Childcare Bill |
|
Clause 13 Duty to provide information, advice and training to childcare providers Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 131, in page 7, line 30, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 132, 133, 138 to 144, 146 and 148. Beverley Hughes: As hon. Members will have seen, these are all drafting amendments to improve the clarity of the Bill. Each changes the word “register” to the phrase “be registered” to reflect the fact that providers will be registered by Ofsted and will not register themselves. That will be consistent with existing provisions. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: No. 132, in page 7, line 32, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’. No. 133, in page 7, line 39, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.—[Beverley Hughes.] Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in clause 13, page 7, line 42, at end insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 135. Column Number: 211 Beverley Hughes: The amendments make necessary adjustments to the clause, which is about the duty to provide information, advice and training to providers. One of the amendments enables local authorities to charge for providing those services. The amendments simply improve the capacity of local authorities and give them flexibility to shape and support child care through the provision of information, advice and training to providers, and update an existing duty under section 79V of the Children Act 1989 to reflect the reforms of inspection and regulation contained in the Bill. The information, advice and training that local authorities will have to provide will be specified in regulations and guidance. Clause 13 specifies that it must be provided to: child care providers, who must register under part 3; those who intend to become providers; and employees of providers. Amendment No. 134 allows authorities to provide information, advice and training other than the minimum listed in the regulation. Amendment No. 135 enables local authorities to make reasonable charges for the provision of that information, advice and training. Mr. Gibb: It makes sense for local authorities to be able to charge child care providers for any training that they receive, but the charges should, of course, be reasonable, and child care providers should be able to go elsewhere for that training should they wish to do so. I am concerned about local authorities charging for information and advice. Can the Minister confirm that local authorities will not charge child care providers for the provision of information if that amounts solely to them carrying out their statutory duties? Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman said, the charges have to be reasonable and proportionate to the service being offered. We will consult local authorities and providers on this matter, and I will take those representations when they come forward, but I do not want to be constrained at this point. It is important that local authorities can reasonably charge for services that they provide, which the clause would not allow them to do as it is currently drafted. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 135, in page 8, line 2, at end insert—
5.15 pmAnnette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 8, line 4, at end insert—
Column Number: 212 The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 217, in clause 43, page 21, line 37, at end insert—
Amendment No. 218, in clause 53, page 27, line 4, at end insert—
Amendment No. 219, in clause 54, page 27, line 29, at end insert—
New clause 10—Requirement to undertake Safeguarding training—
Annette Brooke: I do not plan to comment on new clause 10 because it is not quite as I want it. I will talk about that later. Amendments Nos. 216 to 219 make the same point about different clauses. Amendment No. 216 may seem slightly contrary to what we have just agreed. Amendment No. 217 emphasises the requirements on early years providers, amendment No. 218 emphasises the requirements on all later years child minders, and amendment No. 219 emphasises the requirements on all later years providers in England. Each amendment requires the groups of providers to have undertaken child protection training approved by the local safeguarding children board within a year of registration. The amendments are supported by the Pre-School Learning Alliance, the Daycare Trust and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Importantly, the providers themselves have suggested the amendments. None of us can underestimate the importance of proper training in child protection, and there may be a greater public good in the local authority paying for such a course. Indeed, I sometimes believe there to be a moral duty for the local authority to do so, particularly if there is a requirement for the training to be undertaken. A legal requirement for child protection training is important because child care workers’ knowledge of child protection procedures, such as what they should be looking out for and what the signals are, will vary considerably. Early preventive work always includes identifying potential abuse, which is all important. Proper training is required, rather than an over-reaction to possible symptoms. It might simply be a matter of watching and observing for a while, or of knowing whom to go to in a particular setting should there be any particular concerns. Column Number: 213 The Minister should give serious consideration to training because most of us put child protection high up the agenda, and we know that child abuse can start at a very early age. Ann Coffey: I very much support the intentions behind the amendment, but I am concerned about it amending the Bill without proper consultation and assessment of the effect that it could have on the supply of child minders. There is great difficulty, particularly in my constituency, in increasing the supply of child minders in disadvantaged areas, which are often the areas with the highest level of unemployment, particularly among single parents. There are many reasons for that, but one factor is that the training could be a barrier in a variety of ways, including the length of time that the course takes to complete, the degree of emphasis on written work and a very rigid interpretation of standards, because, as the Committee will be aware, local authorities provide the training, and that can vary. I am dubious about imposing yet another standard that may have the perverse outcome of driving people into using unregistered care, because it is another obstacle for local people who want to apply to be child minders. We would not want that to happen. If we are to ensure that children are properly protected, we do not want to increase the use of unregistered child care, on which we cannot impose standards at all. If we were to achieve the outcome that the hon. Lady desires, and if such an amendment were made, it would be important to consider what the outcome might be on the supply of registered child minders. Maria Eagle: I begin by agreeing that, on this occasion, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has managed to get the wording in all her amendments absolutely right. They have the impact that she hoped for, which is to modify the information, advice and training duty on local authorities, and to require them to ensure that registered child care providers have free access to training within one year of registration. The other amendments roll on in relation to other aspects of the child care work force. The overall effect would be to place an obligation on all early years and later years providers to undertake child protection training approved or accredited by the local safeguarding children boards within a specified time, and for it to be done free of charge. The entire Committee should be in full agreement with their intention, which is to ensure that child minders and other child care providers are fully trained to understand their roles and responsibilities in protecting children or in notifying the relevant authorities if they suspect that the child may be at risk of or subject to harm. However, for several reasons there is no necessity to include those requirements in the Bill. Activities are in place to implement children’s trusts and to establish
The welfare requirements of the early years foundation stage, which we will come on to in clause 43, will be given force by regulations. They will require registered providers to operate to a satisfactory standard and to keep children safe, which means that they will need to have child protection procedures in place to ensure that they can show that they are doing so. Providers will inevitably need to arrange for their staff to undertake the training that they need to fulfil those responsibilities, including training in child protection issues where that is needed. We also intend that early years registration regulations will require providers to have in place, at the point of application for registration, a statement setting out their own child protection policy based on the local safeguarding children board procedures. Following consultation, regulations under the Children Act 2004 are being prepared. They will require local authorities to set up local safeguarding children boards to develop policies and procedures for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the local authority area. That will include training people who work with children. Amendment No. 216 is not necessary, because its provisions are ongoing, and I shall return to whether the provisions should be free or charged for. Clause 13 does not make new policy. It simply updates an existing duty to reflect the reform of regulation and inspection that the Bill envisages. The existing duty under section 79V of the Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to secure the provision of advice and information about child minding and day care, as well as the training of people who provide those services. Under clause 13, local authorities will have wide powers to provide or support the provision of information, advice, assistance and training, and they will be able to help providers receive that training. We do not intend the Bill to specify the matters on which information, advice and training will be given; they will be specified in regulations. The training that the hon. Lady asks to be included in the Bill will be included in the regulations, and I should have thought that local authorities will take seriously the fulfilment of duties that the Bill places on them. The regulations and guidance will be updated to reflect the new welfare requirements—and the early years foundation stage, which we will come to in clause 43—which all providers have to meet. That includes requirements on child protection. We intend to consult on the welfare requirements to ensure that we get them right, once the Bill has completed its stages. If, in the future, it became apparent that it was necessary to require local authorities specifically to support child protection training because they were not doing so for some reason, we could do that in regulations under clause 13. There is a clear direction of travel, which
On charging, I can see no reason why the hon. Lady wants to prevent local authorities from being able to charge as appropriate for the services that they offer. That will extend their capacity to work with providers to ensure that a wider range of them get the information, advice and training that they need. Inevitably, if local authorities have to provide that service free of charge, the provision that they make will be limited by whatever budget they set aside for it and there will be no contribution from those who benefit from the training—the individuals concerned and the providers who employ the staff. That is why I do not agree that the service should be provided free of charge. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport are important. There can sometimes be unintended consequences, such as driving people to unregistered or unregulated provision. No one wants that. I hope that, in the light of those remarks, the hon. Lady will consider withdrawing the amendment. Annette Brooke: I paid close attention to the hon. Member for Stockport, because it is always difficult to strike a balance between not making requirements too onerous and getting the necessary level of child protection training. We must evaluate that. We will have difficult choices ahead, given that we want to professionalise the work force. It will be difficult to get the right balance and there will be difficult decisions to be made along the line. I am sure that we will debate that as we progress through the Bill. I am not dismissing the comments, I am just bringing things to a conclusion. I feel reassured and thank the Minister for saying that the matters will be dealt with in regulations. Whether or not to charge is always a difficult decision, especially when we have regulations and people are already providing a facility. The wording that we have just approved says that authorities “may” charge. In other spheres—I will not make the mistake of going off into them—I have seen examples of ridiculous charges being imposed on foster carers who have been involved in the provision of care for a long time. I rest my case on the idea that the authority “may” charge. Sometimes it is important to make certain courses free of charge. That will come out as things are rolled out, with the setting up of local safeguarding children boards and the publication of the regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 Inspection Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 8, line 9, after ‘by’, insert ‘or under’. Column Number: 216 The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 137. Beverley Hughes: These are drafting amendments that simply add the phrase “or under” to ensure that Ofsted’s power to inspect local authorities in relation to the new duties under the Bill extends, as was intended, to functions conferred by regulations as well as those specified in the Bill. Amendment agreed to. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. 5.30 pmMr. Gibb: Will the Minister clarify the naming of local education authorities? What are they supposed to be called following the “Every Child Matters” document and the 2004 Act? Beverley Hughes: We have signalled that what used to be called “local education authorities” will simply be the “local authority”. The integration of education and social care now involves the children’s trust, led by the local authority, and a wide range of other partners are included in the arrangements. The clause makes the new local authority duties and powers in relation to improving well-being, securing child care and providing information subject to inspection by Ofsted. It ensures that those duties are subject to an independent inspection process including annual performance assessment and joint area reviews. Given the importance of independent inspection, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17 Charges for early years provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Gibb: We touched on issues relating to the clause when we discussed amendment No. 17. However, it would be helpful if the Minister set out the position regarding charging by maintained schools for child care of children below the age of four. To what extent do primary schools have such facilities? Is the provision of chargeable child care a growing trend? What will the mechanics be for making such charges? Is there a concern that popular primary schools will be able to insist that parents send their young children to the pre-school setting on the grounds that if they do not, their children will not be admitted to reception class when they turn four? That could enable the school to charge hefty fees as a way of raising extra
I know that the Government have withdrawn the admissions code for various, internal, Labour party reasons—[Interruption.] That sneaks out occasionally. It would help if the Minister put the Committee’s mind at rest that use of a pre-school child care setting in a maintained school will not result in such consequences. Maria Eagle: Section 451 of the Education Act 1996 prohibits schools from charging for educational provision made during school hours. Clause 17 is necessary to ensure that we do not create problems for schools as a consequence of establishing the early years foundation stage and removing the legislative distinction between early education and care for those young age groups. That is why the clause is necessary. On the extent to which charging currently exists within schools outside the prohibition, the picture is variable. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happens. It varies enormously from little or no charging to charging where it is possible. I hope that that gives him the sense that it is a very varied picture. Through the regulation-making powers, we intend to have clear guidance about what is possible and to give some advice to schools where there is currently no distinction between education and child care at those young ages. We need to be clear for what they are and are not allowed to charge. We hope that some of the variability will end when they get the guidance. It would not be a fair admissions criterion to suggest that only those who pay extortionate charges for out-of-school-hours provision would be considered for admission. I suspect that a school that tried to formulate an admissions policy in those terms might quickly fall foul of complaints to the schools adjudicator, who would make close reference to the code of practice. He would be likely to say that such a policy was unfair and not allowed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that any fears should be allayed by the schools admissions code of practice and the existence of an adjudicator, through whom, by making complaints, one can get a swift answer to whether a specific policy is fair in any given situation. With those assurances, I repeat that the clause is needed to prevent problems arising for schools as a result of the fact that we are removing the distinction between education and child care for early age groups. Question put and agreed to. Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18 Meaning of childcare Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 9, line 25, leave out from ‘child’ to end of line 28. Column Number: 218 The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 280, in page 9, line 32, at end insert—
No. 109, in page 9, line 40, at end insert ‘and is registered’. No. 281, in page 9, line 40, at end insert—
No. 110, in page 10, line 5, after ‘hospital’, insert
Tim Loughton: As the clause deals with the meaning of child care, it is fundamental to what we have been and will be debating. Again, the Conservative amendments are probing amendments. Amendment No. 111 would leave out the part of subsection (2) that refers to “education for a child”. This might be more relevant to the debate that we will have about the clauses around clause 41, which relate to the early years foundation stage and the criteria on which that will be drawn up. Education should not be referred to as child care and we want to remove that part of the definition. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why education should be considered as part of the wider definition of child care. Amendment No. 109 is again a probing amendment relating to foster carers. We have had many debates in Committee on previous children’s legislation relating to the registration of private foster carers. Many Conservative Members have argued long and hard that the Government should take the matter more seriously in legislation. We have a fundamental problem with an underground industry of private foster arrangements, the scale of which is unknown, but it has been estimated to involve in excess of 10,000 children. Many of those originate from west Africa and are subjected to conditions akin to that which led to the death of Victoria Climbié, which gave rise to Herbert Laming’s report and the 2004 Act. Many of us think that the Government should go further and make it a punishable offence for those who choose not to register private fostering arrangements. We should not rely on local authorities to seek out private fostering arrangements and to investigate whether the welfare of the child or children involved is sufficiently taken into account. By their very nature, those people—they are often extended relatives or family contacts, particularly with overseas families, especially those from Nigeria and Sierra Leone, where it has been an particular problem—try to be invisible to the authorities. That is often to the detriment of the children’s health, welfare, education and so on. The Government need to go further. The 2004 Act holds out the possibility—a slim possibility, given its wording—of tougher legislation if the sort of voluntary approach taken in that Act does not bear fruit, as many fear it will not. Subsection (4)(f) recognises private fostering. If an authority locates private foster arrangements made by people who have not registered their existence, it needs to take a closer interest in the welfare of the child than if the child were with those who have legitimate private
Amendment No. 110 defines the establishments where child care is not deemed to be taking place—that is, they would be exempt. Appropriate children’s homes should clearly be exempted, as should care homes, whether local authority homes or independently privately run children’s homes, and residential family centres. However, subsection (5)(a)(iii) refers only to
I am curious as to why it is limited to “a hospital”, which is why we seek to add
From my reading of this part of the Bill, certain medical establishments should be included. For example, Mr. Amess, it should include hospices, a subject about which you and I were talking only this morning in Westminster Hall. It should also include other centres where children with long-term chronic conditions go to have forms of treatment—to be attached to machinery or whatever other therapy is necessary. Surely we do not expect those premises to be treated as if they provide child care. They primarily provide medical care and, in some cases, especially in hospices, respite care. It is a probing amendment to see why the provision is so tightly defined as to exempt only hospitals. Again, the Minister may say that the definition will be widened in regulations, but it would be helpful to include it in the Bill. I see no downside in adding the words suggested. 5.45 pm |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 15 December 2005 |