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

Bonsoir, true.

I still no other ideas!

Cap childcare fees/charges and subsidise the provider directly.

Invest in more not-for-profit nurseries/wrap around care.

Encourage employers to have/invest in childcare for their employees children.

Good post ByTheWay1. All this (and previous) Government care about is the economy and not the welfare of mothers/fathers/children. We need some normal women (reflecting the majority view) in government not uber feminists who want to force their way or the highway and are obsessive with their narrow version of gender equality above all else. Studies show most women want to work part time around their children or not all all while they are small.

Moving towards the Swedish model (Clegg's precious ideal) is a bad idea. Most mothers work but in lower paid jobs and many have no choice to stay home. Ratios are pretty poor I think and taxes are high. Then there will come the questions such as why should taxpayers pay for parent's nursery care? Shouldn't they consider this before they have children etc etc. Fair points I guess.

Yes I am a stay home mum and it works great for us. I worked full time using childcare for my first baby and hated it. My mindset was totally different after i had had my child, pririties change. Boohoo to the coffers I say. But I contribute in many other ways as well as to my own family and enabling my husband to work odd hours. I am often the only person my elderly neighbours chat to in a day for example. Also volunteering in school is usually me and a handful of other stay home mums and one stay home dad. paid work isn't everything.

Additionally forcing lone parents of small children to work is pretty bad. Why don't they go after the absent fathers? I have a lone parent friend who is happy doing school hours voluntary work. She is the only parent there for her kids after school. Yet the job centre is trying to force her to apply for ridiculous jobs miles away. If she does work, childcare will cost the state far more. Why not let her stay doing voluntary work for goodness sake! Crazy!

We need a decent government choice asap..

The fundamental issue with the cost of childcare is that traditionally (and for a very long time) the cost of childcare was met by unpaid female labour (mothers and also grandmothers, sister, aunts, neighbours). Men didn't feel its cost (much) and it therefore wasn't factored into the costs of society at large.

Gradually women started joining the more structured workplace and their requirement for childcare outgrew what could be met by unpaid female labour alone. Neighbours/teenaged babysitters were paid cash-in-hand for ad hoc childcare or childminders (unregulated) would take care of other people's children in their own homes while they went about their usual domestic working day. Childcare was largely casual labour and accordingly poorly paid.

These days, when massive numbers of mothers of young DCs are in the structured workforce, the need for long-hours, proxy parenting type childcare is huge. But society hasn't quite yet got around to the fact that this costs a lot of money, because it is still hankering after a time when childcare was done for free/cash in hand.

I also have to point out that having the state pay my childcare costs through Tax Credits actually costs VASTLY more than it does for them to pay me Income Support to stay at home with them. Even allowing for the low level of Tax & NI that I pay when working, even working 22.5 hrs a week, I cost the state more than I do as a SAHM.

I'm surprised that no-one in Government has thought to do the sums tbh.

I get full CTC regardless of whether I work or not, due to working for NMW.

I get full Child Benefit as I am not and never will be again due to disabilities a high rate tax payer.

When I am a SAHP, as I am currently, I receive an additional £71 a week as Income Support.

When I am working, my childcare element of Tax Credits ALONE is £210. And that FAR from covers 70% of my childcare - in fact it covers less than 50% as I have to pay for SN childcare for a 14yo AND Nursery for 18mo DS3.

Then there is the Working Tax Credits on top.

It honestly puzzles me that no-one can see that forcing Lone Parents to work is actually COSTING THE STATE MORE THAN LETTING THEM LOOK AFTER THEIR OWN DC's till Secondary school age...

I keep doing a whenever I look at the figures, for me AND all my friends in NMW jobs.

The list it too long but the biggest bugbear is DP earns just over the threshold, so we're worse off than couples who earn just under the threshold and gets to keep all the benefits etc. Cost of childcare and nursery is too high, so returning to work isn't an option (although I love being a SAHM!).

Does this mean that I am doing the State a favour by NOT going back to work until DS3 is 3yo and I get the free 15 hrs? As I'm not costing them £210 a week in childcare costs plus WTC's?

Does it mean that when I do go back to work when he turns 3yo that I am 'scrounging' from the state because I am costing them vastly more than when I was a SAHM on Income Support?

Yet right now, I am vilified for not working, and will be lauded when I do go back to work.

Which is a tad confusing, as I will be costing the state MORE when I go back to work than I currently do!

Raising the limit on childcare vouchers would help. At the moment the combined total of the vouchers DH and I get only cover 2/3rds of the care for one child, so we get taxed on the remainder.

For the subsidised hours for 3 year olds, being extended to some 2 year olds, why not extend it to ALL 2 year olds? That would also help.

DH and I both work full time and earn good salaries, but with childcare costs double our mortgage costs it's absolutely crippling! We can't afford to have another child until the first one is out of childcare, nor can we afford for one of us to stop working.

My usual post on the subject of splitting childcare costs between both parents even in the event of a relationship breakdown goes like this :

Childcare costs £300 a week. Under the current system, RP is responsible for all of that. If RP's income is low enough, they claim TC's to cover 70% of it, and they get the maximum £210 a week help with childcare. And they have to find the other £90 a week to cover the shortfall. Which for someone in a NMW job, is two days wages BEFORE tax & NI.

In MY version, this is what would happen :

RP is responsible for £150 of that £300. NRP is responsible for the other £150.

If RP's income is low enough, RP claims TC's to cover 70% of that £150, leaving RP to cover the remaining £45 a week. If NRP's income is low enough, NRP claims TC's to cover 70% of that £150, leaving NRP to cover the remaining £45 a week.

Tax Credits cost still £210, so no greater outlay, just halving the burden on the RP.

If RP's income is low enough, RP claims TC's to cover 70% of that £150, leaving RP to cover the remaining £45 a week. If NRP's income is too high to qualify for help from TC's, they cover their half of the childcare costs, paying £150. And this works the same vice versa if the RP's income is too high to qualify for help from TC's, but the NRP's income IS low enough to qualify for help from TC's.

Tax Credits cost now just £105, so halving the burden on the state, and putting it firmly back on the person who also holds financial responsibility towards that DC, its NRP/RP, whoever earns more.

If both the RP's and the NRP's incomes are too high to qualify for help from TC's, then they EACH pay £150, still halving the burden on the RP, who currently would have to pay the full £300.

Tax Credits cost nil due to each parents income.

Men want equal parenting, why not. But with equal parenting comes an equal responsibility for the COSTS of parenting, including childcare.

jellybeans - who are the women in government that are" uber feminists who want to force their way or the highway and are obsessive with their narrow version of gender equality above all else"? And what is the majority view of women that you don't feel is being represented?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I just don't want government policy that assumes women should stay at home with their children - which is what you seem to be implying we should have. I'm glad that works for you, but other families' needs are different. Govt policy should enable those who want to work to do so without disadvantaging those who choose to stay at home.

Absolutely agree that NRPs should be 50% responsible for childcare costs.

Spirael, raising the childcare voucher limit will just put prices of childcare up as more greedy nurseries seek to increase their profits with the additional available money.

Agree CouthyMow it is crazy that they pay more to enable many lone parents to be able to work when they could stay home at least while children are small if they want to. But they still prefer this (all working). In fact I am pretty sure that they would prefer all children brought up by others than their parents. Long list of reasons but monitoring, obsessive standards etc. distrust of parents; especially those they consider deprived which usually (and very judgementally) includes lone parents. And of course economics, the childcarer earning as well as lone parent. The lone parent working when childcare no longer an issue, employment figures etc etc.

Bonsoir makes a great point. This social structure is built on the backs of unpaid workers. If they are suddenly all in work, who does the caring? Oh yeah it has to be paid for! Shock! The problem is there is a tension between the needs of children/cared for people and the needs of employers. partly why I left my job is that they expected me to put my job before my child. That isn't going to happen if I can possibly help it. Somebody needs to care. If everybody is in work things will fall apart very quickly. Unpaid carers save the state millions/billions..

I think they should try a method that was tried and tested in another government.

In Quebec, Canada, as an exemple- The government subsidises directly to the Childare provider and the parents pay a flat fee of $7 a day. All this regulated by one body which supervises Chilcare Centre, Homebased Childminders and School Childcare. People pay more taxes but the standard of childcare is very good and allows parents to go back to work.

I was a single mum when I gave birth to my DD- I still benefited from 1 year Maternity Leave subsidised by the governement, giving me 70% of my salary and when I returned to work I was looking at $35 a week in childcare- I was better off working than staying at home - that is the key.

Can you imagine my shock when I moved here and realised I would work for about 2 to 3 years with nearly 70% of my wages going into childcare. Its a sacrifice that paid off in the end because I earn 10K more than I did 6 years ago -now DD is in After School Club and my employer give me childcare vouchers so I'm happier overall.

How to encourage affordable childcare? They could join the Labour party?

And Maria Miller could stop trying to interfere with women's access to abortion services so they can control the size of their family.

I'm not assuming that mothers are the RP's, or the main childcarers, I was brought up by a Lone Parent father. And even before my dad and mother split up, he was the SAHP, hence me carefully using RP and NRP in my posts. That also goes for main wage earner and secondary wage earner. Has nothing to do with gender in my case.

CouthyMow's post is absolutely spot on, for me.

(My ExH has never contributed a penny towards the childcare that kept his children safe whilst I worked to keep a roof over their heads. He just buggered off, got on with his career, and left us to it. Shameful.)

I also think that childcare tax credit should be available for people relying on family members to carry out child care. Why shouldn't people be paid a minium wage for carrying out work? For many lone parents on a low income, turning to another woman (female relative) is all they can afford - so why should another woman be expected to earn nothing so one woman can earn very little?

With my Ex-P, there were periods where he was the SAHP and I was the wage earner, times where I was the SAHP and he was the wage earner, and times where we both were employed (when my/our first DC's were school age).

We just jiggled it around by who could earn more at that particular moment. For the first half our our relationship, that was me by a country mile. For the second half of our relationship, after my diagnosis of epilepsy, it was him by a country mile.

"I also think that childcare tax credit should be available for people relying on family members to carry out child care. Why shouldn't people be paid a minium wage for carrying out work? For many lone parents on a low income, turning to another woman (female relative) is all they can afford - so why should another woman be expected to earn nothing so one woman can earn very little?"

LineRunner - I agree very strongly with this. What you describe harks back to another era when women were expected to provide free labour for family members. It is insulting for such a position to be perpetuated.

Bonsoir - I am relieved you understand what I am talking about!

Some excellent comments, on a slightly different topic, one thing which puts me off doing more than my current v part time job is the school holidays. I have 3 children (2 in school, 1 starts in 2yrs). When ds goes to school I would like to work more, however with summer holiday cover for 3 children, plus the lack of much childcare at all for 12+, anything other than a school job or a very flexible employer will make it tricky.

Provision should be encouraged up to age 14 and both parents (as long as working for a large enough business) should be allowed by law to take an additional 3/4 weeks unpaid leave during school holidays; or at least work half time. It isn't fair that some children virtually spend their childhood at school or holiday clubs.

It should also be easier for after school clubs to expand provision, maybe with slightly higher children:staff ratios.

I agree too
I think the answer to the school age child care problem is not formal childcare - a 7 year old does not want to be cooped up in another class room for 2 or more hours after school but more help given to parents wishing to do play dates (4 children take it in turn to go to different houses after school) for the under 8s and for that age when they are too young to be by themselves but too old for a child minder more safe places for them to play out. More homework clubs at libraries, play workers in parks and bmx tracks, special sessions in swimming pools.

Also (re childcare tax credits) if the government would agree to fund up to 70% of payment to a relative for childcare at (say) £8ph, that's a hell of a lot cheaper than funding 70% of childcare per child in a childcare setting.

The relative would be better off. The children would be better off. The working parent would better off. The flexibility would make the employer better off. The tax payer would be better off.

Winners all round.

is hard though - if you work with people who have no children - why should you be allowed 3/4 weeks unpaid in the summer - what if staffing means that they never get to take time off in holiday periods - not everyone with kids in their family is a parent or a stepparent. Parents are already given more "leeway" at a lot of workplaces , and usually get first dibs on summer break..

In my previous full time job, parents were given first dibs, were allowed part time working and could disappear at a moments notice if child was ill at school - there were more parents than non parents (we childless- at the time - numbered 3) we got to work Christmas/ Easter/Summer/Whit/October break - I have a sister 10 years younger than me- I rarely got to spend a holiday with her as I was not a parent....

Beware of alienating the childless....

I agree there should be more time off n he school holidays and hours to suit school times than have children do longer hours in school.

'"I also think that childcare tax credit should be available for people relying on family members to carry out child care. Why shouldn't people be paid a minium wage for carrying out work? For many lone parents on a low income, turning to another woman (female relative) is all they can afford - so why should another woman be expected to earn nothing so one woman can earn very little?"'

I agree but there is no way this will happen because where will it leave stay home mums? TheGov would then have to pay them and admit they do something. I reckonthat iswhy they woldn't give grandparents an allowace. ie why is it a job (worthy of pay/benefit) if grandparent does it but not mother/father?