Money would be much better spent elsewhere if you are really interested in tackling child poverty.

First, we know that marriage tax credits are not a good way of targeting resources, as some deprived households only has one parent and it is wrong to discriminate against such families.

Second, promoting marriage itself is a misguided way of improving child outcomes. While there is a correlation between marriage and better child outcomes – this is explained by having two parents with a stable relationship involved in a child’s upbringing, rather than marriage itself promoting better outcomes. Both Conservative and Labour have therefore rightly recognised the importance of relationship support services, such as Relate. But to target child poverty, we should be directly targeting the most deprived rather than giving all married couples a tax break.

Third, there is no evidence that providing financial incentives for married couples has the purported effect of encouraging couples to marry and stay married.
Sonia Sodha, Head of the Capabilities Programme, Demos

As a former chief executive of Gingerbread, the lone parent charity, I know that the most effective way to target child poverty is through child tax credits. A tax allowance for marriage would go to married millionaires who do not need it. That is not the sort of redistribution which alleviates child poverty, it exacerbates it.
Mary Honeyball MEP

It is right that David Cameron is challenged both on whether he intends to introduce measures to support marriage in the tax system, and on the detail of that policy and the impact it would have on child poverty.

I agree that we should be doing more to prevent family breakdown, but I do not believe that a married couples’ tax allowance would make a difference. Instead we should look at the root causes, such as the stress involved in working for long hours on low pay, poor housing and ill health. We should support parents to manage their caring and work responsibilities with better paternity leave for fathers, greater tolerance of flexible working across all jobs, and practical help with childcare.

At a time when public spending will need to be carefully prioritised, tax credits are the best way to support low income families as they do not discriminate on the basis of family structure, but rather are targeted on those living in poverty.

It is also concerning that the Conservative plans would actually reduce the incentive to work for the second earner in a couple. Whilst we still have a gender pay gap, this would increase inequality in the workplace between men and women at a time when women’s employment rates have reached record levels.
Kate Groucutt, Fabian executive, and council candidate, London Borough of Islington

It is undeniable that David Cameron talks about children, child poverty and families in a way unheard of from a Conservative in my political lifetime. This is testament to how far a decade of centre-left government can shift the political debate in Britain. Today’s proposals on the future of Sure Start continue in this vein.

However, as with every policy announcement in the run up to the election, the detail will be important. David Cameron’s proposals to bring together early years funding, increase accountability and enable the diversity of provision that can best meet different communities’ needs could bring real benefits. Community-based services, designed around the local needs, and involving local people in their own solutions can really change lives.

However, there are two notes of caution I would sound. Firstly, Cameron said that Sure Start had lost its way and should refocus on the most disadvantaged, and secondly that voluntary providers running centres should be paid by results.

The fact is that Sure Start Children’s Centres are already playing a vital role in supporting vulnerable families. Whilst they can certainly do more, rolling them back to a narrow focus on the poorest risks residualising the provision and creating a sense of stigma that will prevent those that need it most from seeking help.

Secondly, it is obviously right that in an increasingly tight fiscal environment every penny of public money must be spent wisely. However, international evidence shows that the real gains from early years investment are not fully realised until those children reach maturity. Snapshot assessments, taken on unrealistic time frames, must not be used as an excuse to cut the programme down the line.

More detail on these points is needed, but families can be pleased that they are at top of the political agenda of all the parties.
Claire McCarthy works at the charity 4Children. She writes here in a personal capacity