News

Childcare idea would pay parents
Nannies without clearance
DDA Extends Requirements

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Apr Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


13 October 2004 - Childcare idea would pay parents

The government should scrap tax credits and pay parents to stay at home caring for their children, a report argues. Paid post-natal parental leave should be extended to a full year, say the Daycare Trust charity and the Social Market Foundation think-tank. Then a new ‘home care allowance’ should cover children up to the age of two.

Their report argues that a package of early education, care and parental leave could have significant economic and social benefits for Britain. This is estimated at 1% to 2% of national income, or £12bn to £24bn a year.

This would come from increasing parental employment and boosting the future productivity of the children who had had high quality early education and care. The valuation, by PricewaterhouseCoopers, says Sweden and Denmark currently spend about 2% to 2.5% of their gross domestic products on early education and care - excluding parental leave payments.

The social benefits would flow from having fewer children living in poverty and from lifting the ‘life chances’ of those from disadvantaged homes. The cost to the taxpayer would rise gradually to the equivalent of between £8bn and £15bn by 2020, says the report.

All parents and children should have the chance to enjoy time as a family. Childcare tax credits would eventually be abolished to help meet the costs, with funding going mainly to early education and care providers. The childcare "vision" includes the 8am to 6pm "wraparound" childcare set out in the government's proposals for extended schools.

It also envisages free early years places for all two year olds. The one-year parental leave would involve six weeks at 90% of normal earnings and the rest at the national minimum wage.

An option would be to extend parental leave to 18 months, instead of the care allowance - which would eventually be worth on average 50% of the minimum wage.

The report says "it is generally agreed" that parents would have to contribute to extended schooling. It says a maximum of 30% of the costs would be comparable with other EU countries with well-developed early years provision.

Adopting the Swedish model, for instance, would translate in UK terms to a cap of about £21 a week for the first child, falling to about £7 per week for the third child - with others being free.

"This would certainly make early years provision affordable for all, but at the cost of giving a significant tax-payer subsidy to better-off parents who could afford to pay more."

The director of the Daycare Trust, Stephen Burke, said: "All parents and children should have the chance to enjoy time as a family and have access to quality affordable childcare and early education to get the best start in life.

"It's vital that we continue to be ambitious and develop a clear vision for the future that builds on existing achievements."

In response, the Department for Education and Skills said it would unveil its own plans for early years and childcare as part of the Pre-Budget Report later this year.

"However, the proposals set out in these reports today represent what might be done if money were no object.

"We believe childcare needs to be both affordable for parents and affordable for the government and the tax payer."

Source: www.bbc.co.uk/news

page top


08 October 2004 - Nannies without clearance

Unqualified and inexperienced nannies are being recruited by agencies without references or police checks, consumer magazine Which? reports. It said some agencies were more interested in charging a finder's fee than checking qualifications.

Such behaviour puts children at risk, Which? has called for a registration scheme that insists on extensive police checks and a minimum level of qualifications or experience. Nannies and au-pairs are the only unregulated form of childcare in the UK.

Many parents use agencies because they are authorised to carry out Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks, which parents cannot do themselves.

Three of the 20 agencies contacted by undercover would-be nanny "Emily" were happy with a local police check, which is less thorough and includes only details of convictions, Which? said.

One London-based agency suggested placing Emily with a family before any police check was carried out. "This kind of lapse could lead to a previously convicted nanny being placed with an unsuspecting family," Which? said.

"Not only are these agencies putting children in potential danger, but they're charging parents hundreds of pounds for this kind of irresponsible recruitment," it added. Emily's only experience was babysitting her sister, and she asked for jobs where she would be in charge of children while their parents were out.

One agency in the north of England told Emily she would be suitable for a sole-charge, live-in nanny job. A staff member told her: "All the qualified nannies only want to work nine to five, so if you can be flexible we might be able to find you work."

The agency later told another Which? investigator, posing as a parent, that all its nannies were qualified, experienced and professional. Which? editor Malcolm Coles said: ""The results of our investigation will make worrying reading for parents.

Five agencies were prepared to take on a nanny with no experience, and some did not insist on references or proper criminal record checks. Which? said that childcare experts recommend a nanny in a sole-charge position to have at least two years' childcare experience or a suitable qualification.

One London agency, which charged parents £999 for filling a live-in position, agreed to accept a reference from Emily's sister.

Ten of the agencies were randomly chosen from Yellow Pages, and 10 were members of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) - a professional body for nanny agencies.

A spokesperson for the Department for Education and Skills said: "The responsibility is very clearly with employment agencies to undertake the appropriate checks if they are supplying people to work with vulnerable groups, including children."

page top


01 October 2004 - DDA Extends Requirements

New laws requiring shops, restaurants and other businesses to make sure disabled people can use their services come into effect today.

The new legal duties will come into force as part of the Disability Discrimination Act.

All service providers will have to take "reasonable" steps to ensure disabled people can use the same services offered to able-bodied people.

Research published earlier this week found few businesses and service providers have yet taken sufficient steps to meet the demands.

Disability activists warn the new law meant there was a likelihood either of court cases to enforce rights, or of direct action against specific offenders.

"The latest duties are to remove or alter physical barriers to your service and I think most service providers don't even know that they have got to do that," Direct Action Network spokeswoman Barbara Lisicki said.

"Just take a stroll along any High Street and you'll find that it is the same as it was a year ago."

The Disability Rights Commission will oversee the working of the new legislation.

"We will be playing an active role monitoring the take-up of these new responsibilities among business through calls into to our casework and help line," a spokesman said.

"Many businesses are far in advance with plans to improve access but those that haven't should understand that doing nothing is not an option."

Kevin Hawkins, director general of the British Retail Consortium, said: "Every retailer's aim is to provide first-rate service and a welcoming environment for all their customers."

Source: www.skynews.com

page top


Printer friendly page