Reem Ibrahim is Communications Officer and Linda Whetstone Scholar at the Institute of Economic Affairs.
Rather than trying to shift responsibility for childcare onto landlords, ministers should be honest about the costs their policies have piled onto families.
Claire Coutinho, the Children and Families Minister, has urged landlords, developers, and housing associations to improve support for prospective childminders. She argued that, as a result of restrictions imposed by landlords which stop them working from home: “too often prospective childminders are having the door slammed in their faces”.
The Government is clutching at straws here. The number of registered childminders has fallen from over 100,000 in the mid-1990s, to less than 30,000 today. Lockdown restrictions accelerated the decline, with many childminders being unable to work in other people’s homes.
The cost of childcare in the United Kingdom is incredibly high compared to other European countries, unnecessarily compounding the cost-of-living crisis. The cost of putting an under-two-year-old in full-time care has risen by 171 per cent since 2000, creating a devastating burden on parenthood.
Coutinho is wrong, however, to place the blame on landlords.
Part of the decline in child minders has been the result of greater competition from nurseries, which have significantly expanded over the past few years. There are now over 14,000 early years settings registered in the UK. This is partly a result of the changing preferences of parents, many of whom prefer their children to be looked after in more professional settings.
Increased availability and accessibility of jobs for women have also impacted this decline. Childminders are almost exclusively women, and with a more dynamic and buoyant labour market, the number of women who are willing to become childminders has declined.
Nevertheless, the primary culprit for the decline in the number of childminders lies with the Government and local authorities, which have increased onerous regulations on the home environment.
It’s a career path that is regulated by Ofsted, who oversee and inspect education and childcare services, and these requirements must be fulfilled in order to legally work as a childminder.
The Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework, defined in the Childcare Act 2006, lays down a detailed specification for the “learning, development and care” of children up until the age of five.
All Ofsted-registered early years care providers are required to follow the EYFS, including preschools, nurseries, reception classes, and of course, childminders. This includes keeping detailed records, adding a barrier to those with poorer education and even some who have learnt English as a second language – despite the fact that they may be perfectly capable of providing a safe and caring environment.
This year, the Department of Education launched a consultation to explore removing the “unnecessary burdens” that the childcare sector faces. These proposals included amending the EYSF framework to separate childminders and school-based providers, with the aim of making it easier to navigate and implement.
Although these proposed reforms are a step in the right direction, even if implemented, this does not go far enough. By still requiring the EYSF for under-fives, the Government is blocking many people from becoming childminders.
Typically, when costs are high, people mistakenly believe that more public funding is the golden ticket to solving the problem. At the last budget, the Government announced the offer of 15-30 hours of supposedly free government-funded childcare. In Coutinho’s statement today, she boasted that this £8bn boost in childcare spending is the “single biggest investment in childcare in England ever”.
Putting the tremendous cost to the public purse aside, this measure has negligible impacts on those who are really struggling to pay for childcare, especially seeing as childminders are paid so little by the government. This extended provision is untargeted, meaning that the main beneficiaries will be middle-class families where the mother already works.
More generally, if we want to reduce the cost of childcare, more radical supply-side reforms are necessary. Relaxing childcare sector regulatory requirements by bringing them in line with many of our European neighbours, could cut costs by around 40 per cent, or over £300 per child and per month.
Furthermore, rather than free (meaning taxpayer-funded) nursery places, the Government should offer vouchers which could be topped up by families. Rather than being subjected to state control, this would give providers of childcare the freedom to set prices, experiment with different business models, and compete with one another for consumers’ money.
This, in combination with relaxing burdensome restrictions on the supply of childcare, would dramatically reduce childcare costs for millions of families.
Reem Ibrahim is Communications Officer and Linda Whetstone Scholar at the Institute of Economic Affairs.
Rather than trying to shift responsibility for childcare onto landlords, ministers should be honest about the costs their policies have piled onto families.
Claire Coutinho, the Children and Families Minister, has urged landlords, developers, and housing associations to improve support for prospective childminders. She argued that, as a result of restrictions imposed by landlords which stop them working from home: “too often prospective childminders are having the door slammed in their faces”.
The Government is clutching at straws here. The number of registered childminders has fallen from over 100,000 in the mid-1990s, to less than 30,000 today. Lockdown restrictions accelerated the decline, with many childminders being unable to work in other people’s homes.
The cost of childcare in the United Kingdom is incredibly high compared to other European countries, unnecessarily compounding the cost-of-living crisis. The cost of putting an under-two-year-old in full-time care has risen by 171 per cent since 2000, creating a devastating burden on parenthood.
Coutinho is wrong, however, to place the blame on landlords.
Part of the decline in child minders has been the result of greater competition from nurseries, which have significantly expanded over the past few years. There are now over 14,000 early years settings registered in the UK. This is partly a result of the changing preferences of parents, many of whom prefer their children to be looked after in more professional settings.
Increased availability and accessibility of jobs for women have also impacted this decline. Childminders are almost exclusively women, and with a more dynamic and buoyant labour market, the number of women who are willing to become childminders has declined.
Nevertheless, the primary culprit for the decline in the number of childminders lies with the Government and local authorities, which have increased onerous regulations on the home environment.
It’s a career path that is regulated by Ofsted, who oversee and inspect education and childcare services, and these requirements must be fulfilled in order to legally work as a childminder.
The Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework, defined in the Childcare Act 2006, lays down a detailed specification for the “learning, development and care” of children up until the age of five.
All Ofsted-registered early years care providers are required to follow the EYFS, including preschools, nurseries, reception classes, and of course, childminders. This includes keeping detailed records, adding a barrier to those with poorer education and even some who have learnt English as a second language – despite the fact that they may be perfectly capable of providing a safe and caring environment.
This year, the Department of Education launched a consultation to explore removing the “unnecessary burdens” that the childcare sector faces. These proposals included amending the EYSF framework to separate childminders and school-based providers, with the aim of making it easier to navigate and implement.
Although these proposed reforms are a step in the right direction, even if implemented, this does not go far enough. By still requiring the EYSF for under-fives, the Government is blocking many people from becoming childminders.
Typically, when costs are high, people mistakenly believe that more public funding is the golden ticket to solving the problem. At the last budget, the Government announced the offer of 15-30 hours of supposedly free government-funded childcare. In Coutinho’s statement today, she boasted that this £8bn boost in childcare spending is the “single biggest investment in childcare in England ever”.
Putting the tremendous cost to the public purse aside, this measure has negligible impacts on those who are really struggling to pay for childcare, especially seeing as childminders are paid so little by the government. This extended provision is untargeted, meaning that the main beneficiaries will be middle-class families where the mother already works.
More generally, if we want to reduce the cost of childcare, more radical supply-side reforms are necessary. Relaxing childcare sector regulatory requirements by bringing them in line with many of our European neighbours, could cut costs by around 40 per cent, or over £300 per child and per month.
Furthermore, rather than free (meaning taxpayer-funded) nursery places, the Government should offer vouchers which could be topped up by families. Rather than being subjected to state control, this would give providers of childcare the freedom to set prices, experiment with different business models, and compete with one another for consumers’ money.
This, in combination with relaxing burdensome restrictions on the supply of childcare, would dramatically reduce childcare costs for millions of families.