Brown advisor calls for tax breaks for stay-at-home mums after warning over nurseries
Last updated at 09:52am on 03.01.08
Professor Jay Belsky warned that toddlers who spend long hours in nurseries or with childminders suffer "disconcerting" effects.
These include difficult relationships with their mothers and aggressive and disobedient behaviour when they start school.
Those who spend time in centre-based care from a very young age are particularly at risk, he said.
Professor Belsky, the man brought in to assess the Government's Sure Start family centres scheme, made his plea for change "on humanitarian grounds".
He said that tax policies should reduce - rather than increase - the pressure on parents to leave their youngsters in the care of others.
The findings will come as a deep embarrassment to Labour, which has pumped £21billion into subsidising childcare and toddler education over the past decade.
It has been heavily criticised for pressing mothers back into the workforce by giving out large sums through the tax credit system for them to spend on nurseries.
Ministers have insisted that the only way for two-parent families to ensure they stay out of poverty is for both parents to work.
Around £10billion of the spending has gone into Mr Brown's favoured Sure Start scheme, where family centres, increasingly concentrate on providing childcare.
Professor Belsky and his team on the £20million evaluation project have published no major reports in two years - not since they showed that Sure Start was doing more harm than good for the worstoff children.
He has made no public comments in Britain during this time. These latest remarks were made to a seminar held in Germany in July.

Brown has been criticised for giving benefits to working single mothers
Professor Belsky, the director of the Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues at Birkbeck College in London, said that both US and British research points in the same direction.
"The risks are that more hours in any kind of childcare across the first four-and-a-half years of life and, independently, the more time in childcare centres, the higher the levels of problem behaviour," he added.
There is also evidence "that children who spend more time in non-maternal care through their infancy, toddler and pre-school years experience somewhat less harmonious mother-child relationships through their first three years".
He said they "start school being somewhat more aggressive and disobedient than children with less non-maternal care experience".
These "disconcerting" effects can not be blamed on poor-quality childcare - and "seem more likely and longlasting when children experience centrebased care early in life".
Professor Belsky said that although family background has a bigger influence on development, "more and more children seem to be spending more and more time and younger and younger ages in nonmaternal care arrangements in the English-speaking world".
He added: "This means that small effects, when experienced by many children, may have broad- scale consequences."
He called for policies to help reduce time spent in childcare, in particular "centre-based care" - and to give a parent the opportunity to stay at home if they so wish.
"Tax policies should support families rearing infants and young children in ways that afford parents the freedom to make child-rearing arrangements that they deem best for their child," he added.
The system should "reduce the economic coercion that necessitates many, at least in the U.S.A and the UK, to leave the care of their children to others when they would rather not".
The professor said the effects are less in "high-quality childcare", which should be encouraged.
His definition of quality is thought to be based on well-trained staff and good child-staff ratios.
"All of these conclusions could be justified on humanitarian grounds alone," he said.
Mr Brown has attracted criticism both for Labour's insistence that all mothers should work and for giving benefits to working single mothers.
A final report on Sure Start was due to be published in 2006, but nothing appeared.
The most recent major piece of analysis came out in December 2005.
In it, Professor Belsky and his colleagues said that middle-class families had taken advantage of the Sure Start facilities and the poorest were shut out.
However, Mr Brown endorsed the network by pumping in an extra £4billion during the summer.
Professor Belsky's team is understood to have submitted a new report to be published over the next three months.
The American-born academic, 56, said of his comments in Germany: "Tax policy should enable parents to make choices. When they choose childcare, it should be good quality childcare."
Reader views (12)
I've always thought why not have something like a joint tax limit for the mum and dad to share, so if one parent stays at home to look after the kids then the other parent could earn double before being taxed.
Interesting about the behaviour problems - I am experiencing this with my youngest child who did go to nursery from 5 months old. I had no idea it could be related.
- Jenny, Boston, Lincs, 17/01/2008 22:37
Report abuse
Why has it taken so long to come to this conclusion? Tax credits and benefits were never going to work. Tax breaks were always the best option.
- John, N Yorks, 03/01/2008 23:13
Report abuse
Sounds like he is doing the old Nu Labor trick: giving with one hand and stealing back with the other... He has increased taxes in working families for ten years and now giving some handouts! What does he think we are blind?! We need Conservatives for pro-family!
- Jacqueline, Hampstead, London, 03/01/2008 22:13
Report abuse
Hate to sound holier than thou (but probably will anyway), but when we got married we hoped that we might have kids at some stage and also hoped that I'd be able to stay at home to parent, so we got used to living on just one salary from day one and saved the rest. Now we have a baby, I'm able to look after him without it hurtling us into penury, and we saved enough to buy a flat in London into the bargain. Tax breaks might be nice, but I never expected to be paid for being a mum, and we set our priorities accordingly.
- Claire, London, 03/01/2008 20:34
Report abuse
Why is Crash Gordon always trying to play catch-up with what others have been telling for years: Nu Labor cannot continue being the anti-family party forever. Nu Labour has to stop promoting new alternatives social forms!
- Jonathan B, London, NW1, 03/01/2008 15:42
Report abuse
Well not another U-turn from the master Gordon... He is the one who started taxing families like this and now he is giving subsidies? How does that work? One pocket in one pocket out!
- Georgie, Islington, London, 03/01/2008 15:30
Report abuse
It is welcome news to have someone recognise a few basic things- like that 'childcare' happens wherever a child is taken care of, that 'early childhood education' happens wherever the child is since kids are born 'ready to learn' and that expertise at a skill is based on competence not just on a piece of paper diploma. Mothers, fathers, grandparents, sitters, nannies deserve funding not just 3rd party daycares. Sadly daycares have a powerful lobby group that tries to claim a monopoly on all things good for kids. They are mistaken. It's like the small boy who wanted to charge money for people to come to his back yard to see an eclipse of the sun.
The real dilemma is in how traditional economies define 'work', linking it only to production of goods and services for cash. That definition was blind to any caregiving role. It is great that Brown is opening people's eyes. It's work to care for a child- even if unpaid. The state gains a well rounded citizen and that is the 'product'.
- Beverley Smith, Calgary Canada, 03/01/2008 13:12
Report abuse
I am going blind trying to grasp Brown's concept of vision.
- Tom, St. Albans, 03/01/2008 10:13
Report abuse
And who is going to pay for these 'tax breaks'?
Well, it ain't the government, that's for sure. It will be other taxpayers. What you gain in child tax breaks, you will lose on bin tax, parking tax, council tax, breathing tax etc.
Oh, and you'll have to pay for all the pen pushers with gold plated non-contributory pensions to administer it all.
- Roger, London, 03/01/2008 10:04
Report abuse
They should give tax breaks for this because as things are now, on an average salary, whether you go back to work or not isn't a choice because general living costs are so expensive.
- Cat, London, 03/01/2008 09:19
Report abuse
Wow,- I'm from a nation where the vast majority of children are then doomed. Around 90% of women are in the work force and the children are raised in nuseries and kindergardens. Poor adult and poor children. Or?
- Louise Jensen, Aalborg, Denmark, 03/01/2008 08:07
Report abuse
So many ideas and so little action.
Chance of anything of value materialising absolutely zero!
Chance of another great New Labour idea with little substance within the next 48 hours inevitable!
- Secker, Stanmore, UK., 03/01/2008 01:53
Report abuse
Morning:
6°c





