Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

April 23, 2008

Stop pandering to stay-at-home mums

The Tories are eyeing up a plan to take money from the poor to give to the middle classes

Alice Miles

I remember an acquaintance, let us call her Victoria, bemoaning the fact that she couldn't possibly afford to work part-time after the birth of her child; couldn't afford to lose a fifth of her salary - about £15,000 - without her life falling apart.

That's 20 per cent of the salary, by the way, the £15,000, not the actual salary.

I think I raised half an eyebrow; what I wanted to do was slap her. This woman had a husband earning well over £100,000 a year, two homes, two cars and all the accoutrements that go with that sort of lifestyle, such as expensive friends, skiing trips and other holidays.

What is one person's necessity is another's luxury. And that is precisely the problem with the proposal this week, from a think-tank close to David Cameron, to give all mothers £50-£60 a week per child, from birth to 3 years old. That's on top of child benefit, so getting on for £4,000 a year for each child. Necessity, or luxury? And there's the nub. For Victoria, that £4,000 would be a luxury. It might pay for the skiing trip, I suppose. But look who is going to fund it. The proposal from Policy Exchange is to use the money from the childcare element of the working tax credit and from Sure Start maternity grants, funds that currently go to the poorest working mothers, to pay for the new parental care allowance. And even that would only cover about a third of it.

Now I'm as open to being bunged £4,000 as the next mother, but it so obviously isn't fair. What is amazing, then, is that Maria Miller, the Conservative Party's Shadow Family Minister, turned up to the launch of the report on Monday and made encouraging noises about it. She didn't go so far as to say that the Tory party would adopt the idea, but she did welcome it and say that the Conservatives would consider the recommendations.

There couldn't be a clearer example of robbing the poor, who can get up to £240 a week for childcare under the working tax credit, to give to the rich. That £4,000 isn't enough to support a mother who doesn't have any other income. She would have to go to work anyway - if she could afford to do that without the childcare help available under tax credits. If she couldn't, I suppose she could have a lot of babies very fast, raking in £4,000 a year for each of them. What a good idea.

The proposal is immoral and regressive, hurting the poorest children the most - something that Ms Miller recognises. Yet she has still allowed herself and the Tory party to be associated with the proposal, which chimes with various things that Mr Cameron has been saying about giving mothers more choice in the early years. It's a classic middle-income vote-winner, handing out cash to people who do not really, really need it.

And many mothers will embrace the idea. There is this sense of entitlement that comes over so many women, encouraged to think that there is something selfless about having children, once they have produced a sprog. I'm producing the next generation of taxpayer, they intone piously when pressed - as if that is really the reason why they gave birth. The indignation in Victoria's voice that she be expected to work full-time or give up one of her annual holidays, or perhaps the account at the organic butcher, was nauseating. I have heard it again and again: well-off women moaning about the cost of nannies, the juggling, the “lazy” husband (more often than not working his dull socks off to support her time off) - what part of having children did they not understand? “I don't know how she does it”? Usually with a full-time nanny.

You have children, you give something up. That's the deal. It might be income, it might be friends, it might be expensive holidays. And if you are really, really lucky you might be able to afford not to work for a few years. What you do not have is the right to expect to be paid by the taxpayer to stay at home. Especially when you do not really need the money.

For it's not a zero-sum game, a woman leaving the paid workforce. She - and now her children - still uses public services, doesn't she? The doctor and the subsidised trains, the schools, the roads, the health visitor, the library. And she has stopped paying for them. So you see, every non-working mother already gets a large subsidy from the State; less, perhaps, if she has a working husband, but still a subsidy. Have you seen how mothers of young children guzzle public services?

There is another argument why the State should not be encouraging women not to work: it is very bad for them. Mothers who haven't worked, not even part-time, for three years, or longer if they have had more than one child, will find it very difficult to go back into the workplace. They lose confidence and the routine of work. They have fallen behind their peers. They have forgotten how to do it. They may never go back. That isn't good for the mother and ultimately it isn't a good example for the children either.

I understand the reluctance of mothers with young children to farm them out to nurseries. Much of the problem with that, though, stems from the standard of care in the nurseries themselves, and the amount of time the babies have to spend in them. Encourage more flexible and part-time working, as the Government is doing, and pay childcare workers more to get a higher standard of care and slower turnover of staff. That would be a better investment of the £5.4 billion that the parental care allowance would cost.

But it wouldn't help Victoria, who now has a live-in nanny. She's still moaning.

More worrying is that unless a women is returning to work in a job where the effective hourly salary exceeds the effective hourly cost of childcare she can't afford to work. Round hear this means that you need to earn £280 a week (3 days a week). The national average salary at 3/5ths is £274/week.

Bob, Reading,

so wanting to make a proper job of bringing up your children in a way you blieve in is bad?
jolly time with the kids? most of us would wish so but instead we are forced for economic reasons back to work and forced to leave children in less than ideal childcare, why the middle class gaze always?!

Patricia Anne Jarvis, Rotherham,

Vivienne, does this set an example to our children about care when we are old, by giving them to a paid carer to be looked after. How about if our children put us in paid care when we are old as they were put in paid care when they were young? As a mum I am teaching to care for those who need care.

Til, UK,

Vivienne, by the same reasoning we should not using my husband's hard earned taxes to subsidise childcare either. Many mums who have done both staying off and working have said they actually find work easier than the 'jolly time playing at home'.
Would be good ifwe looked after both young+old more

Pauline, UK,

Why on earth should young mothers expect the rest of us to provide them with our hard earned money so that they can stay at home having a jolly time playing with their little ones. It’s about time they realised that they aren’t the only ones who hate going to work. Given the state of the planet surely we should be discouraging people from having children, not paying them. I’d much rather my taxes went towards allowing people to give up work to look after their elderly parents or other relatives. Well done Alice – sensible as always

Vivienne Knight, Ashford, UK

There is an odd idea, shared by some working mums too, that all sahm's are on benefits and they are paying for them to be off. Wrong! Most sahm's husbands are funding their own family as well as paying for someone else's childcare and return to work. This has been unfair!

Mel, Preston,

Good policy, and gives real choice. If it happens we will see what working/staying at home choices that mums really think is best for their families. The unaffordable house prices and increasing cost of living is causing difficulties for families everywhere.

KJ, UK,

Don't forget the contribution parents make by being there for their kids. When kids go to school, if a sahm does not return to workplace immediately, she is more likely than anyone else to spend some time in unpaid voluntary work which is vital for community, caring and a good example to the kids.

sal, England,

Good idea. Stay at home parenting is excellent for kids ONLY if mum wants to be there. For first time ever this will give real choices for all parents. Mums who really want to care for own kids at home can and enjoy. Mums who really wish to work can use it for childcare. No problem.

Lindsey, Lancashire,

Those of you who do not see why full-time mums should be helped, please think carefully about the kind of people you want around when you are old and defenceless. You want the type who care.

Lindsey, Lancashire,

I disagree with the government funding childcare costs for very young children. Working mums should not expect to have babies and for other people to fund their return to work. If your job doesn't pay enough to fund childcare then you should give up work and not expect the taxpayer to fund it.

B, England,

A woman is paid by taxpayer to put her baby in nursery and go to work on say a production line or checkout. The nursery worker looking after the working mum's baby is putting her own baby with a childminder, no one is looking after their own baby. Call this progress? I certainly don't.

LC, England,

Please read 'The Complete Secrets of Happy Children' by Steve Biddulph as to why full time parenting is valuable to society.

Sue, England,

Alice Miles would have been better to stop with the statement, "You have children; you give something up". That was well understood by all generations until my own.
Alice, the responsibility for the support, care and upbringing of children lies with the PARENTS, not the government.

David, London, UK

Motherhood is the most special and important job in the world, but it requires you to be there. This is a job far too important to give to paid childcarers. What's the point in having kids if you are just going to put them in childcare under 3yrs old?

Lin, England,

I am a sahm, my husband works. We are not well off. We do not claim benefits and my husband works + pays taxes to fund childcare for other people's under 3's. We receive little in return. This system has been very unfair. So I like this new policy + would at least like a tax break for husband.

Mel, Preston,

'Stop Pandering to Stay at home mums' - what a joke and how wrong! Trouble is government has not valued stay at home parents enough in recent years. No wonder family breakdowns are happening more and more and children are becoming unhappier.

Sue, England,

fercryingoutloud - by the same sentiment we should not be subsidising childcare for the under 3's either!This has been taking from families where one parent works and one cares for years. Are we to tax these families to fund others' childcare so these families are unable to afford own mum at home?!

Melissa, Lancashire,

The average parent is far, far superior to the very best paid and well qualified childcarer to spend the day with their own under 3 yr old. Stay at home parents are good for society in the long run.

Sue, Preston,

I like the sound of this policy. It will help mums who enjoy to care for their little ones stay off, less unemployment (less people chasing jobs), children will benefit, parenting communities will flourish, more enjoyment in parenting and family life, and families will be less time poor.

Melissa, Lancashire,

fercryingoutloud ... no one is saying that people shouldn't stay home with their child IF THEY CAN. But be paid £4000/year per child to do so??? are you kidding me??? This is their CHOICE to have kids and stay home - they should take financial responsibility for that choice.

RGSquires, London,

I also find Alice Miles's comments about stay at home mums extremely offensive and shortsighted.

M, England,

The 'Victorias' (+ husbands who pay back huge taxes anyway) are minority in comparision to many average to low income real families who would really be helped by this new policy. Alice just using 'Victoria' to worry people about policy. 'Victoria' is a poor model to illustrate. sahm are good value.

M, England,

I do not wish 'to farm out my children to nurseries' not because of standard of care (though the very best carer, although good, will never be as good as the parents) but because I do not wish to miss out on my children growing up. That is very special indeed and nothing would keep me away from that

M, England,

Unfortunately, the real mother's job is not well seen. The mother is supposed to teach values, to entertain, to encourage, to help their children in so many issues that would be more effective if the mother could stay-at-home. But, it seems all this are not very important...

Alessandra F. Pellicciari, São Paulo, Brasil

I find Alice Miles's view extremely offensive that women who do not return to work before 3 years ultimately set a bad example to their children. So doing most the most important job in the world of raising our children is setting a bad example is it? The definition of parent is to raise a child..!!

steve, Oxford, UK

Those of you waxing lyrical about a mother's love would do well to remember that up to 80% of abusers are the child's parent, so a parents "love" can be anything but. Like many things, the support of parents and children is not something we can or should apply a one size fits all policy to.

Dawn, Luton, bedfordshire

There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking after your own kids, as long as you don't expect other people to pay for you to stay at home. I work, and I don't expect anyone to pay my childcare costs, which run into thousands each year.

Helen, Macclesfield, UK

Please can anyone tell me what is wrong with looking after your own kids?????

P, England,

I like this new proposal, we are working class and not well off like 'Victoria'. I have resented gov using my husband's hard earned wages to subsidise childcare and demoralising families where one stays at home and cares for the little ones while the other parent works, this demeans role of Family.

P, England,

A child below compulsory school age should be legally entitled to a full-time parent and once in school have the right to a parent at home outside school hours - it might be reasonable to limit this to those under 13 or so.

Only in most exceptional circumstances should a child be denied this.

JB, Scunthorpe, UK

Hmm, there can't be that many new mothers who have a job where they can go part time and still earn £60k a year! I think the policy would work best if it was assessed on earnings, so that the likes of 'Victoria' do not have their manicures and skiiing holidays subsidised by the tax payer.

Frances Roberson, Croydon,

Rache, read the article properly. Her husband was earning over £100k a year; not her.
It is very short sighted crticising stay at home parenting. Too many parents don't spend enough time actually 'parenting'. Giving tax benefits to help people bring up their own children is essential for society.

AM, London,

Good stay at home parents are far better than the very best paid childcarer, because the parent gives something that a paid childcarer can never. An under 3yr old is best off spending their day with a parent who loves them. Good SAHparents are excellent financial value for society in the long term

M, Lancashire,

I am a stay at home mum. I give very careful consideration to raising my children, what I do is as valid and important to society as any other job. Just think when your babies are going into childcare, in effect someone else is raising them, not the person who loves them - you. Parents are the best.

An, Lancashire,

I think this new policy sounds great. About time stay at home parent with a wage earning spouse are helped, instead of having to subsidise others childcare for often a job that really isn't as fulfilling as caring for one's own children. More people should try looking after their own kids

P, England,

This article is fantastic - I have spent all week seething at the sheer lunacy and injustice of the Policy Exchange recommendations - thank goodness that someone has finally spoken out against them and in defence of the thousands of poor parents who desperately need the support they would abolish.

Hannah, London,

Alice Mills criticises women who don't work, have lots of children and 'gobble up services.' Which sections of the community is she thinking about?

J Phillips, Newcastle upon Tyne,

That the conservatives are even considering such a proposal as that from Policy Exchange would seem to put the lie to the sincerity of David Cameron's attack on the 10p tax increase for the lower paid. It does exactly the same thing, it takes from the poor to give to the better off!

Dick, Durham, UK

Can I suggest you read "Why love matters", by Sue Gerhardt. Then write an article imploring ALL political parties to take money from wherever they can find it, to support stay-home parents. To borrow from your strap-line: "You have children, you DON'T give anything up. That's the problem."

Russell Fairless, Hexham, Northumberland

I find it most insulting that "stay at home Mums" are somehow not important.
I had a wonderful Childhood, my Mum was there everyday, when we came home from School. We would sit around the table with a cup of tea, telling her of our day. I have done the same with my Children. My Children are Happy!!!

Carrie, London,

I agree with recognising ;the carer' - usually mum who forfeits a salary to 'be there'. But could be a flat amount rather than £50-£60 a week per child (which might well encourage single parenthood to go on and on). The 'per child' part could be recognised in a lower tax bill for earning parent.

M Lewis, Salisbury, Wiltshire

I find this extremely offensive...women shouldnt stay at home and look after their children...it's very bad for them. It is just so progressive to pay another woman to look after them!. Believe me most women given the choice would stay at home!!!!

Nichola, winchester,

This seems like the knee-jerk reaction from social science types to all non-means-tested benifits. A policy only gains their approval if its actually designed to help the underclass (thank goodness we've stopped calling them the working class : thats what I am) swamp us.

Eric Skelton, Cardiff, Wales

Karen: what planet are you on, thinking that you are living in a democracy? When was the last time you were asked to vote on any policy and when did your opinion last count??

Helen, Macclesfield,

Having children is a personal choice that no one is forced to do. If you do not think you can afford to raise them, then do not have them.

Philip Robinson, Saint Augustine, USA/ Florida

Why must women turn on each other like this. There is no better catalyst for a cat ight than the issue of looking after one's children.

Sounds like sour grapes to me Alice. We live in a democracy. If you don't like a policy, don't vote for it. And then stop moaning about it. It's very dull.

Karen, Es, UK

it sounds that shes jsut bitter. I think it is a poor example to use just her friend "victoria". there are thousands of mothers who are NOT in that situation and £4000 is better than nothing. this article seems like a rant, not a column.

Elsinore, London,

I know working couples who can't afford a 2nd child yet couples with at least 1 parent on benefits are happily having more. Help should be given to those who work, not to those who can work but won't. Child benefits should also be restricted to first 2 children to prevent abuse of the system.

Charlie, Nottingham,

Why have a baby if you can't pay for its upbringing?

Oh yes, silly me - you expect me to pay for out of my taxes, don't you?

James, London, UK

If 15,000 is 20% of her salary, she doesn't earn over £100K.

Rache, London,

Blame the Tories: Introduced dual-income mortgages.(~1981). Both adults worked, house prices rose; couldn't lose 1 wage. Thus, universal childcare. We mustn't take funding from the poor. However, we must return gradually to 1 mortgage, 1 income.
Return financial/living flexibility back to families.

G Roberts, Hereford, UK

I am single mum, not my choice, husband left, is out of work, pays no maintenance. I pay taxes, I work 40-hour week to put a roof over my child's head but salary is low, I live in southeast and without benefits WOULD NOT SURVIVE. There are 1000s like me. What would you do with us, let us starve?

Emma, Hastings, UK

It is essential to dismantle Gordon Brown's insane strucure of tax and benefits.

I agree with a general child benefit and agree that low earners say up to around a bit more than the legal minimum wage should be out of tax.

And that's it. Dismantle the rest and give the money back to the tax payer

cuffleyburgers, Lucca,

I don't agree with subsidising anyone to stay at home with their children - at most they should be given tax breaks rather than benefits. While we're on the subject though, can we make sure that benefits to single mothers are stopped first? People who pay no taxes deserve no benefits.

MB, Edinburgh, Scotland

Also in Alice Miles

Got a few quid for the old rich folk?

Also in Columnists

Times Recommends

OUR COLUMNISTS

Alice Miles

Alice Miles has been with The Times since 1999. She began as a Parliamentary Sketch writer before becoming a columnist, writing mainly on politics and national issues such as education and health. She won Columnist of the Year in 2007.