Reciprocal childcare consultation response

NCMA Policy team (1 February 2010)

 

A recent government consultation asked:

 

Do you agree that exempting from registration all childcare arrangements between friends except those which are for monetary payment strikes the right balance between parental flexibility and the protection of children's interests?

 

The National Childminding Association does not support the proposal.

 

The National Childminding Association (NCMA) does not support the proposal to exempt from registration all childcare arrangements between friends except those which are for monetary payment. Change is needed but not in the way outlined in the consultation document. 

 

This consultation comes as a result of the high profile media coverage in 2009 about the childcare arrangements between two friends. NCMA believes the proposal is unnecessarily tinkering with the existing rules and will only create further confusion around the definition of what constitutes a friend or what is permitted to be exchanged for informal childcare instead of money.

 

A number of arrangements would be possible under this proposal and a range of services could be exchanged for childcare. The proposed change is confusing and open to abuse. A payment may have been made in kind, rather than by money, but the principle remains the same. Furthermore, it will be very difficult for Ofsted to monitor where illegal childminding is taking place which has serious implications for safeguarding children.

 

Proportionate regulation of childcare practice is not only an important part of safeguarding children, but for registered childminders it plays a significant role in demonstrating to parents that the setting and practice is of good quality. It is vital that parents can be sure their children are in a safe and secure setting.

 

Significant investment in early years has ensured high quality childcare is available to families. It is known that disadvantaged families (such as non-working families and families with a low income) are less likely to use formal childcare than families in better circumstances. This proposal would be a step backwards as families on lower incomes may be increasingly likely to make use of such informal arrangements and consequently suffer the disadvantage of lower quality childcare.

 

Rather than respond as proposed, NCMA urges the Government to show its support for parents and childcare providers by ensuring that wider registration and regulation is not undermined, which would without doubt impact on registered childminder numbers and parental choice. It is important that the professionalism of registered childminding is maintained.

 

The most effective measure would be to clearly outline, with very tight clarification, the definition of the existing term “reward” and ensure this wording is communicated effectively to parents. This should be supported with efforts to highlight the benefits of using regulated childcare. 

 

Members' voices

NCMA has been contacted by a number of members regarding this consultation and a selection of their comments follow.

 

“There is no logical reason for weakening the existing rules. Such a move would place children at greater risk as those with whom they were being left would not have a CRB check, and would be in a position of trust.”

 

“Safeguarding children is supposed to be the government’s top priority and I believe that allowing or encouraging growth in unregulated childcare arrangements will leave the system open to abuse.”

 

“As there are no limits on the number of "friends" which a child will be able to be left with, children’s relationships may suffer as they are passed from one "friend" to another again undermining the quality of care”

 

“I believe there is a high level of risk that parents and registered childminders would use this change in regulation as a route to avoid registration.”

 

“All registered childminders must have a valid insurance policy in place. What is the liability for a “friend” if and when an accident occurs and causes long-term physical disability to a child in their charge?”

 

"There are already unregistered childminders (not inspected) operating who are paid cash which is neither traceable or taxed. They do not have the overheads registered childminders incur in keeping their settings in line with a whole swathe of rules and regulations. This enables them to charge reduced fees and makes it even more difficult for registered childminders to compete.”

 

“If we (and by we I mean the adult population of England) value children and want to do absolutely all we can to give them the very best start in life - be that a baby, young child or early teen, then we should do everything possible to ensure that the childcare they access is of the very best quality.  Surely, only by regulating childcare - and that needs to include all forms of childcare - can we attempt to say that we are doing our best for them and their families.”

 

“If such defined arrangements are exempted, parents are, in effect being given the message that as long as they judge the arrangements to be safe and 'good enough' then other 'formal' childcare provision is in reality not portrayed as being much better. This significantly devalues the quality of registered provision, high levels of professionalism and the hard work and time invested by individuals to achieve recognised qualifications in childcare, which registered providers continually strive towards and maintain to ensure the best possible start for young children.”

 

“I think that this proposal will devalue this home-based professional role further, reducing it to what many people in ignorance of the facts have perceived it to be - 'glorified babysitting'. This may have widespread implications for individual childminding businesses, sustainability issues and consequently the number of childminding childcare places available. At the very least it has the potential to seriously damage childminder's professional image, self-esteem, morale and confidence- what incentive will there be left to continue in this important role, when there is often so little financial reward anyway.”

 

“It is totally naive to think that no money would change hands and how on earth would this be 'policed' anyway, the parents would deny it.”

 

The original news story about this consultation is here.