Latest news with #socialpolicy
The Guardian
21-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Sure Start centres saved UK government £2 for every £1 spent, study finds
Sure Start children's centres provided £2 of savings for every £1 in costs, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), prompting calls for the government to look at such services as potentially paying for themselves. The centres, championed by the last Labour government, created £2.8bn in savings and revenues at the scheme's peak in England, according to the IFS study. Sarah Cattan, a research fellow at the IFS and an author of the report, said: 'Our work shows that integrated early years services, done well, are cheaper than they initially seem once their benefits are taken into account.' After calculating the benefits for government and individuals, the IFS said: 'We estimate that every £1 of up-front spending on Sure Start generated £2.05 in total benefits over the long run.' The IFS found the positive impacts of Sure Start were widespread and 'remarkably long lasting', producing better health, education and social care outcomes for families who enrolled in the programme offering support for children up to the age of five. Sure Start established 'one-stop shops' initially in disadvantaged areas, from 1999 onwards, with early years, health and family support services under a single roof. It is often regarded as one of New Labour's most successful social policies. The programme was dismantled by Conservative-led governments elected from 2010 onwards. At its peak in 2009-10 Sure Start had 3,600 centres in England, before austerity cuts reduced government funding by two-thirds, with local authorities scaling back or closing most of the centres by 2018. The IFS looked at children born in the 1990s and 2000s who took part, and found it improved health and educational outcomes, including better than expected GCSE results, as well as reducing school absences and less severe special educational needs and disabilities. Nick Ridpath, a research economist at the IFS and an author of the report, said: 'These benefits are not only important in their own right, they also generate savings to the public purse and boost lifetime earnings. Sure Start did not quite pay for itself from the government's perspective. But taking benefits for lifetime earnings into account, in the long run it will generate around twice as much value as it cost.' At its peak, Sure Start's running costs were about £2.7bn a year in 2023–24 prices. The IFS calculated that the government benefited from savings of £600m each year in lower health, special needs and social care demands, and £1.9bn in extra income tax and national insurance revenue. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion In addition, the IFS said the programme generated a further £3.1bn in higher earnings for each year group who used the centres, equivalent to a £7,800 average boost to lifetime post-tax earnings. Neil Leitch, the chief executive of the Early Years Alliance, said: 'As the IFS rightly points out, this kind of integrated early support has a positive impact not only on the children accessing the services but on society as a whole in the longer term. Clearly, then, investing in quality integrated early years services is not just the right moral decision, but a smart economic choice too.' The researchers warned that Sure Start was not a 'silver bullet', with the programme 'unable to address all challenges that children and young people face'. It noted that it had no significant effect on the number of children spending time in council care and didn't reduce support for more serious special needs provision.
The Independent
14-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill is a disaster waiting to happen – especially for disabled people
After a break from public life since last July, yesterday I was introduced to the House of Lords. In my time away, parliament has seen, in Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill, an attempt to introduce one of the most radical – and I would argue unwise – changes in social policy that the UK has seen for many years. The bill, which starts its report stage in the House of Commons this Friday, would allow adults with a terminal prognosis of six months or less to have their lives ended on the NHS. This would start a profound shift in the role of the health service and in society's view about the importance of human life. Drawing on my experience as a former minister for disabled people, I believe that both would be unwelcome changes for parliament to make, especially for disabled people. This is not just my view; as far as I am aware, not a single organisation representing disabled people in our country supports this bill. When a physically healthy person wants to end their life, we urgently point them to resources like The Samaritans for support or to mental health professionals for treatment. In a crisis, our emergency services strive to keep them alive. Like healthy people, those with physical ailments can be depressed and suicidal. Yet this proposed change in the law would create a two-tier system, where a healthy person would qualify for support to live while a sick person would qualify for support to die. The result would be the devaluing of life – an assumption that the lives of some people facing physical challenges and vulnerability are no longer worth living, or saving. Many disabled people find this approach profoundly worrying. That worry is increased by parts of the government's own impact assessment on the bill, which suggests that assisted dying would save the NHS money compared to more expensive care costs. If you add to that the government's proposed significant savings from the personal independence payment (PIP) – clearly driven by the chancellor's desire to save money, on top of her unpopular cut to winter fuel payments – it is not surprising that there are mounting concerns about this government's attitude to vulnerable and disabled people. With support to live being squeezed, what is being promoted as a 'choice' to die could easily, over time, slip into becoming the default option. Canada, a beacon of so-called 'progressivism', seems to have followed the same route of simultaneously legalising assisted dying while also failing to meet the needs of the disabled community properly. Charlotte-Anne Malischewski, interim chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, has previously warned that 'too many people in Canada lacked access to the basic supports and services, including health care, medication and equipment'. She further added that 'some persons with disabilities were turning to medical assistance in dying because they felt they had no other options'. Canada now allows those who have a physical disability or illness, but without a terminal prognosis, to end their lives if deemed to be suffering intolerably – a subjective term. Of those applying to die via this route, and who responded to questions on the subject, 58.3 per cent identified as having a disability. Roger Foley, a disability rights activist in Canada who has a severe neurodegenerative disease, tells the story of how the healthcare system denied him the funding he needed to hire personal carers, leaving him without proper care. In an article in 2024, he wrote that he was informed his care needs were 'too much work' and that he had been told by healthcare staff to consider opting for Medical Aid In Dying instead. The Leadbeater bill, initially said by its supporters to have the 'strictest safeguards in the world', did not fare well at the committee stage. The promised flagship safeguard of the bill (High Court judicial oversight) has been removed. Cases would now only be assessed by panels consisting of a likely less senior legal figure, a social worker and a psychiatrist. The proponents of the bill in the committee showed themselves almost completely resistant to attempts to tighten safeguards that would protect disabled people. For example, my former colleague Caroline Johnson – herself a doctor – tabled amendments to require that the primary motivation for seeking assisted dying would be physical pain and not, for example, psychological distress. These were rejected. Also rejected was an amendment proposed by James Cleverly, which would have prevented anyone from opting for assisted dying primarily because they feel like a burden to others. Feeling a burden is cited as a motivation by 45.3 per cent of Canadians who have an assisted death, by 46.6 per cent of patients in Oregon and by almost 51 per cent of people who go ahead with assisted dying in Washington. The Leadbeater bill is a disaster waiting to happen. It is a badly drafted bill that, far from coming out stronger and safer, has left its committee stage with fewer safeguards for the most vulnerable. Especially for the sake of disabled people, I would urge MPs to vote against the bill when they get the opportunity to do so.
