|
|
 |
| |
Nurseries’ charges set to double
Middle-income families face soaring fees for childcare
LOW to middle-income families will be forced to pay higher nursery charges at the borough’s children’s centres under new proposals by Islington Council.
Many families, including key workers, on an annual household income of more than £50,000, could see weekly fees for a child under five double from £112 to £224 a week.
The ruling Lib Dems maintain that the increase – the first in four years – is being imposed because central government has dramatically cut its childcare grant to the council despite a doubling in recent years of children needing places.
A new group called Islington Families Against the Toddler Tax is being formed to fight the increases, arguing that middle-income earners could be priced out of the borough’s childcare services.
Many parents are also highly critical of the consultation process and claim that details of the proposed increases have not been made clear.
There are 10 children’s centres in the borough and the government has always suggested that the numbers could be increased to 16.
Businesswoman and mother Julia Hobsbawm said: “There seems to be an idea that the middle classes are limitlessly rich. We have key workers like nurses, midwives and teachers in our group who are not very well off, but because they are not on state benefit are being penalised.
“It would be a shame if the council desire for social integration for its early years childcare is ruined because all but those on government subsidies can remain in the nursery.”
She added that this was no criticism of the centres themselves which were very well run.
“We want a freeze on the existing charges and a proper consultation about what the new charges should be,” she said.
Mother-of-three Amy Silverston pays £110 for one child aged four and fears because she lives just outside the borough in Camden that her fees could increase.
“We have a modest income,” she said. “If the fees go up too much then it is touch and go whether we can keep a child at the centre.
“We also have another child due to start shortly at the Archway centre.”
Labour opposition leader, Cllr Catherine West, said that those who will be badly affected are those who are not entitled to benefits, but are far from well off.
She said: “The council’s argument is that at the top earners level they don’t have enough people to hit for the higher fees.
“We should be trying to help people get access to childcare, not hinder them. The council needs to look and see if it can put a little bit more subsidy into the service.”
Executive Member for Children, Lib Dem Cllr Ursula Woolley, said the aim is to protect parents on low incomes.
“Speaking personally I agree that paying for childcare is a nightmare,” she added. “And we are trying desperately to be fair to everyone. Unfortunately some will be hit harder than others.
“But the doubling of fees will be the exception rather than the rule and only affect people on more than £50,000 a year. Those on £30,000 a year will see an increase of between £5 and £15 a week.
“It is also worth remembering that there are free school hour places available in nursery classes attached to a primary schools for three year olds.”
She said she has already met and spoken to many parents about the increases.
“We are trying to make sure every parent received a copy of the document,” she added, “but it’s a fact that you can never consult enough.”
The new fees are expected to be agreed at the next council executive meeting and details will be provided to the children’s centres.
Cllr Woolley added: ”It should be remembered that even the highest fees will be cheaper than a child minder.” |
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments: |
| |
Cllr Woolley is right when she says, "It's a fact that you can never consult enough".
I don't know of anyone in the borough who has actually been consulted, or seen the document she refers to. Given the delicate political balance on the council I would hope that at least one or two of the Lib Dem councillors might see sense on this, and not simply tow the party line.
Chris Reed |
| |
|
|
|
