It could be expected that as the Government wants to expand the childcare market, offer parents more choice and diversity and raise quality, nannying would be brought more into the embrace of Ofsted and the EYFS, and nannies would be seen as a part of an increasingly professional workforce.
Not so. We already have the ludicrous situation where nannies possibly in sole charge of children for 50 hours a week are not included in Vetting and Barring arrangements if hired directly by parents (News, 10 February), while children's authors visiting schools are. And a slack checking process for nannies signing up to the voluntary childcare register has been exposed (News, 18 March).
Now it turns out that Sir Roger Singleton's review of physical punishment laws, which has commendably favoured the banning of smacking by tutors and part-time educational and religious settings, has omitted nannies, au pairs and babysitters (News, page 4).
The questionable logic of this is that nannies and babysitters are considered to constitute part of the household, and to define the family or household would be 'cumbersome' and 'largely impractical', says Sir Roger.
Children's secretary Ed Balls says the report makes it clear that 'a child should not be smacked by anyone outside the family'. The Government and its advisors seem to be hanging on to a feudal view of nannies as part of the family they serve, which was widespread in Nursery World in the 1920s, but you would hope had disappeared in the 21st century!
This attitude only leaves children at risk.
