EARLY years centres prevent around 13,000 hospitalisations of young children a year, a new report has claimed.

The positive effects of Sure Start centres are “substantial,” the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) concluded, with the main benefits flowing to poorer neighbourhoods.

Sure Start, introduced by the Labour government in 1999, provides centres giving help and advice on child and family health, parenting, money, training and employment, with some also offering early learning and day care for pre-school children.

The new research, funded by the Nuffield Foundation and coming ahead of the autumn spending review, follows massive Conservative cuts to Sure Start since 2010 with the closure of more than 500 centres.

Shadow children and early years minister Tulip Siddiq said: “Labour has repeatedly warned that the Conservatives’ cuts to Sure Start are a false economy and this report shows just how much we have lost in the decimation of this programme.

“For over a decade, Conservative governments have failed to listen to families who have been unable to get the childcare, early education and wellbeing support they need.

“Ministers must start listening and come forward with a proper plan to rebuild this essential infrastructure after a decade of neglect.”

Sarah Cattan, IFS associate director and also a co-author of the report, said: “The savings from reduced hospitalisations up to age 15 offset around a third of the cost of the Sure Start programme — and that’s before considering any potential benefits in education, social care or crime.

“Ahead of this autumn’s tight spending review, these results are a reminder that policymakers should consider a programme’s potential for long-term savings, not just its up-front costs.”

Early Years Alliance chief executive Neil Leitch insisted the government should have “no hesitation in making a significant investment into early childhood development.”

He said: “Recent governments have shamefully let down children and families by not only cutting Sure Start services which reduce hospitalisations, and do much more good besides, but also by allowing funding for under-five education to dwindle to far less than the cost of delivering it.”