I’m a working parent get me out of here is the unspoken wish of many mothers and fathers as they face the daily challenge of juggling the often competing demands of being a caring parents with the responsibility of holding down a job.

This is one area in which people look to the government for support and assistance. For Labour childcare and early years provision must be a priority because it is one of the most tangible ways in which those traditional Labour goals of social justice and opportunity for all can be made real. They provide the means by which some of the most deep seated problems we still face – inequality, poverty and lack of social mobility – can be tackled.

It is for this reason that the government has placed children at the heart of many of its policies. Already child poverty has been reduced by a quarter and the crusade to help the most disadvantaged will continue.

One of the first steps taken after the 1997 election victory was to scrap the Tories nursery voucher scheme and replace it with a guaranteed nursery place for every four year old. This was extended at Easter this year to cover every three year old.

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of childcare places available to working parents and even the tax regime has been changed to provide financial help to working parents through the tax credit system.

The National Audit Office recently published its own study into early years and childcare provision. This is not some dry as dust analysis from a bunch of accountants but is a critical and practical overview of where the government has got to in the implementation of its National Childcare Strategy.

The report reflects on the government’s achievements in this area since 1998. It finds that there has been impressive progress with a number of significant improvements.

However the National Audit Office does express concerns. It raises doubts about the sustainability of much of the new provision. It also exposes the significant regional and local variation in the availability of childcare places. For instance the study finds that depending on where you live the number of pre-school childcare places varies between 11 and 58 per 100 pre-school children.

This report poses a challenge to the government. It recognises that there have been successes as a result of strong political leadership backed up by new investment.

However the weaknesses in the present strategy are becoming clear. Much of the funding is short term and insecure. Because initiatives like Sure Start are highly targeted it means that around half the children living in poverty miss out.

And we still have a childcare lottery in this country with access to childcare depending on where families live, level of income and who they work for. When a place can be found it is at a cost. British parents pay the highest childcare bills in Europe, typically around £7,000 a year out of taxed income to provide a two year old with a nursery place.

The reality of the present situation is that we still have too many children missing out on the benefits of quality childcare with research showing how children’s learning, emotional and social development all prosper with good quality care.

If we are serious about providing universal childcare so that all parents have a genuine choice at a price they can afford then we need to re-think the national childcare strategy.

So what should be the new direction? First, we need to move beyond the present highly targeted approach and have a clear vision for childcare in every community.  The future destiny of a child is determined – for better or worse – in the early years. If we are really serious about providing opportunities to all our people then children need to have equal life chances and that means having an equal start in life. In practice one of the most significant ways of achieving this is to ensure that the children of the well-off are cared for in the same place as those of the poor. This happens elsewhere in Europe with considerable benefit.

Universal provision will come at a cost. Whilst places would be free to those on a low income it would be reasonable to expect an income related financial contribution from those who can afford it in order to have the additional places available and avoid the often prohibitively expensive private sector.

This is a good example of where the concept of co-payment for public services, often spoken about by the Prime Minister, would have broad and popular support.

Second, support should be extended to cover home-based childcarers which would include nannies and informal childcare. This would be a recognition that this is sometimes the only form of childcare suitable for people working irregular hours.

Finally thought needs to be given to those nuts and bolts questions like how to recruit and retain a high quality workforce; what kind of regulatory regime should be in place and how schools can play an extended role.

This is now an issue that affects almost every family in this country. A commitment to universal provision as a major part of a new national strategy would demonstrate that Labour was in touch with the needs and concerns of hard pressed parents.

It would form one of the key political dividing lines between Labour and the other political parties in the run-up to the next election. But more importantly it would create a beneficial legacy, not just for this generation of parents and their children but for many more to come.