As a sinner who long ago repenteth, may I echo the call by Gordon Brown and the three former Labour education secretaries for an election pledge by Labour to revive the Sure Start programme (Senior Labour figures call for ‘life-transforming’ Sure Start policy, 9 April)? Newly elected as a Conservative MP in 1997, Ifollowed my then party in opposing the programme, before realising how wrong I was.
For millions of children, especially the most disadvantaged, Sure Start was a crucial life enhancer, providing invaluable socialisation and, to children with special educational needs, the precious advantage of early intervention. In the ever-lengthening chargesheet against the worst Conservative government in living memory, thedestruction of this progressive programme must rank as one of itsmost cardinal sins.
Of course, the cavalier ruination of the British economy and dismemberment of public services by the Conservatives confronts Labour with hard choices: there is much to do and little money with which to do it. The criteria for selecting priorities must surely be policy and politics. Sure Start is a sound policy, with compelling evidence to support it. It can be a vote-winner too. In terms of ground on which to fight an election, early years education under Labour versus tax cuts favouring the affluent under the Tories is about as fertile as it gets for the opposition.
John Bercow
Speaker of the House of Commons, 2009-19
Calls for a Labour government to create a new Sure Start programme, echoed in your editorial (9 April), are welcome. However, there is a big “but”. I was very belatedly tasked to lead a team as part of the national evaluation that examined the role of ethnicity in the original programme. We found that there was no clear requirement to focus on ethnicity in the national programme or its evaluation (which distinguished simply and inappropriately between white, Black and Asian children). As a result, most local projects made no specific provision for minorityethnic children, despite them being disproportionately represented in the poorest areas where Sure Start was targeted.
We hope Labour will recreate Sure Start, but it must ensure that there is a clear requirement for local projects to identify and respond to the needs of minority ethnic children and their families.
Prof Gary Craig
York
Everyone involved in early family intervention and support knows that help in the early years makes an enormous difference to long-term outcomes. Cutting SureStart’s preventative work meant prioritising short-term savings overlong-term benefits.
There are still around 180 Home‑Start schemes across the UK. These are independent charitable organisations working to a common model, with thousands of trained volunteers who last year supported over 43,500 families with almost 79,000 children. Many families say that their lives have been transformed by Home-Start’s help, and social workers in many areas rely on their local scheme to prevent family difficulties escalating.
As your editorial points out, the new family hubs are too meanly funded. Would it not make more sense to make use of an organisation already working in thefield and with proven expertise?
Deborah Hayter
Patron, Home-Start Banbury, Bicester and Chipping Norton
As former Labour secretaries of state point out, toddler development is in decline after a decade of disinvestment in Sure Start. But two years ago, a similar programme – Start for Life – was launched. The funding was much lower, with just £500m over three years. But the new programme is now providing crucial support to babies and new parents at a time when councils are cutting back on preventative services. It has funded new community-based services that help parents to overcome trauma and care for their babies. A new Labour government must avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Call it Sure Start or call or Start for Life if you prefer. Either way, we need to invest more in babies.
Keith Reed
Chief executive, Parent-Infant Foundation
I was delighted to see the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ findings on the success of Sure Start. I think it has been one of the most effective innovations to help the less well-off in recent decades. In my view, it is an essential part of any successful regional policy. That policy has been dominated over the years by the development of the built environment. Development of human capital in the regions is now more important, and Sure Start is the most effective way of doing it. If budgetary constraints restrict its expansion in the whole country over the next few years then focus its extension in the regions, and then we’ll really see some effective levelling up taking place.
Ian Wrigglesworth
Liberal Democrat, House of Lords
