Family hubs to be rolled out across every council in England
The Education Secretary has said that the scheme will 'give a lifeline' to families.
Family hubs were originally rolled out across 75 local authorities at the start of 2024 by the then-Conservative government.
Officials say that the hubs will be rolled out in every local authority by April 2026, and there will be expanded so there are up to 1,000 of them by the end of 2028.
Among the services available at the locations will be birth registration, debt advice, midwifery services and support for parents who are separating or have separated.
Officials hope that the spaces will also provide families access to other services and social care.
Bridget Phillipson said: 'It's the driving mission of this government to break the link between a child's background and what they go on to achieve – our new Best Start family hubs will put the first building blocks of better life chances in place for more children.
'I saw firsthand how initiatives like Sure Start helped level the playing field in my own community, transforming the lives of children by putting in place family support in the earliest years of life, and as part of our plan for change, we're building on its legacy for the next generation of children.
'Making sure hard-working parents are able to benefit from more early help is a promise made, and promise kept – delivering a lifeline of consistent support across the nation, ensuring health, social care and education work in unison to ensure all children get the very best start in life.'
The Conservatives have said that the announcement 'brings little clarity on what's genuinely new and what simply rebrands existing services'.
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott said: 'That lack of clarity is part of a wider pattern.
'This is a Government defined by broken promises and endless U-turns.'
Charity Save The Children has said it is 'pleased' to see the Government 'making it easier for families to get the help they need'.
Dan Paskins, executive director of Policy, Advocacy and Campaigns at Save The Children UK, said: 'Focusing on family services for the under-fives will be vital in securing better outcomes for children, and we welcome the Best Start In Life announcement.
'We know from our work in local communities that bringing together parenting, healthcare and education support services in one place is an approach which works, so we are pleased to see the UK Government making it easier for families to get the help they need.
'With ministers now demonstrating an increasingly ambitious plan for children in the UK, we hope this drive for change continues when the child poverty strategy is released in autumn.
'This must include scrapping the two-child limit to Universal Credit, which is the only meaningful way to reduce the UK's record child poverty rate.'
The head of the NAHT union welcomed the move.
General secretary Paul Whiteman said: 'This is a positive step forward towards ensuring all children get the best start – and we are pleased to see tangible investment following this week's announcement of new targets for school readiness.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
17 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Calls to declare health emergency over NHS in Wales rejected
James Evans pointed out that nearly one in five people are waiting for treatment, with more than 250,000 people waiting more than nine months for care. Leading a Tory debate on July 2, the shadow health secretary told the Senedd more than 100,000 people in Wales wait more than 12 hours in A&E each month. Mr Evans said: 'While they wait, ambulances queue outside, unable to offload patients, tying up paramedics who should be on the road saving lives. The ambulance service has not hit its target for eight-minute response times for life-threatening calls for four years straight.' He warned GP services are overwhelmed, NHS dentistry is collapsing and mental health services are also in crisis. 'If that's not an emergency, I do not know what is,' he said. Mabon ap Gwynfor, Plaid Cymru's shadow health secretary, supported the Tory motion, pointing out that his party made calls to declare a health emergency in February 2024. Describing Labour's record over the past 26 years as unacceptable, Mr ap Gwynfor accused ministers of changing targets on a whim and refusing to admit failure. The Conservatives' Natasha Asghar criticised 'shameful' treatment times in Wales. She said: 'If anything, things continue to go from bad to worse under Labour's watch and, perhaps more worryingly, failure… to turn things around seems to end in promotion. 'Mark Drakeford, Vaughan Gething and Eluned Morgan all presided over the health brief, failed to deliver successful results and ended up being first minister.' Jeremy Miles accused the opposition of only seeing the worst in the health service and indulging in their 'favourite sport' of political football, 'kicking the NHS from pillar to post.' Hitting back at his opposite number, the health secretary said: 'I heard the Conservative health spokesman say… 'if that's not an emergency, I don't know what is'. 'Let me tell him what a health emergency is – it's covid, it's mpox, it's war, it's terrorism." Senedd members voted 26-24 against the Tory motion before agreeing the Welsh Government's amended version by the same margin.
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Conservatives will look to amend Government welfare Bill
The Conservatives will try to change the Government's welfare Bill to tighten up access to personal independence payments (Pip) and universal credit. Kemi Badenoch will pledge that the Tories are 'now the only party committed to serious welfare reform' after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer shelved plans to restrict eligibility for Pip in the face of a backbench revolt this week. Ministers have warned there will be costs to their backtracking on the plans, as Downing Street and the Treasury will be looking to cover the spending shortfall left by the decision. The Tories will look to lay amendments to the legislation – set to be renamed the Universal Credit Bill – and party leader Mrs Badenoch is due to deliver a speech on welfare on Thursday. Among the amendments the Conservatives will propose is a requirement for eligibility for Pip to be determined by a face-to-face meeting, rather than virtually. As part of the Government's reforms, the Department for Work and Pensions has proposed a new 'severe conditions criteria' for universal credit. Claimants in this category will be entitled to a higher rate of the benefit, and will not be routinely reassessed to receive money. Another of the Conservatives' amendments would prevent somebody from being classed as having a severe condition for the purpose of universal credit only by having anxiety, mild depression, or ADHD. The third amendment would block the increase in universal credit and restrict Pip for some people who are not British citizens. In her welfare speech, Mrs Badenoch is expected to say that the Conservatives are 'the only party that is prepared to take the tough decisions to get spending under control'. 'I have no doubt that, emboldened by their success in forcing Starmer to U-turn last week, Labour's backbench MPs will now be eyeing up more concessions,' she will say. The original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected would save up to £5 billion a year, and economists are now warning that tax rises are likely to plug the gap left by the concessions to rebels. On Friday, Chancellor Rachel Reeves admitted that the fallout over the Government's welfare Bill had been 'damaging' and did not rule out tax rises in the autumn budget. It came after images of the Chancellor crying during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday spooked the financial markets and led to questions about her future, although a spokesman said she was upset by a personal matter. In an interview with The Guardian, Ms Reeves said it would be 'irresponsible' to rule out the idea of tax rises and warned 'there are costs to what happened' with the welfare Bill. The Sunday Times reported that the two-child benefit cap could be unlikely to be scrapped – as many Labour backbenchers want – as ministers look to balance the finances.
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer has revealed himself to be the most politically hopeless PM of my lifetime
We are told that it was 'personal' reasons which caused Rachel Reeves to weep at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday. No doubt that is true. But when a prominent person weeps on a public occasion, the tears are prompted by a confluence of the personal and the political. Whatever upset Ms Reeves felt was surely compounded by her desperate and isolated political situation following the collapse of the Government's welfare reform Bill. The first Rachel wept, as is recorded in the Old Testament Book of Jeremiah. She was weeping for her children, but hers were public tears too: she was revered as the wife of the patriarch Jacob and mother of Joseph. God told her: 'Refrain thy voice from weeping and thine ears from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded.' It has to be said that Sir Keir Starmer was rather less generous to his Rachel than was the Almighty to the Mother of Israel. When, across the floor of the House, Kemi Badenoch pointed out to him that his Chancellor 'looks absolutely miserable', he did not turn round to comfort or even to check. Nor did he take up the Leader of the Opposition's invitation to confirm Ms Reeves in her post. Before the session ended, the Prime Minister did say something about being 'grateful' to her, but by then it was too late. Afterwards, No 10 declared that Ms Reeves was 'going nowhere', a phrase which, in the circumstances, was either tin-eared or barbed. In an interview, Sir Keir insisted she would continue as Chancellor for the next election and for years beyond. He is in no position to make such a promise. People often complain about the 'bearpit' of PMQs. This week's half hour was certainly uncomfortable to watch, but it did show why such occasions can make a difference. In a few minutes of parliamentary theatre, we got to the heart of the matter. In passing, it is worth pointing out that Mrs Badenoch did well. With wit and concision, she identified Labour's key embarrassments – the second U-turn at the very last moment, the fact that a cost-cutting Bill will now save nothing at all and Sir Keir's problem that 'he does not know what he believes'. She seized the chance to get her own party back on the long road to the economic respectability it so badly lost in government. Whereas Labour had just voted for spending more money, she said, the Conservatives know the nation must 'live within its means'. Sir Keir's capitulation vacates the political ground of prudence, giving the Tories the chance to re-occupy it – and at a time when Reform has decided to become a big-spending party. In the end, those who want to give ever more public money to people who do not want to work are fewer than those who do work and will now almost certainly have to pay higher taxes. On this point, Mrs Badenoch spoke with justified confidence. An oddity caused by the slow Conservative leadership election process last year is that Mrs Badenoch has still not addressed her annual party conference as leader, so the troops do not feel they know their general. Now she has a victory under her belt to celebrate with them. She has won on some other subjects recently, such as the grooming gangs inquiry, but this week was her first big breakthrough. More important right now is what all this means for the Government which we might still have for four more years. Again, PMQs gave useful optics. Most of the time, the camera concentrated on just three people on the front bench – the Prime Minster in the middle, inexpressive as usual; to the right, the crumpled Chancellor, in a blue suit, trying and failing to conceal her distress; to the left, in a striking all-red number, the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, head erect and smiling in a nothing-to-do-with-me sort of way. You could see the future, and why it won't work. It still seems almost incredible that a government only a year old should have cut off its room for future progress so early. There may be a case that the public finances, though bad and getting worse, are not so disastrous that all is lost, but history does suggest that such a serious failure of economic and political will is very hard to come back from. Wilson's Labour government lost confidence after having to devalue the pound in 1967, and lost the election in 1970. Heath's Tories executed their U-turn on free markets and non-intervention in 1972, and lost (twice) in 1974. Labour went 'cap in hand' to the IMF in 1976, and lost to Mrs Thatcher in 1979. John Major's Tories won a general election in April 1992 but had to take the pound out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in September. Tony Blair trounced them in 1997. In some of these cases, notably Major's, the economy did recover, but in all of them the government was seen to have failed in its economic stewardship. The voters duly punished it. This time, the Government has undoubtedly failed. Labour's selling-point to the electorate a year ago was that, unlike the Tories, and particularly the horror story of Liz Truss, it would restore growth and control the public finances with enough discipline that the proceeds of that growth would improve public services. It has taken only 12 months, almost to the day, to discredit all those promises. In reaction, some have criticised the rebel Labour MPs who forced Sir Keir's retreat for their economic illiteracy. Downing Street special advisers speak unattributably to lobby journalists with foul-mouthed quotations about the idiocy and self-indulgence of their party's backbenchers. It is true that social media have made MPs more narcissistic and less loyal to their party. It is also true that failure to rein in welfare spending is – along with the NHS – the road to national ruin. But Sir Keir and his political advisers seem to have a very hazy idea of what it is like to be a member of Parliament. With all aspects of social policy, MPs will have numerous constituents who will be directly affected and will complain to them. Most MPs of the governing party will be prepared to justify unpopular government policy if they can do so as part of a big story of foreseeable recovery or of dire necessity. It is incredibly hard to do so, however, when the policy unexpectedly removes existing money from claimants, and when the overall picture of what the government is trying to do is so contradictory and confusing. In the case of personal independence payments (PIPs), there are a great many scandals (some recently documented by the TaxPayers' Alliance) about how easily people can get the money for inadequate or trumped-up reasons. A government set on persuasion could have dramatised such freeloading to win over voters. It did not. Instead, it suddenly threatened millions of claimants, thwarting reasonable expectations. You don't have to be a Zarah Sultana-style Corbynista to worry. Any decent MP would want to voice those discontents at Westminster. In my lifetime, and therefore in the lifetime of the great majority, no Labour government has ever been able to cope with bad economic conditions. They have been boom-time phenomena, triumphantly so in the case of Tony Blair's first two terms. Sir Keir's administration has quickly reverted to this depressing type, adding a political incompetence that would make anyone weep.
