Child Bill re 30 hours

[lynned55]

I still cannot understand this:

both parents are working or one parent working in lone parent families, for their children aged three- or four-years-old. This will be defined as earning the equivalent of 8 hours per week on national minimum wag and this can includes self-employment;

 

Does that mean if they earn more than NMW per hour they wont qualify? This certainly isnt the way its being portrayed, is it? Saw Mr C on BBC breakfast yesterday and he was touting it as an extension to the 3 & 4 year funding and saying like that it would be available to all.

 

I think this policy was a knee jerk reaction to Labour announcing its intentions to give 25 hours funding and it just hasnt been thought through at all. However one thing that I do know is, it certainly isn't going to mean any mre money for us.

[lsp]

It's the min wage and equivalent of 8 hours that is really confusing me as well lynned55.

[GFCCCC]

It applies to everyone working 8 hours or over on minimum wage or higher - my understanding is that there is no upper limit - hence my concern that two parents on high income will still be eligible! It's not that I don't want anyone to have the benefit but it isn't fair if very well off parents get it at a cost to the setting when we are already struggling to make ends meet.

[lsp]

So, basically they are saying that you cannot have it if you, and your partner, are a volunteer, student etc - unless you are working and being paid for a min 8 hours each alongside???

[sunnyday]

It applies to everyone working 8 hours or over on minimum wage or higher - my understanding is that there is no upper limit - hence my concern that two parents on high income will still be eligible! It's not that I don't want anyone to have the benefit but it isn't fair if very well off parents get it at a cost to the setting when we are already struggling to make ends meet.

Right........I might have to eat some humble pie here...........have I got it all completely wrong?

 

My understanding was that it was for parents earning minimum wage (not the or higher bit).....why else would 'minimum wage' even feature in the 'offer' :blink:

 

Confused now.......

[GFCCCC]

I think minimum wage features as a way of making sure its a legitimate job.

 

It couldn't be for people on minimum wage only as that would mean people who earned, say, 20p above the minimum wage would only be earning £1.60 per week more for their 8 hours but wouldn't be entitled.

[Rafa]

I think its only on offer for minimum wage or as it will soon be, the Living wage.....as isn't it all about getting folk back to work?

Surely two people earning say £40,000 a year do not need that incentive? It would be a lovely bonus of course, and why lots of young family voters put their X on the Tory vote paper but if it is 'for all' then I cannot imagine the cost of putting this in place and as GFCCCC says, would not be at all fair if nurserys are bearing the financial losses this system will incur!

 

Maybe Call Me Dave has a surprise......massive increase in funding?? I think not!

[sunnyday]

I think minimum wage features as a way of making sure its a legitimate job.

 

It couldn't be for people on minimum wage only as that would mean people who earned, say, 20p above the minimum wage would only be earning £1.60 per week more for their 8 hours but wouldn't be entitled.

Right......that was exactly how I had understood or more likely misunderstood this.......

 

So what am i having for my tea then - guess it's a good helping of 'humble pie' :rolleyes:

[sunnyday]

I think its only on offer for minimum wage or as it will soon be, the Living wage.....as isn't it all about getting folk back to work?

 

That's where i was coming from - well I really don't know now.......

 

Won't tuck into that 'humble pie' just yet then! :rolleyes:

[lsp]

This is what I was struggling with. If it was only for people on min wage - how on earth could it be managed? People would be refusing pay rises or taking lower paid jobs to be eligible for the extra 15 hours as that would possibly be worth more! I'm glad it is not just me.

[sunnyday]

So having read this again - think I had it all wrong and I'm ready for that pie now! :rolleyes:

[Rafa]

Well, just read the Child Bill on this - again, and still none the wiser.......its in parliamentary speak, so not meant to be clear........waffles alot about tax credits, child tax credits etc etc and as I know nothing about who does or who does'nt get these 'credits' then I can't say WHO will be eligable?

Just glad Im not doing 30 hours!!

[Wildflowers]

Just glad Im not doing 30 hours!!

If we do the 15, don't we have to do the 30?

[finleysmaid]

If we do the 15, don't we have to do the 30?

 

 

No ...we don't HAVE to do the 15...some settings cant due to restrictions

[Wildflowers]

We open 28.75 hours per week...

[sunnyday]

If we do the 15, don't we have to do the 30?

Hope not - I really can't/won't :rolleyes:

[Fredbear]

No we certainly don't.

[Rafa]

We open 28.75 hours per week...

Well your almost there Wildflowers......if the deals a good one??? then maybe 30 will work for you!

 

But at this stage of the game.........as the saying goes...'I would'nt risk it, for a biscuit!'

[lynned55]

So............. is it just for those on min wage OR for those working 8 hours per week ON OR ABOVE the minimum wage? As it is illegal to employ anyone below the min wage ( age not included) why bother to mention it.

 

We're open for 27 hours per week, so could (in theory) just manage 30 hours but it could drastically reduce our numbers, depending on who qualifies. I just hope they dont wait until May/June to inform us of what/how is this is happening and then

expect us to implement it all for the following September. I bet they do though.

[Wildflowers]

Perhaps a setting that is open 20 hours will need to offer 20 funded hours, and the remaining 10 will be available to be taken elsewhere. (?)

[finleysmaid]

Perhaps a setting that is open 20 hours will need to offer 20 funded hours, and the remaining 10 will be available to be taken elsewhere. (?)

 

This is what happens now so I can't see why that would change (so I have some children who split funding between settings (9 with me 6 with other etc)

 

I don't see that having less children is an issue for us....but it will be an issue for parents (OOH I may have to open another setting!!)

 

I think the 8 hours thing comes from the benefits system info...you are able to work 16 hours before your benefits are considerably reduces as this is classed as full time ....so the 16 hours may well be significant.

[sunnyday]

 

 

 

I think the 8 hours thing comes from the benefits system info...you are able to work 16 hours before your benefits are considerably reduces as this is classed as full time ....so the 16 hours may well be significant.

 

Oh honestly fm - why didn't you tell me that ages ago?!

[AliceinWonderland]

I had a meeting with people from the low pay commission last week, subject was mainly about the minimum wage but i did bring up the subject of the 30 hours. The gist i got from it all was that to qualify, parents had to working a minimum of 8 hours which has to be paid at the minimum wage or above. Very well off parents will not qualify as they also have to be claiming tax credits. if there are 2 parents, then both have to be working unless one is claiming disability or maternity etc. The idea of the 8 hours is for people who only work a few hours, to have the opportunity to increase the hours they work.

[AliceinWonderland]

Also, it looks like we will be able to choose how we offer the 30 hours, so for full year settings, we can spread it out over the year, maybe 20 hours a week, although i know this won't help term time settings.

[Mouseketeer]

puts hands over ears

 

do you think it will pretty much be children currently entitled to EYPP through benefits system that will become entitled to 30 hours ? I'm still not getting why they need more hours than working, if they work more give them more

 

I actually had to explain to EYA last week why many of my 3/4 yr olds aren't able to use their 15 hours a week yet as I needed some of the 2 yr olds to turn 3 so I had some ratio space .....it's not rocket science is it ?

[Wildflowers]

There we got it, Pebbles. So the 30 hours are for families with both parents working and claiming tax credits.

[Guest]

I haven't read anything that says there is an upper earning limit, or that you must be in receipt of tax credits. I think the part of the bill that causes this confusion (both parents are working more than 8 hours and in receipt of tax/universal credit) is there to say you will not be ineligible if you are in receipt of tax credits.

 

Indeed I have read (think it was from comments made in the Lords) that some are questioning why there isn't an upper income limit as people who have perceived large salaries will benefit as much (if not more) as those on low salaries.

 

So my current understanding is that you are eligible if you are working 8 hours or above on or above minimum wage irrespective of your receipt, or not, of tax credits.

[Rafa]

There we got it, Pebbles. So the 30 hours are for families with both parents working and claiming tax credits.

 

Yaaaaaaayyyyyy!! Ta dah!! At Last!!! Eurica!!!

 

Who'd have thought something so important could be so ruddy difficult to understand...........ho humm

 

ps - hope your right Pebbles! : )

,

[AliceinWonderland]

 

 

do you think it will pretty much be children currently entitled to EYPP through benefits system that will become entitled to 30 hours ?

 

No, don't think they will qualify, but i could be wrong, just going off the fact that i have some children who got the 2 yr funding, parents work part time but they didn't qualify for the EYPP when they moved onto the 3yr funding. The only ones who seem to get EYPP are ones who don't work at all, but that could be different in different areas.

 

 

I haven't read anything that says there is an upper earning limit, or that you must be in receipt of tax credits. I think the part of the bill that causes this confusion (both parents are working more than 8 hours and in receipt of tax/universal credit) is there to say you will not be ineligible if you are in receipt of tax credits.

 

 

Hi Bob, it is very confusing isn't it! Just shows how they word things! can be read in a few different ways i think. Hopefully they will let us know properly before it starts!!

[eyfs1966]

 

 

Hi Bob, it is very confusing isn't it! Just shows how they word things! can be read in a few different ways i think. Hopefully they will let us know properly before it starts!!

Perhaps "they" don't have a clue either........