Will Sure Start face £200m cuts?
The claim
“The Tories have said they would cut £200m each year from the Sure Start budget – which could see one in five children’s centres being forced to close.”
Labour Party press release, 16 March 2010
Cathy Newman checks it out
In its headlong pursuit of the women’s vote, Labour has repeatedly claimed that the Conservatives would cut £200m a year from the Sure Start budget. This has been a widely-quoted figure, uttered with such confidence that it’s started to acquire the ring of truth.
The Tories deny it, yet still Labour repeat it. It’s one of those ding-dongs that will become the soundtrack of the election campaign. But who’s right? Time to call in the FactCheck team.
Over to the team for the analysis
Labour claims the Tories would slash £200m a year from Sure Start – a fifth of its total budget. This isn’t a one-off claim; the party included it in a chunky dossier on Tory policies released earlier this year and Gordon Brown has raised it in parliament.
The origin of the claim goes back to a March 2008 Tory policy document which says the Conservatives will hire 4,200 new health visitors – funded from “£200m per year, with which the government are intending to pay for a new cadre of ‘outreach’ workers from children’s centres”.
The Tories said they would prefer to spend the money on qualified health visitors rather than outreach workers. So is it a straight reprioritisation of funds, rather than a cut?
Not so, according to Labour, who say only £79m is earmarked for those extra outreach workers resulting in a gap of £121m meaning something has to give elsewhere in the Sure Start budget.
However, the Conservatives pointed us back to a more recent document – their draft health manifesto (apologies if this is starting to feel like a game of claim ping-pong).
According to this, the bill would not land solely on the doorstep of Sure Start, which is funded through the Department of Children, Schools and Families. Instead, the new health visitors would be paid for both by “refocusing the outreach services in the Sure Start budget and from the Department of Health budget, where we have pledged real increases”.
But even if Labour is wrong to pick on the £200m there’s no guarantee the Tories would preserve the current Sure Start budget levels.
Remember, the Conservatives have only agreed to ringfence spending on health and international development.
Cathy Newman’s verdict
Most of the £200m is not, as Labour claims, coming from cuts to Sure Start, but from the health budget. So the inflammatory headline on Labour’s scare story is, strictly, wrong.
But it may be there’s no smoke without fire. The Tories have not promised to protect Sure Start from the swingeing budget cuts we know are coming across the board, and they won’t commit to keeping all 3,500 centres open.
A senior Conservative source told me the party did want to get “better value for money” from the service. That may well be code for cuts in the future – but Labour is misleading voters by seizing on a specific figure.



There are 14 comments on this post
Just another labour smear! With increasing regularity, as the brothers get more and more desperate, they are scraping lies and mendacity from the bottom of their pit of scare stories.
There is no truth in this and they would be better advised to disassociate themselves from the malign influence of Charlie Whelan the unelected Grand Visier of Unite, who is Brown and Mandelson’s attack dog and policy maker!
They are in disarray and would not know the truth even if it stood up and hit them over the head. Bloated and cosseted in the bunker, Brown is brooding even more offensive attacks which tell you more about his febrile mind than it does about the Conservative party.
The truth is that they have no credible policies after 13 years of raping the country – even the desperate and stupid “Dangerous Dog Licences” have lasted only a week and have been shown up as being another policy made on the hoof. Time to go – taxi for Brown!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rather than giving parents the option of bringing up their own young children, Labour have concentrated on the economy, giving mothers little option but to return to work as quickly as possible.
The Government is quick to say how much they invest in Children’s Services, but the Tax Credits are complicated, Children’s Centres are not reaching those really in need of the services and the free entitlement for 3 & 4 year olds is a joke.
I want nothing more than to bring up my baby myself and not shove them into a private nursery for 50 hours per week. I would rather the tax credits are cut and the money re-invested to allow parents to spend more time with their children.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is a pity Labour can not talk of its own overall spending plans.Try to scare people off the opposition , do not discuss our own plans is their order of the day .We saw it tonight when Harriet Harman got another easy ride from Jon Snow.Labour politicians must love going on channel 4 news .Its easier than “good morning”
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Given the way Labour bloats quangos to keep ministers safely out of harm’s way when their policies fail, I’m sure that cutting the budget, along with excess quangocrats will still deliver the same level of support on the front line.
I don’t blame the Tories for being vague about funding promises. They don’t know for sure the depth of the hole in the nation’s purse, and I find their caution strangely refreshing. We all know there have to be cuts, so the fact that there may be some in Sure Start is not surprising. I would ask why Labour are not planning to trim the budget and improve efficiency – profligacy is a thing of the past, surely.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is ludicrous for Cameron to suggest that Sure Start outreach funding would be better spent on Health Visitors and it is not like for like. Of course we need more Health Visitors but they focus on the time after birth and on development checks on children before the age of two. Sure Start family and outreach staff support the child and family before and after birth and the first five years of a child’s life. they are there for the day to day practical and emotional support that all families need to various degrees and for various reasons. Their work is in prevention and working with other professionals around the needs of the child. Crucially they work alongside health visitors in a respectful multi agency model and often act as a vital link between hard to reach, mistrustful families who have historically not engaged with health professionals. Sure Start as a programme would never have been introduced by a Conservative government -they simply lack the vision and empathy to have ever seen the universal and targeted benefits of such a massive programme of support and prevention. Even now flying in the face of respected evidence they talk about there being too much focus on the early years. They simply ‘do not get it’. The Labour government is right to warn people about Cameron’s two faced approach. Ask parents and ask Cameron to answer questions directly about what he thinks Sure Start is all about. It is simplistic and offensive for him to talk about ‘needy’ families!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
At last someone who talks sense. In my experience of Health Visitors they ae reluctant to take on new initatives rarely turn up to meetings that are needed to discuss the vulnerable children we are working with, so it would be ludicrous to pile vast amounts of money into the six years that would be required to train one from scratch Why not train the outreach workers that have more passion for the role to do some of the Health Worker tasks.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The Budget next week,the conservative cant be honest where the cuts going to be because george osborne is weak.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Surestart Centres are a fantastic resource for all families with children under five. They provide a vast array of play and learning services for children and carers and provide effective signposting for mums and dads who want to improve their qualifications and job prospects. A child’s first 5 years are a time when foundations are layed for future health and prosperity and Surestart Centres help ensure these years are well supported. True, “hard-to-reach” families are still falling outside of the net, but the answer is not to get rid of Surestart Centres. I’m all for Surestart Centres being maintained..it’s just a pity we can’t trust either of the main 2 parties to keep to their word once an election has been won.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
i joined the labour party’s facebook page about sure start and posted a link on the wall to this page, but it immediately disappeared. twice. hurrah for open debate!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In the run up to the election I expect at least one big smear a day from Labour. Actually I expect more than one smear a day! In Scotland the situation is even worse as they have an almost frightening Stalinist grip on the Press and Media up here!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Why do we have all these budgetary lines? Why do we try to help everybody for everything which entails such huge waste of financial resources and high taxation? Isn’t it simpler to let people get on with their lives, to have families look after themselves and to send a message to the feckless that there are no free rides. As for those that seek support because of their life style, well, time for a reawakening, your choice, your pocket, your money.
Keep up the good work, in a neutral, totally unbiased manner, of sifting through the smoke and mirrors and mendacity of political propaganda and misinformation.
By the way… Gordon Brown and defence spending, Did he apologise, unreservedly for misleading the House and the Electorate?
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh Please
“”"A senior Conservative source told me the party did want to get “better value for money” from the service”"”
POLITIC SPEAK = THAT DOES MEAN THE TORIES WILL SLASH AND BURN THIS WELL RUN EXCELLENT POLICY.
Like or Dislike:
0
0