Opinion: Letters

MINIBUS DILEMMA

I am writing in response to 'For hire or reward?' (Work Matters, 29 October). We visited a farm in our minibus and on arrival, found Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) officials waiting to check bus drivers' licences, bus seat numbers and whether a tachograph was fitted or not.

The officials told us that we were driving our minibus illegally as it had 16 seats, that we had an incorrect people-carrying licence and that if we were charging parents for trips, the minibus should have a tachograph.

They then put a prohibition order on the minibus, preventing us from using it for any purpose - even getting back to the nursery. We then had to put all the children, including six who were under the age of two, into taxis. This involved transferring the under-twos' car seats - which each parent had fitted safely - from the bus to the taxis.

We had done the same as Sam Cook, who was featured in the Nursery World article, and checked with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and our insurance company to ensure that we were operating within the law when we bought the vehicle. If we had known about the confusion over the regulations - and the new powers of enforcing them - we would never have bought the minibus, and it now represents a huge cost for us when it is not in use.

We have since asked VOSA how we can avoid the huge expense of putting more than one member of staff through their people-carrying licence application. They explained that the only way around this is to remove seats and to have only eight passenger seats and a driver seat.

Given child:staff ratios, this means we can now take only a maximum of five children out at one time. As a 90-place nursery, this effectively limits us to outings within walking distance, even though we pride ourselves on keeping up to date with the curriculum, which includes taking children on longer outings.

We had no choice but to remove the seats - and give written confirmation of the fact - to have the prohibition order removed, as we also use the minibus for deliveries and general nursery business.

Two VOSA officials then visited the nursery to discuss use of the minibus before the prohibition order. On arrival, I was cautioned, questioned and told that the case would be forwarded to the prosecutor fiscal. We have since had a court summons and, after speaking to our lawyers, had no option but to plead guilty.

Fortunately, the company, rather than the employee driving the bus, will be charged.

The law needs to be made clearer to all childcare providers. VOSA and the DVLA should surely be working together, and the Scottish Care Commission and Ofsted should explain the laws to all childcare settings to prevent this dilemma from happening to anyone else!

Donna Sharp, manager, Wee Gems Nursery, Broxburn, West Lothian

- Letter of the Week wins £30 worth of books

NO WIN ON SLEEP

I read with interest your story of the Leeds nursery caught between the conflicting demands of a parent and Ofsted (News, July 9). The parent wanted the child to be roused from their afternoon sleep to help ensure that they slept through the night, while Ofsted said that the rights of the child should take precedence over the requests of the parent.

Since then we have followed Ofsted's line, allowing children to sleep at nursery undisturbed. Then I received a letter from Ofsted saying that a parent had complained because the children's sleep is no longer being limited, causing children to sleep longer in the day and not sleep at night!

After extensive arguments with Ofsted, they told me that we can rouse children from their sleep as long as they receive sufficient sleep. However, when I asked for this in writing, they refused, saying that they are just the regulator so they don't tell us how to interpret the regulations.

It seems to me we are damned if we do and damned if we don't with Ofsted.

Name and address supplied - Send Your Letters to ... The Editor, Nursery World, 174 Hammersmith Road, London W6 7JP; letter.nw@haymarket.com; 020 8267 8401