Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Childminders: Recruitment and Retention

Monday 20 January 2020 · 1 question

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 0 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The Chancellor outlined the Government's commitment to put more money into early years.
  • The hon. Member mentioned the extra 66 million that has been allocated to early years funding.
  • The expansion of Government support for early years includes raising the number of free hours from 12.5 to 30.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Context

The Early Years Alliance claims the Government's £66 million extra funding for early years offers will have a negligible effect on providers due to increasing operational costs.

Question

What steps is the Secretary of State taking to increase recruitment and retention of childminders? The Early Years Alliance has stated that the Government's £66 million of extra funding for early years offers will have a “negligible” effect for providers, who are facing substantial increases in operational costs every year. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to a large and sufficient increase in core funding for early years providers, including childminders, in the upcoming Budget?

Answer from Gavin Williamson (The Secretary of State for Education)

The Chancellor outlined our commitment to put more money into early years, and the hon. Member highlights the extra £66 million that has been put into it. We have seen an expansion of the Government's support for early years, raising the number of free hours from 12.5 to 15 to 30 and supporting children from the most disadvantaged communities. We will continue to look at this and have discussions with the Treasury.

Answered

Not addressed: The Secretary of State did not commit to a specific increase in core funding for early years providers, including childminders, beyond mentioning ongoing discussions with the Treasury.

How: Mentioning Ongoing Discussions With The Treasury

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)