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

Some very good points on here.

Can I just add a small one. More trained CM/nurseries for children with SN, and for those not to charge double for taking a child with SN would help as well.

If large employers could be persuaded to provide on site nurseries that would be a big help.

Also, don't know what can be done about this, but my DD starting to school fills me with dread. As someone said up thread, I feel sorry that DD will have to spend her holidays in holiday clubs or wrap around care because my leave allocation is so much smaller than school holidays (and I get a fairly generous holiday allocation.)

I feel as though as a young woman, you are told to aim high and get a good job, which you try to do, you work your way up the career ladder and then you have a baby and in most cases end up being torn between childcare and working because mortgage costs are so ridiculously high....

I just dont know.

I agree with many that child care skills are undervalued. Dd's NNs are mostly excellent, I trust them implicitly and they have formed a huge part of her early childhood. I think it's appalling how low the pay is against the responsibilities of the job. I think the on the job NVQs are rubbish too. They are privately assessed and the assessment standard is poor - I dread to think what less qualifications would look like!

Ethel - yes me too -dd is settled in nursery now but sadly she will have years ahead of her at holiday clubs etc or being passed around friends l
I worked at a lovely holiday club when I was at uni few years back. We had as much fun as the kids we looked after . It was subsidised for the first year or two then had to become self sufficient - it couldn't. The holiday club folded leaving after school provision jointly with the school that hosted it, then school held it then it just died. We had parents crying when the holiday club went because there twee no other options for primary age kids in that area

Allow grandparents to be paid with child are vouchers. That way, one can get better help (in most cases) than nursery, women will feel better about leaving children with grandparents than a nursery and grandparents get an allowance (which the government can claim at on). Win win for all.

If greater benefits - in the form of tax allowances or whatever - were made available to working parents to help with the cost of childcare, do people think that it's necessary to make these available to stay at home parents as well?

A couple of people have suggested that and I have to say that I can't really see the argument. I DO think that family members looking after grandchildren or whatever should receive some of those benefits - LineRunner and Bonsoir made an excellent argument for this - but are we really saying that working parents shouldn't be entitled to extra benefits unless SAHMs or SAHDs are also paid for looking after their own children? Really?

I DO see that SAHPs are making financial sacrifices by staying at home, but I don't see why the govt should compensate them for it. There IS a case for helping parents into work (in households where no adults would otherwise be in work) because it reduces dependency and creates long term stability for the family. For me, the choice the govt should be presenting would be: "stay at home if that's your choice and your household income enables it, but if you want to be back in work, then we'll give you the help you need". I can't see an argument in there for giving extra benefits to SAHPs.

Unless it's an argument for transferable tax allowances - I understand that and think it's something the got should introduce.

Sorry - mostly thinking aloud but I'd be interested to hear the arguments for paying parents.

The government needs to move to a much more simple system of payment before taxes as the childcare vouchers system just does not work. In France they have a system of Employer Cheques whereby you by cheques to the relevant value to pay to your employees (ie nanny). This ensures that the employee pays tax and that the cost is not so onerous for the employer as it is from pre-tax earnings. But, has the advantage of avoiding all the hoops to get a nanny registered and the inherent risk that once you get your nanny registered she is snapped up by someone else once registered. Same system works for cleaners and other paid help which also deals with the problem of cash payment that was so recently attacked. The point is it is a simple system for both the employer and employee so works unlike the complicated systems we have here. It may also create jobs.

I don't think that any 'benefit' given to working parents to help toward child care should also be given to non working parents. Subsidising a parent to stay out of work makes little economic sense. By giving tax breaks for child care it encourages parents back to work which in turn ups the demand for childcare resulting in more child care jobs. So two extra tax payers and two extra people with more money to spend. What benefit does the government get by 'paying' a SAHP?

I think the same tax breaks should be given to self employed but this could get complicated if they decided to use family, should vouchers become payable to family members.

I'm sorry - I don't support paying SAHP. The point of tax credits is a reward/inventive because you contribute to the economy. I realise many stay at home parents do do because it's not profitable for them to work and pay childcare but the reward is that you then don't pay childcare! The payment for both parents/lone parents staying at home is income support!
I do support childcare vouchers for grandparent care but it's not win win. My mum is nearly 70 and has dd for 1 day a week (which is 100% more than the majority of my parent friends) - I don't know how long she will be able to do this though maybe until dd goes to school in 2 years but she has already said no to having dd2 - it's too much for her. I absolutely recognise the value of grandparent care but I'd hate it to take the focus away from the bigger problem which is affordable nursery/childminder care.

Furthermore I'm struggling with school choices for dd. I'm left with only being able to consider the ones with after school clubs insteAd of being able to choose a really great school. I have no choice because I am a lone parent and I have to work part time.

This is the thing that makes me most sad - financially I am winning - good job with somewhat flexible hours, affordable childcare and materially, the dd's and I have a privileged quality of life but the dd's will always be time poor with me

Look at Asia, where women are more likely to stay on at a senior level in a law firm than they are in the UK or the US. They have cheap childcare from Filipino and Indonesian nannies. The quality of childcare is fantastic and their work ethic is great. Filipino nannies typically have university degrees. If we want cheap childcare, the government has to allow more of these workers into the UK. And I agree, childcare costs should be tax-deductible. Companies should also be shown that they will be punished severely if they won't let parents work part-time and enjoy job security.

" If we want cheap childcare, the government has to allow more of these workers into the UK. "

What a load of bollox. No, we have enough immigrants. British childcare workers get paid little more than the minimum wage and you want to drive their pay down further by getting in immigrants.

It would be morally wrong to pay immigrants less than a living (minimum wage). We have plenty of nursery nurses in the UK. We just have to pay them!

pay people to stay home and take care of their own kids, too many young kids in crappy expensive nurseries/too many childminders doing the job for the sole reason it fits in with their own kids/tpp many parents working for nothing/too many 11/12 yr olds left alone all day in the summer holidays with no one to look after them

reallytired - glad it wasn't just me who was horrified by that post. but how very tory, LonGlutton.

i've lived in Malaysia where middle class families do indeed have cheap Indonesian nannies/staff - who are paid almost nothing and have a shit quality of life, never mind not speaking the language etc - its actually a bit of a human rights issue. so no thank you - i do not see that as an option.

I think the solution is not exploiting one woman to enable another woman to earn a wage.

Agree with ssd. Too many parents working to make T*sco's fast buck while their kids suffer with second rate care, or no care at all.

Does this have to descend in to a WOHM vs SAHM thread? I would really like our views on childcare to be taken seriously.

Prehaps familes need decent rates of child benefit rather than childcare vouchers. I am not sure whether the governant should particularly favour parents who work for large companies over the self employed or stay at home parents.

The present scheme is only accessible to those who work for medium to large companies.

Lots of playschemes in our area do not take childcare vouchers as they are too bureaucratic. Our school does not accept them for the after school club. I found that holiday playschemes that do accept the vouchers charge far more, which defeats the object.

I think there is a tenancy that when the governant offers funding childcare providers just put up their fees. Many childcare providers want to milk as much money as possible out of the parents.

Childcare has doubled in cost over the last 5 years, but salaries of the parents or the nursery nurses have not increased as dramatically.

I agree that vouchers are not what parents in lower paid jobs need -it's a higher rate of child benefit or childcare tax credit that can be paid to any carer without restriction.

Am I alone in thinking that we, as a society, have got our priorities all wrong? Our DCs are the future, we should value them more than any paid job, and this should be reflected in the value we place upon SAHP. Yes I am a SAHM, a choice I made, giving up a well-paid career and choosing to accept a financially poorer standard of living, but a far more satisfying one, in my opinion. I'm not saying all mothers SHOULD stay at home, but surely the current situation values the incredibly important job of child-rearing as utterly worthless. Parents should be encouraged to raise their children themselves, why are we looking to constantly palm this job off onto someone else?!

Care-giving in general, whether it be nurses in a hospital, or parents at home has always been deemed a low-value job. But what is more important than quality of life? We place far too much emphasis in this world on material wealth and we overlook the importance of social well being at our own peril IMO. and I think more and more people are getting sick of this culture of greed, which is an inevitable outcome when we pursue wealth at the expense of everything else.

I don't see how you are contributing to the economy when you are being paid a minimum wage and therefore minimum tax, but accept childcare vouchers to the tune of several hundred pounds per month, per child.

However someone will benefit from your cheap labour and you can be your bottom dollar that his profit won't be invested back into this country and will go into some investment opportunity.

Thing is, Sombrine, I didn't really get a choice. Husband did a runner, left me with two toddlers and a mortgage, so I had to work, and I had to use childcare.

I think the question is, what is the most cost effective way for the State to be subsidising that? I would argue

1. Get some money out of the father for the childcare costs;
2. allow me to pay for the best and actually cheapest form of childcare e.g. friend or relative, which would attract the least subsidy from the public purse and benefit everybody.

Can I just clarify what the childcare vouchers actually are? They are not a free handout from the government to pay for childcare! You still pay out the value of them with your hard earned cash yourself. Your salary is dropped appropriately to factor this in.

The key difference between paying for nursery with childcare vouchers instead of out of your bank account is that you don't have to pay tax with vouchers, whereas you will have been taxed on your earnings in your bank account. But ultimately you are still paying for the childcare - not the government.

So I think it's unlikely that childcare providers will suddenly double their fees if the government raises the cap for childcare vouchers. Since I'm paying the nursery fees, I'd be rather put out and move my child(ren) elsewhere!

If all the providers decided to band together to raise their prices, meaning I had no lower cost option, then that's when we have a problem with monopoly.

I agree with what others are saying, that childcare vouchers (or equivalent) should be available to everyone in employment, including self-employment, to essentially make childcare costs tax-free.

i think childcare vouchers are being confused with working tax credits, th childcare element.

I seriously think they should look at the models used in countries like Finland, Sweden and Norway. Basically, the taxes are a bit higher, but childcare is very affordable - in Finland, for instance, I think the maximum per child is less than half of what I pay at the moment. This makes me think that the government here would prefer me to stay home and not pay taxes. Very short sighted. Obviously it's pretty much impossible to lower the prices without lowering quality, so the government really ought to start subsidising this.

There was a time when people used to scoff at the idea of school being free, because it was seen as the responsibility of the parents to educate children if they saw fit to do so. Then 150 years ago universal primary education was introduced for various reasons, including feeding literate people into the workforce, as well as stabilising society and reducing lawlessness and poverty.

We are in this position now with childcare. There is a lot of faffing about arguing about who should pay for it, etc, whereas the reality is that we will never be able to have true prosperity or equality until it is free as well. And universally of a similar standard to schooling, delivered by qualified, interested people.