The Treasury is nationalising childhood

The Chancellor would do better to let parents decide for themselves how to care for their offspring

Is there any human bond more important than that between mother and child? The attachment of a mother to her baby is more than just a soppy feeling. It is a deep emotional and physical connection that plays a vital role in making sure that babies are nurtured.

Human beings are born much sooner in developmental terms than other species, and are consequently far more dependent on their parents – and for longer. Research shows that a sustained and nurturing relationship between mother and baby in the first two to three years lays the foundations for a child’s future success.

So it was with considerable concern that I heard the announcement that the Government will offer 30 hours a week of free childcare for babies from nine months old so that parents (read mothers) can “get back to work”.

Of course, inflation has left many families struggling to make ends meet. And with a lockdown debt hangover, it has never been more important to pursue economic growth. But I fear the Treasury has misunderstood the “problem” and therefore – inevitably – come up with the wrong “solution”.

First, it is wrong to assume that the cost of childcare is the primary factor preventing women from returning to work. If this were the case, one would expect very high take-up rates of the existing 30-hour offer to working parents of three and four-year-olds. Yet only around 40 per cent of eligible parents access this entitlement.

Indeed, research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that the anticipation of “free” childcare did not substantially affect parents’ childcare decisions. Polling shows that the many parents of pre-schoolers would prefer to work fewer hours and look after their own children. Human beings are not economic machines: it should be unsurprising that parents will choose lost income over lost time with their young children.

Secondly, the oft-repeated mantra (including by the Chancellor) that British parents face exceptionally high childcare costs is not borne out by the evidence. OECD data shows that childcare costs make up a higher proportion of UK families’ net income

– but this is not a function of the cost of childcare, which is comparable to other countries.

Rather it is a result of our highly unusual individualised taxation system, meaning that UK families pay more tax than in most OECD countries. The underlying issue for families is not childcare costs but the impossibility of surviving on one income while children are young. High housing costs, high tax and meagre family benefits all contribute to this, and it is where the Government should be targeting its efforts.

Thirdly, this policy does nothing to address the UK’S underlying productivity issues. It generates additional jobs in childcare and elderly care – jobs that are poorly paid and where the workforce is overwhelmingly female. The Chancellor hailed Denmark as a “top performer” for female participation in the workplace, but didn’t mention that the Danish gender pay gap is much higher than the UK’S.

It’s also unclear whether the policy will have a net benefit to the public finances. The scheme will cost £6,500 per child per year but a parent earning an average wage is likely to return considerably less in tax.

Fundamentally, the belief behind offering work-dependent, state-funded childcare to all babies is that mothers are more valuable to society in the workplace than looking after their own children. As a Conservative I reject this and as a mother I know it to be untrue.

Many women want to go back to work when their children are young, and all women should have that choice. But it should be a choice based on what is best for each family, not based on economic necessity or on a mistaken understanding that a person’s value derives principally from their contribution to GDP. Raising children is an investment in society.

The Chancellor is right to support families and invest in the early years. A far more Conservative policy would be to offer families vouchers to use as they wish, some for formal or informal childcare, and others to reduce their working hours. As Conservatives, we should be seeking to strengthen the ties that bind families together.