The government is asking for your views on how to encourage affordable childcare

[FrancesMumsnet]

As you may have heard, the UK government is currently holding a commission on childcare, led by Sarah Teather (Minister for Children and Families) and Maria Miller (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions). The commission is looking at how to reduce the costs of childcare for working families, and burdens on childcare providers, without compromising the safety or quality of provision.

As part of the work of the commission, the government is running a consultation process asking for the views of parents and carers, childcare workers, and those with an interest in child development and safety. You can see the details of the commission and its call for evidence here:
media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/c/commission%20call%20for%20evidence%20document.pdf

The consultation is open to all, so do please read and respond directly to the consultation document if you would like to. But we've also been asked to canvass your views more generally via this thread. What are your greatest concerns when it comes to childcare? Would you be happy to see fewer qualifications demanded of childcare workers if it meant more affordable childcare without compromising child safety? Are there any regulations that you think are unnecessary burdens on childcare providers? How can the provision of wraparound care for school-age children be encouraged?

Do take a look at the commission's call for evidence media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/c/commission%20call%20for%20evidence%20document.pdf and post here to let us know what you think.

Thanks,
MNHQ

They need to raise taxes and subsidise childcare. Can't see any other way around it.

My DH earns just over the limit for us to qualify for tax credits and therefore childcare help, although as a family we earn way less than the limit for two people IYSWIM.

Childcare would take too much of our income, so now, rather than earning and paying tax, I'm on a career break - which means that I will find it very difficult to get back on the ladder when DS is grown.

I'd welcome a tax system/assistance that considers the family - not two separate individuals raising a child.

If i was boss of the UK i would have two years parental leave (to be taken by either parent) funded by a mixture of government funds, employer contributions and a government loan, followed by very heavily subsidised childcare (like in norway) after 2.

Whilst I don't disagree with removing unnecessary regulation, after all, who would; I think the premise is wrong on their other key point.

They're trying to encourage more, affordable, wrap-around, childcare; why? so we can work longer. Why do we need to work longer? To earn enough to keep up with the cost of living...

Of course there are many people who want to work (and aren't currently) who can't afford to because of childcare costs, but again it comes down to how much they would be paid in work.

High quality childcare and teaching is always going to be a significant portion of the outgoings of anyone working in a role that is not paid significantly better than we want our childcare workers and teachers to be paid.

We have too many jobs that pay the less than childcare/teaching (e.g. service sector jobs) and not enough that pay more (highly skilled jobs the product of which we can sell overseas)

Sorting that out or having a tax system that does more redistribution (without literally alienating the highest tax payers) is a rather bigger exercise and one that those who are doing well out of the status-quo have little interest in pursuing (beyond doing enough to get re-elected).

The easiest way to reduce the cost of childcare is to loosen the regulations on the ratio of adults to children. I also think that fewer better qualified childcarers do a better job than more lesser qualified ones.

have you been in a baby room with a one to three ratio bonsoir? Being better qualified does not give you more eyes to sense trouble or arms to cuddle them

I've been in a French baby room, witch .

Having said that, there have been a few scandals recently with babies being locked up in crèches overnight and forgotten, or escaping on their own from crèches.

I agree with Witchwithallthetrimmings, parental leave for 2 years. I personally am not interested in using Childcare before this age regardless of how cheap or expensive it is.

We need to think what is right for the child, not what is right for the country's finances.

I also think that businesses should make people redundant if they refuse a return to either part time work or flexible working after maternity leave rather than forcing the woman to resign. Too many businesses just say no, rather than rethinking how they structure their business practices to make them more family friendly. There are lots of talented, previousaly well paid/highly taxed women who are out of the workforce for this reason, ie, do not work to work 40 hrs a week plus commuting time and have to forgo time with the family.

I also believe that individuals should be encouraged to think more in advance of the costs of raising children before school age. Special savings accounts for this purpose for example. We can only make it through with savings, which I only have as I was saving for a house deposit. We ended up buying a cheaper one so I could afford a few years off to raise my kiddies.

Make childcare costs tax deductable, and/or introduce some sort of means-based fee structure. Really it depends on what they are trying to achieve - if they are trying to encourage more people back into lower paid jobs, they need to means test the fees in some way - but is that what they actually want, I wonder?

I don't really see how you can reduce the providers costs much - it's not like anyone is really making a fortune in childcare as it is.

subsidise it, obviously. And stop greedy millionaire Nursery chain owners charging exorbitant fees while paying staff minimal wage.

I think that the govenant should be doing more to encourage part time work. It would help the over sixtes who cannot cope with working full time until 68 as well as students and young mothers. There would then be less demand for childcare.

I would favour a loosening up in regulation. The governant has become far too prescriptive and it makes a lot of work for childcare providers that the parents have to pay for. It also puts off people becoming childminders. I feel the EYFS should be optional below the age of three. The emphasis should be on childcare providers keeping children safe and happy rather than micro managing. Ie. Whether children do phonics at three should be left up to the parents and nursery.

you see I think the numbers don't really add up for childcare for the under 2s. 1:3 ratio is the bare minimum and if that 1 is to be paid a decent wage, and work in a place where the roof does not leak then then either parents on lowish earnings need to make a loss going out to work OR the state needs to subsidise them. For this to be practical for society as a whole you would need quite a lot of skill depreciation for a 2 year career break. Would it not be better to remove all subsidies for under 2 childcare and allow parents to take out loans (subsidied) so they could look after children themselves for the first two years and then have cheap subsidied childcare after 2.

Why not make it easier for one parent to stay home or both parents to work part time?

Also maybe make it easier for stay home parents to become childminders if they want to. They have a lot of experience and skills and may want to use it to earn an income.

I was about to say exactly what jellybeans has said.

Why not enable men and women to be stay at home parents rather than encouraging people back to work?

In countries where childcare is more affordable than the UK, the standards of care would make most British parents shudder.

Make childcare costs tax-deductible. It makes no sense that they're not. They're absolutely a direct cost of working.

It's also completely implementable. I don't know what people think the government can actually DO to make it easier for people to stay at home with their kids......

+1 to Bonsoir's post - I don't actually begrudge the amount I pay (£73 a day for one over-2). What I get in return is worth far more.

Make absent parents responsible for 50% of the costs of childcare rather than leaving the entire burden on the resident parent.

This could be done by allowing absent parents to claim Tax Credit help with those costs.

Childcare does not just enable the RESIDENT parent to go to work, it also enables the absent parent to go to work, so why are all the costs borne by resident parents?

It could even be done through maintenance and the CSA.

My Ex-P fully understands that when I go back to work, I will expect him to be liable for 50% of the childcare costs. If he can rearrange his working hours do that less paid for childcare is needed, then the costs will be lower, and so will his portion of those costs.

When we were a couple, childcare costs wouldn't have come out of 'his' wages or 'my' wages, they would have come out of 'household income'. So why should I have to bear that cost alone if we are no longer together?

If it means that he has the DC's on every one of his days off to lower the childcare costs, then it is no different to how it would be for me.

Equal parenting means an equal share in the COSTS of parenting, of which childcare is one.

Also, charging £52 a day when someone on NMW only earns £45 a day, well, something doesn't quite add up there, does it?

I think, in essence, what the Government is asking here on MN is "How can we reduce the bill for the childcare element of Tax Credits."

Cynical? Moi?

And there are only three ways to do that, all being needed to be done simultaneously :

1. Make absent parents responsible for 50% of childcare costs, as the likelihood is that their career wasn't interrupted when the DC was born, and they don't have to arrange their working hours around Nursery & After-school club pick ups, so because of both these reasons, they are likely to earn more, and NOT be claiming Tax Credits, thus reducing the Tax Credits bill for childcare.

2. Put in place a lot more state funded Nurseries and after school care, following the Swedish model, that is AFFORDABLE even to those on the lowest wages.

And 3) Make employers pay their staff a LIVING wage rather than the current NMW, which would enable them to cover their childcare without recourse to Tax Credit childcare element.

Unless and until all three of these things are done, childcare costs will continue to cripple mid to low income couples, and be unattainable for Lone Parents in NMW jobs.

HTH.

I'm sick of being asked about affordable childcare. Childcare standards are already abysmally low. For a start make it and absolute presumption that all child-care workers are non smokers and then see if you can actually teach them that children are human beings during their training courses.

Apart from that, subsidise it of course.

My dd's school runs an after school club where the staff are very well-qualified yobboes. She loathed it. I had to get her a child-minder.

Fully agree with CouthyMow As a single parent working full time and in receipt of tax credit for childcare, I was liable for the full 20%, then 30% of the after school fees not covered by tax credits. My exPs maintenance calculation (not that he ever paid..) did not take childcare into account, so I was liable for the full 20/30% of fees. Adding an additional component to the frankly ridiculously low10/20/25% of salary calculation to account for childcare would share the cost between parents and make childcare more affordable for seperated families.

The document is not just about early years provision, but also about school age children in the holidays , before/after school etc -

They could pay me to stay home and look after my own kids?

I get fed up of the feeling I HAVE to go out to work just to pay for someone else to take care of my kids - I have chosen not to (well, part time dinner lady - not much money, but matching the kids for holiday times).

Someone has to take care of my kids - either it stays as it is -I get NET nothing - either stay home for nowt, or earn a bit and pay it all to someone else. Or I could be paid for taking care of them - have money to spend and kick start the economy single handedly. The Government would probably be quids in - pay low paid workers to take care of their own kids - less external childcare needed, less tax credits to pay, less places to inspect, less people to regulate, less health and safety issues, less unhappy folks forced to work hard for next to nothing, more happy mums taking time with their kids... just take half the money saved and pay us to do it anyhow....

I honestly wish I had an answer. I have no idea what we should do.

Except raise taxes on the rich as we should anyway and mark that for childcare costs for the rest of us.

Tee2072 - if you raise taxes on high incomes, people stop working because it is no longer worth their while --> no tax revenue.