Policy and Consultations

Review of Childcare Standards and Regulations

Consultation Response Form

Agree Disagree Not Sure

Comments

This is a sensible approach. It should help to avoid trapping innovative provision, or settings with multi-service provision, inside definitional criteria which do not fit. Inspectors' decisions about how to classify provision should be made in consultation with the provider.

We also welcome the statement (Consultataion Paper, page 14) 'However, the criteria do not have to be followed to the letter if the provider can demonstrate, and Ofsted is satisfied, that the Standards are being met in a different way.' We recognise that this has been an underpinning principle of this regulatory system since its inception. However, PLAYLINK's experience of implementation of the Standards so far strongly indicates the need to reinforce the skill and confidence of both providers and inspectors to exercise their professional judgement in interpreting the criteria and demonstrating good practice.. We hope to see the increasing development of fruitful partnerships between individual providers and their inspectors which will promote quality in provision, in the provision's own terms, for the benefit of children.

Comments

In line with our response to the consultation in 2000, 'Protecting Children, Supporting Parents', we strongly agree with the statement 'it is not acceptable in any circumstances for childminders to use corporal punishment or the threat of corporal punishment' (Consultation Paper, page 7). We endorse the proposal to incorporate a ban on corporal punishment in regulations, giving it statutory force.

Similarly, we consider that the criteria should be revised to say that childminders should never smoke in the presence of children to whom they are offering a minding service.

We recognise that the Government has already signalled its intention to make these amendments but that it will be subject, to some degree, to the weight of views expressed in this consultation. We consider these changes are long overdue in order to put children looked after by childminders under the same level of protection as is available to children in other childcare and play settings.

Agree Disagree Not Sure

Comments

We have no view on the appropriateness of these proposals in relation to very young childen and babies. However, as a general principle, it seems wise to ensure that training and guidance to local authorities should be aligned in such a way that both can be updated promptly if necessary in response to changes in medical knowledge and/or best practice.

Agree Disagree Not Sure

Comments

The relevant paragraph, 3.12, in the Consultation Paper apparently refers only to childminders but this question talks in terms of 'childcare providers'. It is therefore not clear whether this would have an impact more widely on open access/play provision.

In general, we agree with the statement that this is not a matter in which Ofsted needs to become involved.

Agree Disagree Not Sure

Comments

N/A

Comments

PLAYLINK is grateful for the opportunity to comment on these proposals. We found the consultation documents well laid out and easy to follow. It was particularly helpful to have a table summarising the current position alongside the proposed changes.

1. Definitions We welcome the introduction of these which will add clarity and consistency for providers. However, there remains an ambiguity in the definition of 'parent' as 'any person with parental responsibility for the child'. Is it intended to refer here to the Children Act concept of 'parental reponsibility' ? This formal definition might be required, for example, to determine who has the right to give parental agreement for emergency medical procedures to be carried out on their child in their absence. In other circumstances, a looser definition of parental responsibility might be acceptable. The proposed glossary should take a clear position on what is meant by 'parental responsibility'. It should be clear from the criteria and guidance when the agreement of a person with parental responsibility as defined by the Children Act might be required and when another person caring for a child in whatever capacity could be the right person for the provider to deal with.

2. Regulation 7. PLAYLINK has already raised with the Department the issue of inconsistencies in the proposed new form of Regulation 7 (Keeping of Records), in relation to open access provision. We understand that these may have been carried over from the drafting of the current Regulation 7 and that it would be helpful to bring them to your attention formally through this consultation.

In the section 'Particulars required in all cases, 7.1 and 7.2 require the keeping of basic information on children and their parents. While we would normally recommend this as good practice, it may not be practicable in all cases, for example, short term schemes. We therefore agree that open access provision be exempted as proposed.

7.4 refers to the requirement to keep a daily register with no proposed exemption for open access provision. This would be a direct reversal of the current position (criterion 2.13) which exempts open access provision from this requirement through Annex A. It would be extremely damaging to impose such a requirement to check children into and out of open access provision. We are not aware of any argument or evidence to indicate that the status quo should be reversed and strongly disagree with this proposal. (The reasoning behind our position is fully discussed in PLAYLINK's forthcoming publication 'Open for Play'.)

The proposed clause 7.5 would have the effect of exempting open access provision from the requirement to keep accident records. However, it is a duty of providers under the Health and Safety at Work Act and Regulations to keep such records and it would be very confusing to suggest in this clause of the Childcare Regulations that they could be exempted. We take the view that open access provision should not be exempted from the proposed 7.5.