a carbon-intensive import boom. This is our time to show that this country will lead, not lag, in the global fight against climate change, and I for one—joined, today, by over 100,000 petitioners—hope that we take it.”
“We know that it is supposed to happen this year, and it was referenced in the Government’s net zero strategy, but details on the timescales have been vague. When the Minister responds, will she tell us when that review is going to happen? To conclude, all eyes are on the UK for the COP26 conference. The planet cannot wait, and this petition has underlined the need for action in three key areas. First, we need to facilitate the shift to low-carbon alternatives within households and ensure businesses take responsibility for the emissions they produce. Secondly, we must protect those who are most vulnerable to the unequal impact of climate policies. If we do not do so, not only will the outcome be regressive; it will undermine public support for the transition to net zero. Finally, we must take measures to stop carbon leakage.”
“The lead petitioners have called on the Government to address this issue with carbon border adjustments, which ensure that there is a price to pay for carbon-intensive imports and shield UK competitors who do not face equivalent charges. I know that this is something that the EU is working on. It will take some years to implement, but without some form of carbon adjustment at the border, there is a danger that UK climate policy could simply drive industry to locations with fewer restrictions, increase carbon-intensive imports to the UK and, ultimately, increase global emissions. Before I conclude, I want to ask the Minister a specific question on the UK emissions trading scheme. The Government previously said that they would consult on the implementation of a net-zero-consistent cap for the UK emissions trading scheme.”
“This is a complex and difficult policy area, and it will have a huge impact on our living standards for decades to come. Therefore, decisions must be taken with care and be subject to proper scrutiny. We must all accept the urgency of the climate crisis, and the need to take action as soon as possible. Another key challenge relates to the emissions embedded in imports. In line with international practice, emissions in imported products are simply ignored for the purposes of our climate targets. Research from the World Wildlife Fund suggests that almost half of the UK’s emissions come from this source. In theory, we could reach net zero on paper even if our consumption of imported goods led to a higher level of global emissions.”
“When I spoke to Hannah Dillon, the head of campaigns at Zero Carbon, one of her biggest concerns was that we design policies to tackle climate change in a fair and equitable way. However, it is not just about the principled argument for fairness; ensuring that the most adversely affected are supported is crucial in maintaining public and political support for net zero. An obvious answer is that charges aimed at tackling climate change would also raise revenue, and the revenues could be used to compensate the groups that are most adversely affected. However we address this issue, it is essential that the Government set a clear path for policy, and introduce support through our social welfare system to give households and businesses time to adjust.”
“It is argued that the key benefit of working towards a uniform carbon price is that it avoids a situation where some sectors face higher carbon prices, and must therefore make more expensive carbon reductions, while others could more easily and cheaply reduce their emissions but do not. To be successful, a carbon charge must be accompanied by extensive investment in low-carbon technologies. The state—the Government—would have to lead on that. It would, by and large, leave businesses and households to decide how best to reduce their emissions in the most efficient way possible. It would not affect everyone equally. However, I know that the petitioners do not advocate a purely market-based approach.”
“I pay tribute to the petition’s creator, Isabella Goldstein, who is the senior campaign manager at the Zero Carbon campaign. The theory behind this form of carbon charging is straightforward. If we had, for example, a single carbon price of £75 per tonne of CO 2 , it would incentivise people and businesses to pursue any methods of emission reduction that cost less than £75. Hon. Members will be aware that we are far from having a single carbon price across sectors. Instead, we have a patchwork of policies that incentivise or disincentivise emissions in ways that are often unclear. While overall they have the effect of, for example, discouraging the burning of fossil fuels, the cost varies hugely depending on the source of the emissions.”
“For some time, economists have argued that the answer is to put a price on emitting greenhouse gases, so that individual firms face the full cost of their choices. In its simplest terms, the petition calls for the Government to work towards a single carbon price across almost all sectors. The campaign argues that a single carbon price would amalgamate the many existing price instruments, including the carbon price support and the UK emissions trading scheme—a different form of carbon charging—into a simple, transparent carbon charge. Zero Carbon points out that our current policies cover emissions across only about a third of the economy, giving the biggest polluters free allowances while the consumers are left to pay.”
“We know the cost of achieving net zero is manageable with the right support. We also know, however, that the impact of the transition will not be felt equally across the economy or society. Because of the confusing array of climate policies currently in place in this country, it can be difficult to determine where the impact will be felt and to what extent. There is a great deal of uncertainty around not just the development and impact of low-carbon technologies, but how to design policies and the unequal effect that they will have on sectors and households. Carbon emissions and the climate change they cause are a classic example of market failure. Individuals and businesses do not face the full cost of the emissions that they create; all else being equal, we would expect them to emit more than is optimal for society.”
“Thanks to the Climate Change Committee, we can put concrete figures on the cost of the transition. The committee estimates that we must raise investment in low-carbon technology by around £50 billion per year over the next 10 years. Most of that will come from the private sector, and will go towards meeting the Government’s 2050 target. It sounds like a lot, and the Government will need to take the lead on it, but it works out at less than 1% of GDP over the next 30 years —around an eighth of the current annual investment. As the Government’s net zero review consistently points out, the upfront cost of meeting the net zero target is dwarfed by the cost of not acting. Government and Parliament have committed to that transition. It has been legislated for and it must happen.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 574678, relating to charges on carbon emissions. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The world’s eyes are on the UK for the COP26 climate change conference. Indeed, many Members wanted to contribute to this debate but are at the COP26 climate change conference, making these arguments directly, I am sure. Tackling climate change can sometimes feel like such an enormous and challenging task that we just do not know where to start. It can also feel a little too abstract to cut through people’s day-to-day concerns about their jobs and the cost of living. I want to start with a reminder that while meeting our climate goals is certainly challenging, it is very achievable.”
“I apologise to the Minister for pushing the issue, because I can see that she does not have a clearer response. “In the coming months” is as vague as the timings that we have already been notified of. Can she give either a clearer picture of the timescale that we are talking about or a reason why there is no clear timescale for the consultation?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way again. I will not push her again on that point, as I can see that she does not have a clearer timeframe. Obviously, it is of keen interest to those who are following the debate. The other issue that I will flag is that she has so far made no reference to ensuring that this is a just and equitable transition so that polluters pay and we do not expect consumers to continue paying more to enable the net zero transition. I wonder whether the Minister just has not got to those comments yet or whether she can say something to assure us that the Government are looking to spread the cost, as well as the responsibility, of meeting our net zero targets.”
“The Minister is being very generous with her time. I am sure she appreciates that it is important that the polluter pays, but many polluting businesses will pass that cost on to consumers, and we need to be really transparent about where those costs are going to land. I hope the Government are going to take steps to ensure that we do not push people further into fuel poverty and that, if we are installing fuel pumps, we help people to insulate their homes. There is a lot that the Government can do to make sure the poorest do not pay, even if it is by the back door.”
“We know that the world is watching and waiting for this historic agreement in Glasgow. Leaders at home and abroad know that it is time to turn meaningful words into real action. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 574678, relating to charges on carbon emissions.”
“We need to ensure that polluters pay, but we need to ensure that that does not become just words—we need to see action. We also need to end the absurd situation where choosing to be climate-conscious consumers ends up costing us more, which drives the poor decision making and more carbon-intensive behaviour that all of us would rather avoid and that we need to avoid. The net zero review recognises that the impact will not fall equally. That is where the Government really need to step up and be up front about who the winners and losers will be in the transition. We need now to put in place steps to mitigate that impact, to ensure not only that the transition is fair and equitable, but that it has buy-in from everybody, because we will all benefit from and contribute to it.”
“I thank the Minister for her response and for being very generous in taking interventions. The debate has highlighted the need to be up front and transparent about the costs and benefits and the trade-offs that will need to be made on the road to net zero. The Prime Minister said that we are at “one minute to midnight” on climate change. We all know we have to change the way we live and the way we do business, but that process is made so much harder by the confusing and opaque nature of much of what is happening. It is very difficult to work out the right thing to do, particularly for consumers, although the landscape is also very confusing for businesses. We need much more transparency on the sources of carbon emissions.”
“That means investing in our communities, our health inequalities and our transport infrastructure, so that we can genuinely level out not just between north and south but between and within our northern communities.”
“It is not just about speed; it is about providing that connectivity and capacity that we so badly need. The Government have created a lot of uncertainty over its future, seemingly reopening the question of phase 2b time and again, even though the Oakervee review concluded that it should go ahead. If the Government are serious about HS2 being a project for the north, which is how it has been sold, it cannot be just for London and Birmingham. In the upcoming integrated rail plan, they must commit to integrate and build all phases of HS2, along with Northern Powerhouse Rail and badly needed upgrades to the east coast main line. Enough talk about levelling up—the Government need to walk the walk on this issue.”
“The Chancellor is a keen swimmer, having recently decided to add a 12-metre pool to his own grade II listed north Yorkshire manor. I hope that when the Government come to consider bids to the levelling-up fund, the Minister will agree that Newcastle North’s constituents in the outer west of Newcastle should have access to a pool, too. I will speak briefly about High Speed 2. Like many colleagues in the north of England, I have been concerned by reports that Ministers are again considering the cancellation of phase 2b, which runs from Leeds and connects to other major cities via the east coast main line. Committing to the eastern leg of HS2, alongside Northern Powerhouse Rail and east coast main line upgrades, are all essential to make HS2 work for the north.”
“Water safety is about a lot more than just being able to swim, but I worry that the pool closures in disadvantaged areas—not just Newcastle —will create a problem of children from less affluent backgrounds disproportionately failing to meet those minimum standards. Therefore, potentially they will find themselves in much greater danger when near the water. Access to affordable local swimming pools is central to helping children in less affluent areas not only keep fit but be safe. We need to level up health inequalities. The Minister could make a great start by backing Newcastle City Council’s bid to the fund to develop a new state-of-the-art, net-zero-carbon swimming pool and leisure development in outer west Newcastle.”
“Combined with the overall decline in physical activity during lockdowns over the last 15 months, I am really concerned that its closure will lead only to the worsening of long-term health outcomes for the communities that I represent. When I met the Minister for School Standards yesterday alongside water safety and swimming campaigners, they emphasised to him that children’s swimming ability varies hugely by socioeconomic status. According to Sport England, 84% of children and young people from the most affluent areas can swim the statutory 25 metres required by the national curriculum when they leave primary school, whereas only 41% from the least affluent families can do the same.”
“It is one of the glaring indicators of inequality between cities and regions, but I worry that over the last 18 months we have seen a pattern where health and leisure facilities in areas with the biggest pre-existing health inequalities have been the ones at greatest risk of closure. According to ukactive, more than 400 sports and leisure facilities have closed permanently since March 2020, including the much valued and loved West Denton pool in Newcastle North, which has sadly not reopened due to the devastating financial impact of the pandemic. According to the 2019 indices of deprivation, the neighbourhood where that pool is located is already in the top 10% in the country for health deprivation challenges. Much of the surrounding area has similar issues.”
“Thank you, Mr Robertson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this important and timely debate. He set out very comprehensively why levelling up matters so much and cannot be left as a slogan. It must become a reality, because the communities that we represent all rely on it. The Government tell us that one of their key priorities as we emerge, hopefully, from the pandemic, is that we do so as a healthier country. For the levelling-up agenda—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) touched on this—that must mean tackling health inequalities.”
“I absolutely support everything my hon. Friend is saying in his speech, and the Government should listen hard, because we have all lived through a very difficult 18 months and there are increasingly difficult times ahead as well. We have learned many lessons during this period, such as that we should invest more in the things we value most. This money is targeted at families; 40% of families with children in my constituency will lose out as a result of this decision, and that will have an impact on those children. We have one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world and we know that working families are struggling. The Government can do something simple to support those families by changing their direction on this cut today.”
“I urge the Government to consider the petitioners’ request for an independent review so that we can get this right for everybody who would benefit from it.”
“That is what I would argue, as it means that we can unlock greater productivity, put a big dent in the gender pay gap, narrow the attainment gap at school and, in the long run, reduce other social problems such as poor mental health, unemployment and crime. Unfortunately, in their written response to the petition, the Government said that there are no plans to commission a review of childcare funding, but I do not think that the Minister should be so quick to dismiss the petitioners’ concerns. We need a childcare system that helps not only to make the lives of families and their children better, but to make our economy work. With both parents and providers struggling and with early years staff undervalued and underpaid, childcare is becoming a big political issue, and it is not going away any time soon.”
“Deciding on the right level of funding and the best way to provide it is, of course, not an easy task, and I think that speaks to the need for a comprehensive, independent expert review to consider the matter in detail. Our answer to the crucial funding question speaks to what we want our early years sector to be. Is it the state’s role to provide the minimum funding to cover, or just about cover, basic costs so that parents can at least return to work? That would mean maxed-out ratios, stressed-out staff, higher costs for parents, and providers that are unwilling to provide childcare as cheaply as possible being driven out of the market. Or are the benefits of a more generous childcare and early years education system worth it?”
“That means that a child’s key worker might change to someone both they and their parents are unfamiliar with multiple times in a year, affecting the quality of education that they receive. It also means that settings are regularly thrown into chaos because they cannot recruit fast enough to fill the gaps. I was told that, at least once a month, staffing issues mean that nurseries hope that not every parent will bring their child to nursery, because if every child attended there would be no way to maintain the required legal ratios. It is shocking that this is what some settings face, and it shows how badly off track we have got. It cannot be right that while staff are poorly paid and parents pay high costs, the sector’s biggest customer, the Government, get away with paying what they know is insufficient funding.”
“According to research by Nursery World , one in 10 childcare workers relies on food banks, and 45% claim some form of benefit. One in eight earns less than £5 an hour, meaning that staff turnover is high, which can impact on the quality of care, the quality of education and the stability provided for children. We also know that in the past decade, there has been a long-term decrease in the number of people who want to work in the early years sector. One nursery manager told me just how difficult it is to retain staff, particularly in a setting with a disadvantaged intake and a high incidence of special educational needs. Employees feel that they are sacrificing any semblance of work-life balance for minimum wage, leading to higher absence rates and higher staff turnover.”
“Research by Pregnant Then Screwed found that 62% of women who returned to work worked fewer hours, changed jobs or stopped working because of childcare costs. Sadly, we know that the resulting loss of wages has a long-term impact on far too many women. Properly funded childcare also means ensuring that providers have the money to pay and train their staff appropriately. I want to thank early years staff and management for their efforts over the last 18 months. Most staff have worked through the entire pandemic, and many settings have kept their doors open the entire time, looking after the children of key workers and others and keeping our country moving through this international crisis. Early years staff and management deserve our thanks and appreciation, and our commitment to tackle the serious issues raised by the petitioners.”
“In a Petitions Committee survey earlier this year, 77% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that cost had prevented them from getting the kind of childcare they really needed. One respondent said: “I do not have the option to have family or friends look after my child when I return to work and I can’t afford to not be in work, but childcare costs more than my mortgage for full time hours.” Another commented: “My wages will just about cover our childcare costs, therefore I am basically working only to ‘hold my place’ until my baby is old enough not to need childcare i.e., once she starts school.” That has a huge impact on the gender pay gap. Clearly, it is still by and large women who take on most of the responsibility for childcare.”
“With a lack of proper investment in the free entitlement, providers are forced to cover their costs by charging more for the non-funded hours. That means spiralling costs for parents and carers, whose fees have risen three times faster than earnings since 2008—and that is just the average. For the parents of two-year-olds in some parts of the country, childcare costs have risen seven times faster than their wages. As a working mother both before and since becoming an MP, I have my own experiences of the heart-wrenching stress and pressure of getting the right childcare and support, and of the enormous costs. Our childcare costs are now the highest of almost any developed country.”
“In recent years, funding per hour has declined from its 2017-18 peak, showing that even the modest increase introduced alongside the 30-hour entitlement in 2017 has not been maintained. Even more importantly, we know that it is not enough just to provide for the costs of delivering childcare. The Department for Education’s publication in June of a much-delayed freedom of information response to the Early Years Alliance showed that the Government were aware of the consequences of introducing the 30 hours policy with an insufficient level of investment. Ministers knew that the investment would meet only around two thirds of costs—meaning higher costs for parents—and force early years staff to look after the maximum legal ratio of children, with significant impacts on quality.”
“I am sure the Minister will point out that spending on free entitlements—the 15 and 30-hour entitlements for three and four-year-olds, and disadvantaged two-year-olds—has more than doubled to around £3.4 billion since 2010, but it is important to look at what has driven that increase. Most of it has come from successive expansions of eligibility, which are of course hugely welcome. However, what providers are concerned about is a discrepancy between the cost per hour of delivering the free entitlements and the funding per hour that they receive. The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ latest annual report on education spending shows that funding per hour of childcare is now only about 13% higher in real terms than in 2004, despite an increase of about 150% in total spending.”