‘Instead of scrapping the two child benefit cap – invest in Sure Start’

Tackling child poverty is a necessity for a Labour government. Scrapping the two-child benefit cap would help do this.

Indeed, it is the most direct means by which to shift the dial on child poverty numbers – and if the government decide to take this approach I will support them.

But is it the best long-term approach to the moral stain of child poverty? Ultimately, politics is about choices and priorities. Increasing the welfare bill by £3.2 billion per year to make this important change means less resource for other ways in which we can assist the most vulnerable children.

For example, at peak capacity, the Sure Start programme cost £2.7 billion each year (in today’s prices). This provided holistic support to families with children under the age of 5 – with ‘one-stop shops’ bringing a range of services together.

It was one of the most impressive policies of the New Labour government, and the Tory decision to slash Sure Start centres is the starkest reminder of the flagrant vandalism of Osborne’s austerity agenda.

The benefits of Sure Start exceed the costs

A recent report from the IFS showed the remarkable impact of the Sure Start programme. Access to a Sure Start centre considerably improved the educational achievement of children who were in receipt of free school meals. There was significant healthcare advantages too, with data showing that it averted over 13,000 hospitalisations for children aged 11 to 15 each year. Again, this affected those in the poorest demographics most.

The benefits of Sure Start exceed the costs. The analysis from the IFS showed that the upfront cost (£2.7 billion) was dwarfed by the total benefits to government (£2.4 billion) combined with the increased earnings and other private costs/benefits for those who used the service (£3.1 billion).

Whilst it took time for the fiscal benefits to be realised, it will be of note to local authorities grappling with costs of SEN provision that children who had benefitted from Sure Start centres were less likely to demand SEND support or EHC Plans.

We also know that a new programme, akin to Sure Start, could be even more effective. A laser-focus on outcomes for children, and in particular tackling child poverty, must be at the centre’s heart.

The ability of centres/hubs to reach and work with families has grown since the 2000s, with the use of technology to keep in touch, monitor and offer support. Recent research from the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods have carefully identified over 600 deprived neighbourhoods that desperately need government support and investment. Let us start here.

And the need for holistic support for our poorest children is greater than ever. We face an unprecedented mental health crisis for children, and we know children suffer more mental health difficulties when growing up in poverty. Early intervention is vital to tackle the cycle of poverty.

Tangible change

Labour is at its best when it introduces tangible change in our communities which binds people together and offers support to those who need it most: building the NHS under Atlee, new universities across the country under Wilson, and Sure Start under Blair. By the next General Election, Labour could point to hundreds of new family centres delivering tangible change for up and down the country across many of the key missions.

Ideally, we would do both: tackle immediate poverty and the causes of poverty. But in the context of tight financial pressures and a renewed effort to reform the welfare state, building the long-term infrastructure to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of the poorest children might be a better option than increasing welfare spend and reliance.

It is worth noting that the benefits of Sure Start are directly financial too – families were able to work and earn more with services from Sure Start (the IFS estimate that the programme generated around £3.1 billion in higher lifetime post-tax earnings for each cohort of children and families who used Sure Start Centres).

The danger is whilst the numbers on a spreadsheet in relation to child poverty look substantially better, the more rigorous policy option might be overlooked.

• SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
• SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
• DONATE: If you value our work, please chip in a few pounds a week and become one of our supporters, helping sustain and expand our coverage.
• PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
• ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].