Commentary: Guide to the discussion of the Czech children's groups law
Discussion of the law on children’s groups that has been vetoed by Czech President Miloš Zeman is continuing. According to some professionals and those who work with such groups, the various conditions of that law posed a threat to some clubs, nature preschools and organizations.
On 21 October, Czech Labor and Social Affairs Minister Michaela Marksová Tominová discussed the issue in an interview with the Radiožurnál radio station. She is not of the opinion that the law would have, for example, closed the nature preschools because she believes are part of the school system, as has been publicly confirmed by Czech Education Minister Marcel Chládek.
Since those schools are regulated by the Schools Act, the law on children’s groups would not have applied them them. Marksová also said in the interview that some NGOs, including People in Need (Člověk v tísni), woke up to the issue too late, after the law had already been discussed in the legislature’s process.
In her view, the law would not have excluded any alternative childcare methods. However, if "someone is caring for preschool-aged children all day long, some rules must be in place," the minister said.
Jan Černý of People in Need has a different opinion. News server Romea.cz brings you a translation of his blog:
Guide to the discussion of the children’s groups law
"General X knows only one tactical maneuver. That’s to sacrifice his left wing."
"So what are we going to do?" – "We’ll sacrifice the right one."
"Wrong, gentlemen. We shall sacrifice them both!"
This famous example of strategic reasoning illustrates the possible impact that might occur should the President’s veto of the law on children’s groups be overturned. The lower house is currently on the fence about that option.
The situation is very confused, because what is at issue is complex material and far-ranging impacts, even though the law itself is relatively short. This guide will attempt to give answers to the most frequently asked questions about the law (or perhaps, just to reiterate them).
#1 Who does the law affect?
The original tactic of the Labor and Social Affairs Ministry (MPSV) was to claim that the law did not concern the organizations at risk. For example, some mothers’ centers, according to their spokesperson, Rut Kolínská, supported the law "so there would be order", and support it still (even though they claim it will not affect them).
The law was also said to not apply to the nature preschools, or to preschool education clubs for at-risk children, or to the Scouts. Wrong.
If more than two pre-school aged children gather outside their own households for the purposes of being babysat and provided with collective care focusing on the development of their capacity, of their cultural and hygienic habits, and on their day care, then that is a children’s group – look at page one, paragraph 2 of the law. Here you can see that this broadly-conceived definition relates to more or less any regular gathering of children without their parents, and therefore to all organizations and self-help groups where such gatherings occur, and those regular gatherings and their organizers will be registered by the MPSV.
#2 What about the building standards for the properties where children gather?
The original tactic of the ministry was to claim to the MPs that the law is good because, while new preschools will not be built, enough new places for preschool-aged children will nevertheless be created. Yesterday the minister confirmed to us something that had long been obvious, namely, that whoever wants to organize a gathering of children numbering 12 or more must establish his or her own preschool for that purpose, according to the latest law from 2005.
That is covered in this law on children’s groups by the words "requirements for facilities and operations". If you are not involved with building regulations, this phrase is easy to overlook, especially if, as an MP, your specialization is in something else.
That phrase is a reference to Act No. 258/2000 Coll., as amended, and to Decree No.410/2005 Coll., on hygienic requirements for the operations and premises of establishments and facilities for the education and training of children and youth, as amended. The number of entities that would want to establish a preschool and run it not as a school facility, but under the regime of the law on children’s groups, is estimated at close to zero.
It is almost impossible to build a preschool inside the kinds of constructions that currently exist here. Many preschools built according to older laws do not comply with the current ones.
You can probably imagine what a classic, glass-walled preschool looks like at a housing estate. That is the kind of facility that would have to be built.
Romantic little preschools located in old villas do not comply. If the state were to support the construction of preschools through either direct subsidies or tax relief, then it would be appropriate to consider that the costs of a preschool featuring an educational program (to be registered with the Education Ministry – MŠMT) and those of a preschool with more of a day care program (to be registered with the MPSV) would be very similar.
At the same time, supporting the construction of buildings to the standard of a preschool is not strategic if public preschools are not going to be run in them, especially when it is in the interest of the Government to increase the number of public preschools in the MŠMT network. So much for "groups of preschool children with more than 12 members".
The law is dealing with this somewhat unnecessarily, because no businesses, churches, clubs or nonprofits will be running full-blooded (educational) preschools. It is not a completely obvious decision why the magical number here is 12 children, exactly, or what the difference is between 11 and 12, etc., but what is certain is that whoever is organizing the regular activities listed in paragraph 2 of the law on children’s groups – for example, someone running day care activities without a building – would be committing a serious crime.
The MPSV decree that establishes the requirements for convening a group of children of less than 12 members has not yet been adopted, so it’s sort of a message in a bottle, the content of which is opaque to us. All we know is that its most recent version is also rather demanding and again concerns everyone listed in paragraph 2, or in other words, everyone.
#3 Why is the softer decree a problem too?
The organizers of a gathering of 11 children maximum who win the "decree lottery", should MPSV adopt a decree that their current sanitary facilities comply with, will have it easy. If, that is, their facility has been permitted for the purpose for which they are running it.
Everyone else can start studying the building regulations, because they will be undertaking construction. Here I would like to wish the mothers’ centers the best of luck.
You’ll go to the Building Works Authority, you’ll pick up the form for a construction permit, and you’ll hire a contractor. He will draw you a sanitary facilities project in a version that complies with the decree.
The Building Works Authority will tell you which departments to take your project to. At a minimum, these will be Labor Hygiene (for your employees), Children and Youth Hygiene (for the children), the general public hygiene office, Fire Safety Solutions, Lighting Projects, your neighbors, etc., etc.
Once you get a permit you can start building. It’s now been a couple of months since you first visited the Building Works Authority.
There will be construction, permitting, re-permitting, and official changes to the use of the construction. It takes about 10 months – anyone who has built something knows this.
The sanitary standards, for example, are set forth in the 42 pages of the law on Toilets and Cloakrooms. The general requirements for any construction are set forth by Decree 268 on technical requirements for building.
If you don’t own the building, then you will have to get whoever does own it to agree to the alterations. Without the owner’s consent, you’re out of luck.
The question of financing all this is also interesting. The obligatory Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the law on children’s groups is really just a bittersweet verse on the theme "we’re living better, we’re living happier".
The RIA for this law is completely mendacious and tendentious. It identifies the costs of this regulation in the Czech Republic as merely "costs associated with training professional staff about the new legislation".
In addition to the time spent visiting the Building Works Authority, you will be spending all your own money on the construction, because the state is bearing none of the costs of this harsh regulation of the work done with preschool-aged children, and the costs falling to the organizations working with preschool-aged children are not calculated in the RIA. Here I would refer you once again to my opening statement: According to the definition in the law on children’s groups, it would apply to almost all of the organizations in the country.
