Some of the proposals, such as those to extend paid parental leave from six months after the birth of a child to a full year, are very welcome. But others are simply unfair, and the logic that undergirds the whole report too often puts the views of NGOs and the State on what is best for children above the wishes of parents.

Child Benefit hikes or additional direct payments to parents (which would help both families struggling with the cost of childcare and families that choose to have a parent at home) are ruled out. The “Open Policy Debate” with “40 invited representatives, including parents, childcare providers, childcare committees, academics/experts and NGOs” objected that parents might spend the direct payment on things other than “investment in the early years.” What if parents want to do that? What if parents want to decide the shape of their children’s early years?

The fundamental issue with these proposals is that they represent an attack on parents who don’t both want to seek paid work because one or other wants to mind their children at home. This choice is regarded as sub-optimal throughout the report, and greater participation of parents in full-time work is regarded as an unqualified good. According to the report, once a child is over one year of age, day-care is best.

The report constantly appeals to evidence that children over the age of one have better outcomes in day-care than they do at home, despite acknowledging the ambiguity of the evidence itself:

Research also indicates that “from the age of 2-3 onwards children do better in high quality care and education services than if they remain at home” and that “vulnerable children in families experiencing high levels of disadvantage or with complex needs….benefit from early care and education services at a younger age, provided the services are high quality” (Melhuish 2004, cited Start Strong, 2014, p.9). Research on the impact of early years provision on children’s developmental outcomes does vary for different groups of children but the literature is very clear “that gains from quality childcare are largest for low-income or immigrant households and those with less educated parents” (Gambaro et al., 2014).

Notwithstanding this evidence, the amount of time spent in centre-based care must be considered. Evidence suggests that prolonged periods in centre-based care can have a negative impact on children’s outcomes, particularly for younger children (UNICEF, 2008).

Nowhere does the report seem to contemplate just how radical it is to say that children are actually better off being cared for by someone other than their own parents, and that making sure that as many children as possible are is an aim the state should pursue.

Nor does the report ever honestly face up to the fact that many its proposals would be a blow to stay-at-home parents.

The Times puts it succinctly:

How would these be paid for?

Neil Gilbert, Professor of Social Welfare and Social Services at the University of California, wrote a book on the whole “work-life balance” question, which examined various models of child-rearing and childcare in different countries. He writes of the Swedish model:

Paying in advance for the “free” day-care service tends to squeeze mothers into the labour force, since the crushing tax rates make it difficult for an average family to get by on a single salary.

The US Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren made similar points about economic forces quite literally forcing both parents into paid work in her book The Two-Income Trap. This isn’t about the appropriate level of taxation: it’s about the fact that the government’s proposals would be unfair to stay-at-home parents, and in the long run only exacerbate the pressures on parents that they seek to ease, limiting choice rather than enhancing it.

It’s fascinating that in the United States, it is voices on the left that are arguing for universal cash payments to parents, rather than a slew of paternalistic measures that aim to tell parents of whatever income bracket how to raise their children (see this article in The New Republic by Matt and Elizabeth Bruenig).

The concern raised by the report that a Child Benefit hike would disproportionately benefit the rich is unwarranted – another universal pre-school year would suffer the same potential problem: that’s the nature of universal benefits. If the government was really concerned about this, it could means-test Child Benefit, or keep it universal and make changes to the tax system to offset any regressive effect.

Instead, they seem determined to push ahead with reforms which would further tilt the playing field against stay-at-home parents, all the while ignoring what parents actually want. The State ought to be neutral between home-care and day-care – what’s wrong with a level playing field?

The key thing missing from the report is any nationally representative opinion poll or survey on what kind of care parents want their children to have. The report’s authors, when they do interact with parents, only present them with options that make it easier to access “care and education services”.

A 2013 Amarach research poll commissioned by the Iona Institute reveals what happens when you ask the questions that the Government’s report didn’t:

The government’s childcare strategy needs a complete rethink.