Childcare providers urge flexibility on free hours

Earlier this month, children's minister Sarah Teather pledged to "strip back" the code for the free entitlement to childcare, while ensuring that access to the entitlement remains free. Speaking at the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA) conference, she said: "Talking to colleagues over the past year, I am aware that it is just too long. In the autumn we will be working with nursery managers to try to strip back the code so the principles are there but so we have absolute priority about the fundamentals."

A revised code of practice, introduced to accompany the extension of the free entitlement to 15 hours in September last year, allowed for more flexibility in the way parents use the entitlement, guaranteeing parents a minimum offer of three five-hour sessions over the course of a week.

But Anand Shukla, acting chief executive of the Daycare Trust, believes the coalition should push for even greater choice for parents. "It is essential that the flexibilities contained in the current code aren't watered down, and in fact should be extended."

Shukla cited recent research conducted by the Daycare Trust, which found a lack of childcare for parents who work outside of normal working hours. "We recommend the free entitlement be available between 7am and 7pm. This would make a big difference to parents," he added.

NDNA policy director Claire Schofield agreed that the current code is too unwieldy.

"Now the 15-hour offer has been in place universally for almost a year, NDNA believes the sector will welcome the opportunity to review the code," she said. "For example, a number of nurseries report that parents want the opportunity to use their session over two days, in order to support working patterns."

Both Schofield and Shukla also believe that any review must work to iron out inconsistencies in local authority administration of the code across the country.

"Part of the current issue is inconsistent application and some local authorities adding their own burdensome local requirements," Schofield said. "While a streamlined code might prove more effective, it is important the review looks at how consistency can be achieved."

Shukla warned that paring down regulations could jeopardise consistency. "A radically slimmed down code that leaves more issues open to local interpretation could make this worse, and mean that we have 152 different arrangements in England," he said.