Data Protection - NCMA resolution

[christine e]

Hi

I will be attending the NCMA's Annual Conference in Leeds on 7th Nov when I will be seconding a resolution for NCMA to lobby the relevant organisations in England & Wales for a discounted rate for childminders when registering for data protection.

Just a reminder that the closing date for postal votes is noon this coming Friday.

Christine

[miffy]

Thank you Christine - wonder if they will get there with the postal strikes.

Miffy xx

[Playmate]

Hubby and I are attending and certainly will be voting on the day :clapping:

[christine e]

Thank you Christine - wonder if they will get there with the postal strikes.

Miffy xx

Hi

I seem to be getting my post ok so far - fingers crossed!

Cx

[David Sheppard]

Hi Christine,

I'll be attending the conference too, hope to see you there - you'll be unlikely to miss me as there are only a handful of men going.:laughing:

Whilst I applaud the efforts of everyone to get the best deal possible for childminders in every possible forum, could I echo the concerns of some who feel that this resolution has the possibility to backfire on NCMA members.

On the one hand NCMA is pressing hard to raise the professional profile of childminders. This excellent effort, complimented by the aspiration to achieve 100% of childminders with a minimum level 3 childcare qualification, is one of the reasons EYPs, like me, have been able to gain the status. However, if childminders are portrayed as 'second class citizens, and unable to afford the lowest current Data Protection Act fee that apply to nurserys etc, then this may act against the effort to raise our professional standing.

I believe that current tax regulations permits all of the Data Protection Act fee to be offset against the profits of the childminding business.

I would welcome your thoughts on the reasoning for this proposal.

As yet, I remain undecided which way to vote.

Regards,

David Sheppard EYP

[christine e]

Hi Christine,

I'll be attending the conference too, hope to see you there - you'll be unlikely to miss me as there are only a handful of men going.:laughing:

Whilst I applaud the efforts of everyone to get the best deal possible for childminders in every possible forum, could I echo the concerns of some who feel that this resolution has the possibility to backfire on NCMA members.

On the one hand NCMA is pressing hard to raise the professional profile of childminders. This excellent effort, complimented by the aspiration to achieve 100% of childminders with a minimum level 3 childcare qualification, is one of the reasons EYPs, like me, have been able to gain the status. However, if childminders are portrayed as 'second class citizens, and unable to afford the lowest current Data Protection Act fee that apply to nurserys etc, then this may act against the effort to raise our professional standing.

I believe that current tax regulations permits all of the Data Protection Act fee to be offset against the profits of the childminding business.

I would welcome your thoughts on the reasoning for this proposal.

As yet, I remain undecided which way to vote.

Regards,

David Sheppard EYP

Hi David

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am sure that this will be evident during the debate but I think that it is clear from comments made on this forum that Childminders really begrudge paying £35 for registration when many of them only store photos on a computer or removable device. After all we only pay £30 for Ofsted registration.

Christine

[PixiePetal]

Not everyone is minding a large number of children as they have their own children taking spaces in numbers. This means that income is limited and expenses need to be kept to a minimum to allow some profit.

This makes them no less professional and dedicated and chances are as circumstances change and own children move up the age bracket, more mindees can be taken on and income raised.

[David Sheppard]

Maybe the alternative is to lobby for the Act to be reviewed to accommodate the actual useage, by childminders, to just store photos of their minded children - thereby alleviating the need to register in the first place. Rather than the current approach.

As I said, I am not at all against getting the best deal possible for all childminders, I'm one myself afterall. It is the potential undermining of the drive for raising every childminders status for the sake a few pounds and perhaps looking at the problem from another angle.

And I did mean it when I said I am undecided which way to vote. I have read what has been written. I was interested in your personal viewpoint as the seconder.

[The Juggler]

Maybe the alternative is to lobby for the Act to be reviewed to accommodate the actual useage, by childminders, to just store photos of their minded children - thereby alleviating the need to register in the first place. Rather than the current approach.

As I said, I am not at all against getting the best deal possible for all childminders, I'm one myself afterall. It is the potential undermining of the drive for raising every childminders status for the sake a few pounds and perhaps looking at the problem from another angle.

And I did mean it when I said I am undecided which way to vote. I have read what has been written. I was interested in your personal viewpoint as the seconder.

I don't believe a separate rate for childminders would undermine the professionalism of childminders at all. I am happy to continue to register to give parents and ofsted reassureance data is held properly and confidentially. I believe a reduced rate would simply reflect the amount of data we store and/or the amount of income we make. It's the same as ofsted registration is comparably lower. I really don't believe it reflects of our professionalism at all in this respect. The professionalism is surely in the fact that we have registered to protect the data?

[sweets]

if we load pictures onto our computers then print them out then delete them do we still have to register?

[David Sheppard]

I don't believe a separate rate for childminders would undermine the professionalism of childminders at all. I am happy to continue to register to give parents and ofsted reassureance data is held properly and confidentially. I believe a reduced rate would simply reflect the amount of data we store and/or the amount of income we make. It's the same as ofsted registration is comparably lower. I really don't believe it reflects of our professionalism at all in this respect. The professionalism is surely in the fact that we have registered to protect the data?

Hi Juggler,

Very good points thanks and very well put, but if the quantity of data held is actually the issue, then I stand by my proposal to excempt childminders altogether as the correct route to take.

Even if this resolution is passed (and I strongly suspect it will be), will that then mean there is an imposed requirement for all childminders to be registered for data protection as part of their childminding registration process just because there is a chance they may hold data (however small) that comes under the data protection umbrella? Surely this is entirely counter-productive.

My worry about professionalism is not quite how it sounds or seems from the posts above. It is certainly no reflection on the fantastic work conducted by the thousands of individual childminders (our workforce) up and down the country. It is however, everything to do with how others perceive childminding (the infrastructure) based upon the continuing attempts to integrate childminding, on an equal footing, with the wider Early Years provision in our country. It is this dichotomy I worry about.

I believe that every time childminding is portrayed as the poorer cousin, in childcare, we only exacerbate the situation.

Thanks for sharing your views, they have given me much to think about.

Regards

David

[Pipsqueak]

However, if childminders are portrayed as 'second class citizens, and unable to afford the lowest current Data Protection Act fee that apply to nurserys etc, then this may act against the effort to raise our professional standing.



Hi there David, sorry to contradict you here but I don't believe the CM's will be viewed as 'second class citizens' or a poorer cousin solely or even because of our unwillingness to pay this fee.

Not every minder is able to fill all their spaces (I am one due to a variey of reasons), not every minder has the registration for full amount of children, not every minder co-works with another minder or assistant enabling them to increase capacity.
I live in an over-CM populated area with many other forms of childcare available and a low interest in childcare from parents, I live in a 'deprived and disadvantaged area', I already loose 1 days minding work from having to attend Uni, one of my spaces is taken up by my own child, I work for 3 days a week because my 'full timer' has reduced to 15 hrs per week. Not all that long ago I thought I would have to sell body parts to make ends meet because there was NO work in the area for over 8months - now that things are on the up a little we are struggling to get our heads back above water (well we are slowly suceeding).

Personally I really cannot afford yet another outgoing - even if its £35 and we can put it through the book.

YET I am still a very good minder, I am extremely professional and knowledgable but the fact remains - childminding is quite poorly paid. Even if I head towards EYPS and remain a CM - I wll still be poorly paid!

If other people judge us on the fact that we are not happy about paying for this 'service' and think we are not professional then they ought to be looking at their own predjudices and we ought to be correcting them instead of worrying about what they think of us.

[PixiePetal]

Hi there David, sorry to contradict you here but I don't believe the CM's will be viewed as 'second class citizens' or a poorer cousin solely or even because of our unwillingness to pay this fee.

Not every minder is able to fill all their spaces (I am one due to a variey of reasons), not every minder has the registration for full amount of children, not every minder co-works with another minder or assistant enabling them to increase capacity.
I live in an over-CM populated area with many other forms of childcare available and a low interest in childcare from parents, I live in a 'deprived and disadvantaged area', I already loose 1 days minding work from having to attend Uni, one of my spaces is taken up by my own child, I work for 3 days a week because my 'full timer' has reduced to 15 hrs per week. Not all that long ago I thought I would have to sell body parts to make ends meet because there was NO work in the area for over 8months - now that things are on the up a little we are struggling to get our heads back above water (well we are slowly suceeding).

Personally I really cannot afford yet another outgoing - even if its £35 and we can put it through the book.

YET I am still a very good minder, I am extremely professional and knowledgable but the fact remains - childminding is quite poorly paid. Even if I head towards EYPS and remain a CM - I wll still be poorly paid!

If other people judge us on the fact that we are not happy about paying for this 'service' and think we are not professional then they ought to be looking at their own predjudices and we ought to be correcting them instead of worrying about what they think of us.

Well said Pip :)

I only have one part time mindee at the moment - just moved house and struggling to find families. Been minding nearly 15 years and only once before not had enough children in my care to suit me (that was when I had DS, only babies came along and he was 10 months old before I found a child to fit in with my 2 under 5's at the time.)

£35 may not seem much but when I am only earning £80 a week before expenses it is a days money.

Here's hoping families come along soon, I love my work and know I have a lot to give :)

[David Sheppard]

Hi there David, sorry to contradict you here but I don't believe the CM's will be viewed as 'second class citizens' or a poorer cousin solely or even because of our unwillingness to pay this fee.

Not every minder is able to fill all their spaces (I am one due to a variey of reasons), not every minder has the registration for full amount of children, not every minder co-works with another minder or assistant enabling them to increase capacity.
I live in an over-CM populated area with many other forms of childcare available and a low interest in childcare from parents, I live in a 'deprived and disadvantaged area', I already loose 1 days minding work from having to attend Uni, one of my spaces is taken up by my own child, I work for 3 days a week because my 'full timer' has reduced to 15 hrs per week. Not all that long ago I thought I would have to sell body parts to make ends meet because there was NO work in the area for over 8months - now that things are on the up a little we are struggling to get our heads back above water (well we are slowly suceeding).

Personally I really cannot afford yet another outgoing - even if its £35 and we can put it through the book.

YET I am still a very good minder, I am extremely professional and knowledgable but the fact remains - childminding is quite poorly paid. Even if I head towards EYPS and remain a CM - I wll still be poorly paid!

If other people judge us on the fact that we are not happy about paying for this 'service' and think we are not professional then they ought to be looking at their own predjudices and we ought to be correcting them instead of worrying about what they think of us.

Hi Pip,

Hopefully you would have read my previous post to actually see where I was going with this thread. I'm really sorry if my 'devils advocate' approach has caused difficulties. I can quite clearly see the raw nerve that has been exposed by these sensitive arguments.

Of course I understand that many childminder's are financially constrained by circumstance, numbers and a hundred other reasons. All the more reason to fight against this proposal. I am not saying all childminders should have to pay the £35 fee just because it can be offset against tax - if you have a profit. I am saying that going down this route of emphasising the money issue for childminders is the wrong route to take. For all the wrong reasons.

My issue here, despite how it may seem, is that I don't actually think this resolution is fighting the right argument. I do believe we should be aiming for childminders to pay NOTHING, because we should be exempt in the first place.

As far as how others perceive childminding is concerned, you only have to think about the number of times you have picked up an EY book or attended a course where the material is all aimed squarely at everything except childminding. When you go to any Early Years event and you hear comments that infer 'so what real job are you planning to do'. Or face a distinct lack of cooperation from other, so called, professionals when they learn that you are a childminder. Unfortunately, the list could go on and I am certain you and others could add to it.

I hope this has made my position clearer, and sorry again if this thread has caused you upset.

Regards,

David

[Pipsqueak]

David, it has caused me no upset or distress at all, I fully appreciate your opinion (honestly we aren't a clicky witchy bunch on here and all disagreement is done very respectfully!!! ). I was just explaining my own personal boat and at the moment I really can't afford anymore outlay.

Nurseries and the bigger settings (bigger than us) can perhaps afford these outlays more so than what we can.

I have no actual objection to having to pay - but not a large (to me) amount like that.

Yes, as you comment, I have come across lots of things that are tailored towards everything but childminding (my tutor at Uni still really doesn't 'get' what I do and is quite shocked I am still hanging on in there lol bless her), but I will respectfully (most times!!) gently guide them on a journey though childminding and help them to understand exactly where it is I am coming from.
I am not afraid to stand my ground in defending my job and role.
although we are not quite accepted wholly yet - I think the EYP's and many childcare professionals (teachers etc) round where I live are being quite receptive. I actually had a comment from an EYP today (at drop in) that she loves some of my activity ideas and can she have a look at my resource file:D I was quite chuffed but I am glad its a two-way thing as I often pick her brains for uni work.

Anyway I digress (ok ok ramble:rolleyes: ) what I mean to say is that we NEED to emphasie the money issue I think - people have some awful misconceptions of us - oooh she/he must be raking it in - 3 children @ xx£'s per hour.... errrr no - we have outgoings and sometimes we are not even getting in minimum wage - not to mention all the extra hours we put in unpaid!
Don't get me wrong - I love my work but I hate working for a pittance!

[David Sheppard]

I have now had the night to think about this thread and hope to put my concerns in another way that may help to explain my problem here.

Would you rather:

a) Pay the current rate of £35.00 per year? I am sure from the posts here that you do not.

b) Pay NOTHING at all? I would have thought that this was what was wanted as it is the current position for the vast majority of childminders.

c) Pay some reduced fee - say £10.00 or £15.00. This, I fear, is what is going to happen if this proposal is successfully implemented. So if you currently have not registered you are possibly going to be forced to do so.


The Data Protection Act was not formulated with childminding in mind. It was far more concerned with the huge quantities of data being gathered by large corporations. When a reduced registration fee (£35.00) was implemented for small businesses this was supposed to account for the considerably reduced quantities of data being held and processed. This would apply to a nursery for example - which is why there is a nursery template available for downloading from the commissioner's website and not a childminding template.

What has never been implemented is what to do with the tens, or possibly, hundreds of thousands of very small businesses - exactly what a sole childminder with a very small number of children is. These are currently expected to register - AND PAY.

My arguments are that:

1. Childminders should primarily be exempt from having to register and therefore will not have to pay anything at all.

2. When a childminding business grows to pass an agreed threshold, shall we say 7 or more places filled, then they should come under the current regulations - exactly the same as all other EY settings.

If this was implemented then:

the vast majority of childminders would not have to do anything or pay anything to be within the letter of the law.

the small minority of childminders who were eligible to register would be treated equally as all the other small businesses already catered for by the fee structure.

the continuing effort to demonstrate parity with other EY settings would be maintained.


My worry is that this current proposal will do exactly the opposite to the intended aim as it is based upon addressing the fee requirement and not the data quantity issue. If it were to go ahead it would be very unlikely that the argument to exempt childminders altogether in the future would be possible.

I hope that this is a clearer explanation of the underlying issues here.

[sarah707]

There are very few childminders who know anything at all about the ICO or registration.

It seems to me that it is those who are on forums and who find out extra information who feel they need to register... and those who chunter along doing their jobs who wouldn't even have any knowledge of what to do!

So surely if you say every childminder must register and must pay £x, then you are simply putting another tax on our profession. Yes I know we can claim it back, but we still have to find it in the first place.

This is a really interesting debate guys :D

[Pudding Girl]

Nothing to do with me as not NCMA as in Scotland, but I think that this isn't worth the battle, Save it for something really big and important, At the end of the day it's only £35 - when I read first posts I was assuming it was going to be about £150+ - it seems a lot of fuss for something quite small.

:blush:

[mama2three]

My choices realistically are pay £35 which i can ill afford ( I do not earn enough to pay tax so this being deductable is no benefit!), ignore the fact that i should register , or vote for the reduction in fee.

David , whilst agreeing that childminders should not actually be paying at all , this resolution is not on offer! Only an organisation such as ncma is in a position to lobby for exemption - but i have not got the option to vote for this , only the reduction at this point.

In addition this exemption should be from the fee , not from being registered. we have access to a huge amount of information about children and families and i worry about the safeguarding risk this could cause , and the cataclysmic damage which could be caused to our profession if a 'scandal' ensued . though we may not currently always be on equal footing professionally as perceived by the powers that be , we are undoubtedly the most trusted group.

[The Juggler]

I have now had the night to think about this thread and hope to put my concerns in another way that may help to explain my problem here.

Would you rather:

a) Pay the current rate of £35.00 per year? I am sure from the posts here that you do not.

b) Pay NOTHING at all? I would have thought that this was what was wanted as it is the current position for the vast majority of childminders.

c) Pay some reduced fee - say £10.00 or £15.00. This, I fear, is what is going to happen if this proposal is successfully implemented. So if you currently have not registered you are possibly going to be forced to do so.


The Data Protection Act was not formulated with childminding in mind. It was far more concerned with the huge quantities of data being gathered by large corporations. When a reduced registration fee (£35.00) was implemented for small businesses this was supposed to account for the considerably reduced quantities of data being held and processed. This would apply to a nursery for example - which is why there is a nursery template available for downloading from the commissioner's website and not a childminding template.

What has never been implemented is what to do with the tens, or possibly, hundreds of thousands of very small businesses - exactly what a sole childminder with a very small number of children is. These are currently expected to register - AND PAY.

My arguments are that:

1. Childminders should primarily be exempt from having to register and therefore will not have to pay anything at all.

2. When a childminding business grows to pass an agreed threshold, shall we say 7 or more places filled, then they should come under the current regulations - exactly the same as all other EY settings.

If this was implemented then:

the vast majority of childminders would not have to do anything or pay anything to be within the letter of the law.

the small minority of childminders who were eligible to register would be treated equally as all the other small businesses already catered for by the fee structure.

the continuing effort to demonstrate parity with other EY settings would be maintained.


My worry is that this current proposal will do exactly the opposite to the intended aim as it is based upon addressing the fee requirement and not the data quantity issue. If it were to go ahead it would be very unlikely that the argument to exempt childminders altogether in the future would be possible.

I hope that this is a clearer explanation of the underlying issues here.


David I see all sides of your argument and obviously we would love to pay nothing at all. However, I suppose my confusion with your original comments lies in the fact that I don't see how being exempt from a fee/registration will portray us as less professional than paying a reduced fee.

I am all for having to register, as I said before, as I think if you're storing computer data you should do so. Therefore, I agree with mamawiththree totally on that point and fee exemption or reduced fee would still be my preferred way. To be exempt from registering seems to indicate that we are storing data but exempt from the rules of confidentiality with regards to storage and therefore not acting professionally.

That's just my view though.

[mama2three]

and mine ...but said so much better !:D

[David Sheppard]

David I see all sides of your argument and obviously we would love to pay nothing at all. However, I suppose my confusion with your original comments lies in the fact that I don't see how being exempt from a fee/registration will portray us as less professional than paying a reduced fee.

I am all for having to register, as I said before, as I think if you're storing computer data you should do so. Therefore, I agree with mamawiththree totally on that point and fee exemption or reduced fee would still be my preferred way. To be exempt from registering seems to indicate that we are storing data but exempt from the rules of confidentiality with regards to storage and therefore not acting professionally.

That's just my view though.

Hi Juggler,

There has already been a post here that asks if printing off a photo and deleting it would constitute needing to register. I am fairly sure that very, very many childminders would fall into this category and would currently, probably, not actually need to register. I say probably, because the way the act is worded it could be argued that if you store any information on any living or dead person, in any media (not just a computer), then you are eligible to register.

At the moment many childminders, like the ones on these posts, who have such a small income from childminding would, I imagine, not want to register and pay every year to re-register. Otherwise, they would have already done so.

If this resolution is passed and the ICO lobbied to make 'childminding' a new fee category, then the likely outcome of this is that all childminders would have to register and re-register every year. The likes of me, and by the sound of it you, do not have an issue with this. For the majority though, I believe they would object strongly to another "TAX", as has already been mentioned, being imposed.

My point about how childminders are perceived is in placing a specific new category of 'childminding', clearly lower than the current lowest £35.00 category, of small businesses like nurseries and playgroups.

The alternative is to reconise that ALL very small businesses, not just specifically childminders, would be exempt from paying for this act, which wasn't aimed at them in the first place.

This is not to belittle the importance of protecting the data held on your clients and children or the need for confidentiality, both of which are already well catered for though 'free' policies and regulations. It is having to pay an additional fee for this responsibility that I oppose.

At the moment most childminders are probably, technically, breaking the law by not registering. I think think this is a ridiculous position. I do not believe making them all register and pay a fee is the solution.

NCMA are trying really hard to portray childminders on an equal footing with other EY providers. They want childminders to be recognised equally and considered in the same professional light as other EY providers. I wholeheartedly agree with this premis, and am doing my bit, as one of the few EYP childminders to help to promote this. What I find really difficult to understand is why they would then want to single us out, and make us appear, at a lower footing than others already catered for.

I know this 'technicality' may seem nit-picking on my part. But to me, every even tiny backward step is exactly that.

I firmly believe this is a backwards step that will come back to haunt all those who only see the immediate benefits.

And, I really hope this helps to explain where my problems with this lie.

Thanks for your questions, thoughts and concerns.

Regards

David

[The Juggler]

Hi Juggler,

There has already been a post here that asks if printing off a photo and deleting it would constitute needing to register. I am fairly sure that very, very many childminders would fall into this category and would currently, probably, not actually need to register. I say probably, because the way the act is worded it could be argued that if you store any information on any living or dead person, in any media (not just a computer), then you are eligible to register.

At the moment many childminders, like the ones on these posts, who have such a small income from childminding would, I imagine, not want to register and pay every year to re-register. Otherwise, they would have already done so.

If this resolution is passed and the ICO lobbied to make 'childminding' a new fee category, then the likely outcome of this is that all childminders would have to register and re-register every year. The likes of me, and by the sound of it you, do not have an issue with this. For the majority though, I believe they would object strongly to another "TAX", as has already been mentioned, being imposed.

My point about how childminders are perceived is in placing a specific new category of 'childminding', clearly lower than the current lowest £35.00 category, of small businesses like nurseries and playgroups.

The alternative is to reconise that ALL very small businesses, not just specifically childminders, would be exempt from paying for this act, which wasn't aimed at them in the first place.

This is not to belittle the importance of protecting the data held on your clients and children or the need for confidentiality, both of which are already well catered for though 'free' policies and regulations. It is having to pay an additional fee for this responsibility that I oppose.

At the moment most childminders are probably, technically, breaking the law by not registering. I think think this is a ridiculous position. I do not believe making them all register and pay a fee is the solution.

NCMA are trying really hard to portray childminders on an equal footing with other EY providers. They want childminders to be recognised equally and considered in the same professional light as other EY providers. I wholeheartedly agree with this premis, and am doing my bit, as one of the few EYP childminders to help to promote this. What I find really difficult to understand is why they would then want to single us out, and make us appear, at a lower footing than others already catered for.

I know this 'technicality' may seem nit-picking on my part. But to me, every even tiny backward step is exactly that.

I firmly believe this is a backwards step that will come back to haunt all those who only see the immediate benefits.

And, I really hope this helps to explain where my problems with this lie.

Thanks for your questions, thoughts and concerns.

Regards

David

I do see where you are coming from. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. printing off a photo and deleting is one thing but we are all storing data and as such are subject to the Data Protection regulations.

As such I would vote for everyone registering (even if under a LA blanket registration - as our LA does for food standards) and fee exemption/reduction representing size of business. I simply do not see that a lower payment category in any way reflects a lower level of quality of care.

Whew! what a debate over £35!

[David Sheppard]

I do see where you are coming from. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. printing off a photo and deleting is one thing but we are all storing data and as such are subject to the Data Protection regulations.

As such I would vote for everyone registering (even if under a LA blanket registration - as our LA does for food standards) and fee exemption/reduction representing size of business. I simply do not see that a lower payment category in any way reflects a lower level of quality of care.

Whew! what a debate over £35!

I agree with you:rolleyes:, or do I disagree!:laughing:

And I'm going to the conference - so what will I have to say then?????LOL

Still I've really enjoyed this debate, thanks for everyone's input, views etc

[ajs]

i have found this debate to be very interesting
at the moment my hubby works in information governance which is to do with how information ( data) is stored ( mainly in the nhs) and he has some interesting points but i will need more time to quiz him so i understand them fully and can out them across to you.

for information i am not registered ( yet ) and would object to paying anything at all if i am having to register so if that was a choice i would vote for that

[Chatterbox Childcare]

I have read this from top to bottom and what an interesting debate.

Whilst I can see both sides I hope that we don't land up with all childminders having to register.

Yes it is a deduction but even afater 25% of tax saved is removed the cost it will still cost us in our pocket £26.25 and I would rather spend it on the children.

[Jen Wibble]

Hi everyone
What a debate!:) I do think however that David is missing the point a bit.
It was a childminder who attended an NCMA Forum and voiced these concerns about the Data Protection act. I know because I was there. Other childminders I know have also contacted NCMA with similar concerns and as a result of collating all the info recieved, this resolution was put forward.

It does not mean that if the resolution is passed that all childminders will have to register. It just asks that a discounted rate is available for those childminders who believe they should register.
If NCMA lobbies for a reduced rate for those childminders who, like me, keep all their documentation on the computer, in my mind this demonstrates that childminders are professionals who understand their role and their responsibilities.
I am so pleased that people like Christine will stand up on the day and put forward the views she has heard expressed by other childminders.
Through NCMA we have a voice and we should use it. If you are attending the conference please join in with the debate - whatever your point of view.

Just dont be too hard on those who are prepared to stand up and speak out on issues on behalf of other people:panic:
Jen

[The Juggler]

Hi everyone
What a debate!:) I do think however that David is missing the point a bit.
It was a childminder who attended an NCMA Forum and voiced these concerns about the Data Protection act. I know because I was there. Other childminders I know have also contacted NCMA with similar concerns and as a result of collating all the info recieved, this resolution was put forward.

It does not mean that if the resolution is passed that all childminders will have to register. It just asks that a discounted rate is available for those childminders who believe they should register.
If NCMA lobbies for a reduced rate for those childminders who, like me, keep all their documentation on the computer, in my mind this demonstrates that childminders are professionals who understand their role and their responsibilities.
I am so pleased that people like Christine will stand up on the day and put forward the views she has heard expressed by other childminders.
Through NCMA we have a voice and we should use it. If you are attending the conference please join in with the debate - whatever your point of view.

Just dont be too hard on those who are prepared to stand up and speak out on issues on behalf of other people:panic:
Jen


Jen I agree, or at least, my understanding (I may be wrong) is that depending on how you store data on paper you may not need to register but for those that do keep mainly computer records, it is not possible to be exempt.

Therefore, some CM's are and still would not be exempt but others could not be due to how they store the data. To make such an exemption work would require a rewriting of the Data Protection Act almost.

However, as someone who needs to register, I would love a reduction:D

Good job to all of you who speak out at the forums on our behalf.:clapping:

[Blue Boy]

As Sally has said we will also be attending the conference, and will give you our support.:thumbsup:

Mick

[David Sheppard]

Hi all,

I began my questioning of this resolution by stating that I was undecided which way to vote for this. I have really enjoyed putting a number of points on to the debating table. And, have even more enjoyed having so many of you respond by thinking about this issue.

I hope I haven't missed the point - because the point was to debate. I still have reservations, but happily accept that the majority of those who have voiced an opinion here would rather have a reduction.

As I also said, I fully expected this to be passed at the Conference. And just to put the record straight, I was also at an NCMA conference where this was debated.

Whether or not my concerns materialise, only time will tell. If I'm wrong I will be the first to embrace my misinterpretations. But if I am correct, I hope you will all remember where you heard it first.;)

Great debating thanks...

Hope to speak to some of you at Leeds Conference.

[Jen Wibble]

I agree David, you have held your own and debated admirably!
Good for you for sticking to your guns, I am sure the debate will be just as good at conference. Sorry I wont be there to spar with you
Jen:p