The ABC of early years intervention

The passion of the secretary of state for work and pensions (Two babies, one future, 2 July) for early intervention to increase the chances of a disadvantaged child moving out of poverty brings horses bolting and open stable doors to mind. For too many children disadvantage starts with a mother who cannot afford a healthy diet and might not know enough about the food she needs to give birth to a healthy baby. International research, headed by the Institute of Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition, has shown that poor maternal nutrition leads to poor cognitive ability, developmental brain disorder and a higher risk of cerebral palsy.

The last government took the point and added the health in pregnancy grant, the baby entitlement of the child tax credit, the toddler entitlement of the child tax credit and the child trust fund, but it too should have started before women conceive by increasing their unemployment benefit of £53.45 a week. The present government abolished all these benefits, so reducing the income during pregnancy and the first year of a baby's life by £1,735, as calculated by Family Action.

An unemployed woman aged 18-25, before and during pregnancy, has an income of just £53.45 a week. This will be more vulnerable to rent arrears from housing benefit caps, still vulnerable to unregulated loan sharks, and is likely to be overtaken by the escalating weekly cost of a healthy diet and domestic fuel, with the annual uprating now pegged to the RPI. The public health white paper only mentions food when abolishing the Food Standards Agency and never mentions debt, another source of mental illness.

Rev Paul Nicolson

Chair, Zacchaeus 2000 Trust

letters illustration 4 July Illustration: Gary Kempston

• Iain Duncan Smith is absolutely right that early intervention is one of the best ways to enhance a young person's prospects. Furthermore, Duncan Smith's ideas for unlocking private capital to address the issues are all imaginative. However, where his argument falls flat is in his mistaken conviction that, wherever the money comes from, local government is the best means of delivery. Wasn't the "big society" meant to get us beyond structures that still waste far too much money on administrative costs and empower those groups who can deliver quality services for a much more competitive return? If Duncan Smith is serious about this issue, why doesn't he empower the churches and other faith communities to deliver much of what is necessary here? They have the networks and the capacity, the skillset, and crucially the vocational mindset to do so.

Canon Chris Chivers

John Keble Church, London

• Iain Duncan Smith wants private investors to run "early intervention" to take children out of poverty – plus a  nice payback for the already rich investors (Report, 2 July). He should study the long neglected research of Dr Harriett Wilson and Dr Geoffrey Herbert, published in 1978. They studied a sample of poor families, along with a control group of those in better circumstances. Yes, the poor parents did show parenting methods which tended to socially handicap their children. But these sprang from the overwhelming effects of poverty on the parents, not from a lack of love or concern. Early intervention may help some – I know that having worked with local projects for 30 years. But a more effective approach is to ensure that all families have an income which removes them from poverty.

Bob Holman


• Iain Duncan Smith suggests the answer to an unequal start in life "lies in social investment: unlocking private finance in the pursuit of the social good". What hogwash! Private capital and capitalist greed are the cause of inequality and not the solution. Genuine social investment would require, among other things, a radical redistributive tax system, a maximum wage and a much-improved minimum wage and an expanded public social sector. None of this will happen under the current government. Today millions of British people are looking for vision of a better future: a good society. Perhaps the time is ripe for the trade unions to form a new party. They did so over 100 years ago and it worked, especially after 1945!

Jol Miskin


Today's best video

Today in pictures