Member's statement: Childminders: Removal of Wear-and-Tear Allowance
Member's statement by Mrs Michelle Guy on .
- MLA
- Mrs Michelle Guy
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 February 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Childminders: Removal of Wear-and-Tear Allowance
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5369027
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I start by acknowledging what Diane has just said. That was really tough. I offer my sincere condolences on the passing of little John. I rise to express deep concern about HMRC's plans to remove the 10% wear-and-tear allowance for childminders as part of the move to 'Making Tax Digital'. Childminders do not simply provide childcare: they play a vital and formative role in the lives of children. A childminder is one of the most important adults in the early years of many children. Children are cared for in a home-from-home environment and are often embraced as part of the family. I knew, when I dropped my kids off to our childminder, that they were being not just minded but cared for, loved and developed. Families should have the option of childminding where that best suits their circumstances. That is particularly true for parents of children with additional needs, where continuity, flexibility and a calm home setting can make all of the difference. I spoke recently to a childminder in Lisburn who described her anger and distress at the proposed changes, not only because of the financial impact that they would bring about but because they reflect how poorly the childminding profession is understood and valued. Childminding is being treated as if it is equivalent to other forms of self-employment, when, clearly, it is not. A childminder's home is their workplace, and their work is vital for families. It is a sector that is already under intense pressure. The number of registered childminders in Northern Ireland has been falling, year-on-year. Rising costs, increased regulation and workforce burnout are already pushing people out. Removing that allowance risks being the final straw for many dedicated professionals. The wear-and-tear allowance recognises a simple reality: childminders use their homes as working environments every day. Furniture, flooring, toys, equipment and household items experience constant and unavoidable wear. Removing the deduction will reduce incomes overnight and make childminding financially unsustainable for many. What is particularly alarming is the absence of any meaningful impact assessment for Northern Ireland. There has been no proper assessment of the impact on the sustainability of the sector or on the affordability and availability of childcare for families. At a time when we all acknowledge that there is a childcare crisis, it makes no sense to introduce tax changes that actively drive trusted, experienced childminders out of the system. I urge HMRC to pause these plans and engage properly with childminders and the devolved Administrations. Locally, I call on the Education Minister and Finance Minister to make strong and urgent representations on behalf of Northern Ireland's childminders before we lose even more people from a profession that our children and families simply cannot afford to lose.
454 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.60 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.34 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:31 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.