As Parliament packs up for its summer and autumn break, it was a pleasure to see Joan Humble popping up to make a rare intervention in the House of Commons. In a spirit of enquiry, I thought it might be worthwhile to offer my comments on what she said, since I never get the chance to go head-to-head with her.

Yvette Cooper (out-of-her-depth, it always seems, and rather nasty with it, just like her husband, Ed Balls!) was presenting the Child Poverty Bill. An issue of concern, undoubtedly, as another 400,000 have come under Labour’s own definition of child poverty since 2004/05. Where progress was made, it seems to have consisted of moving children just beneath the poverty barrier to just above it – and engrained poverty has barely improved. Tax credits have been a fiasco, and have been over-emphasised when it is surely self-evident that ‘work’ is the only sustainable route out of poverty in the long-term.

Simply legislating to end child poverty will not make it happen. Like so much of Labour’s governing, the act of legislating is seen to be sufficient, rather than actually considering what the tools of implementation are. I question whether a Child Poverty Commission is the magic wand. Are more quangos really what we need?

But Joan’s contribution was specifically about Sure Start centres. These have become a Labour shibboleth, almost sanctified for their mere existence. Yet many, including the National Audit Office, have questioned the effectiveness of a scheme which has consumed well over £3 billion down the years. Given that level of spending, should we not be questioning whether we are getting value for money, rather than just agreeing on the ‘motherhood and apple pie’ aspects. Even Tony Blair has described Sure Start centres as a ‘disappointment’. Research has found them to have little impact on school-readiness, for example.

Labour, including in Blackpool, have accused Conservatives of wanting to shut Sure Start Centres. Let’s nail that lie now. And let me explain what will occur. Labour have already enlarged budgets, and sought to enfold the Sure Start schemes in wider Children’s Centres. This is an understandable response to many of the criticisms from the Climbie Enquiry. However, one consequence of this has been to progressively squeeze the ‘health promotion’ element of Sure Start in favour of educational progress. The Early Years Strategy contained a nonsensical 62 targets, for example, for childhood educational development! If I were more cynical, I might suggest that focusing on early years education is almost an attempt to correct faults at primary level by not actually interfering with a crotchety teaching profession. Even Norman Glass, one of the pioneers of the Sure Start programme, has expressed concern at the priority now given to education rather than health in these child-focused programmes. So we are planning to spend money focusing once again on health. We would provide more health visitors for new families with new-borns and toddlers. It is very similar to the Nurse Family Partnership in the US. Evidence has been judged strong enough to designate it as a model program for preventing child maltreatment. NFP targets low-income, first-time parents and their families during pregnancy and the first two years of the child’s life. It aims to improve pregnancy outcomes by changing health-related behaviours such as smoking and drug-taking; improve child health and development by helping parents provide more responsible and competent care for their children; and improve families’ economic self-sufficiency by helping parents to plan subsequent pregnancies and find work. The NFP emphasises program fidelity, especially that home visitors should be nurses who have received additional training in the program, as opposed to volunteers or paraprofessionals.

And Labour, to follow their own logic, want to ‘cut’ this?