Peppin that is not correct.
It is true that in most circumstances paper records fall within the definition of "Data" in the Act, however Data Controllers are only required to register (see S17(2)) if the data
"(a) is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose, [or]
(b) is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of such equipment"
I'm not going to comment on the purpose of registration other than to say that it seems to me that the ICO may have a different view of this than was in the minds of the MPs who passed the legislation. However I will point out that the ICO does not make any routine checks of any Data Controllers to ensure that they are only processing data for the purposes for which they is registered, and they are empowered to investigate any person whether registered or not. Also regardless of whether they are required to register under S17(2) or not, Data Controllers must comply with Subject Access Requests and other provisions of the Act.
It seems to me that if a parent would like to see a childminder's records relating to their child then invoking the Data Protection Act in order to make a Subject Access Request is probably less convenient than ... asking them.
The ICO cracked down on Estate Agents in 2011, sending all Estate Agents details of the requirements with a letter that basically said "if you don't register we are going to come after you". Three Estate Agents were prosecuted: I only have the details of one case to hand; the Data Controller was given a conditional discharge (i.e. was not fined) but did have to pay £614 costs.
Do you think that the ICO would dare to attempt to break Butterfly Childcare on the wheel of justice? I assert again that it is not in the public interest for over two million pounds, more than 10% of the ICO's funding, to come from the pockets of childminders.
Note that the fee for a childminder to register is £35. The fee for a business with 250 employees and a turnover of £25 million is £35. The maximum fee payable by the largest organisation is £500. So a childminder with two children of her own and a couple of mindees struggling to earn a living while providing a safe and educational environment for the children for whom she cares pays £35. The largest business in the land which may store records on millions of people who have no idea what is contained in those records, or even that they exist, pays less than 15 times as much.