Childcare Bill |
|
Beverley Hughes: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about families in rural areas, whether in Wales or England. He is right to say that it will be for the Assembly to tackle the problem. It may be some comfort to him to know that the Welsh Assembly Government have considered it and recognised its importance in their child care strategy, “Childcare is for Children”, which explicitly acknowledges the need to contend with the fact that child care is likely to be less accessible for parents in rural areas. I understand also that child care will be specifically considered within the new Wales transport strategy and in the guidance to the regional transport consortium for the development of a new round of local transport plans. It will be necessary to take account of child care matters in thinking about the development of transport. The duty is drawn broadly, which gives the Welsh Assembly the wherewithal to take the needs of rural areas into account. However, the detail must be left to the Assembly. Mr. Williams: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Williams: I am greatly concerned about the Bill’s provisions in relation to the National Assembly for Wales. I am reminded of the story about someone going to a reference library to look up Wales and finding the entry, “For Wales, see England.” The Bill seems to read across from England to Wales. It gives no relevance to the fact that there has been a devolved settlement and that the Government of Wales Act 1998 is in full force. I tabled—too late—an amendment to improve the clause by providing that the Welsh Assembly Government may, by regulation, require Welsh local
The Bill is hugely prescriptive about what the National Assembly should do. The approach could be minimalist, but it seems almost impressionist, with huge swirls of colour across the Bill. It would be better if the provisions were simple and allowed the National Assembly for Wales to have powers in a simple form that enabled it to do what it wanted. Beverley Hughes: Before we launch into any more of the clauses in part 2, perhaps I could disabuse the hon. Gentleman of his assumption that they are a Westminster imposition on the Welsh Assembly Government. They are not an imposition: they contain measures that the Welsh Assembly Government wanted and are written in the way that they wanted. This is a completely devolved matter, and the phrasing of the clauses was a matter for the Welsh Assembly, just as the task of drafting regulation and guidance, which will fall to the Assembly as a result of the powers that it secures under the Bill, will be a matter for the Assembly. If the hon. Gentleman has complaints about the drafting, he should take them to the Welsh Assembly and have his debate there. To give just one example, clause 22 replicates clause 6, but there is an extra provision to ensure that sufficient child care provision makes use of the Welsh language. The Welsh Assembly clearly wanted that addition and it is entirely happy with the wording of all the clauses. Mr. Williams: Is the Minister confusing the Welsh Assembly Government with the Welsh Assembly? They are two entirely different things. As far as I know, the Welsh Assembly did not see the Bill until it appeared in the House, although the Welsh Assembly Government might have seen it. There is a fine but substantial distinction between those two terms. At some stage—it will not be as a result of the Government of Wales Bill, which was published last Thursday—the Welsh Assembly will have its own powers to make primary legislation. When it does, such confusions and misconceptions about the Welsh Assembly Government and the Welsh Assembly will not occur. Question put and agreed to. Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 23 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 230 Clause 27 Duty to provide information, advice and assistance Mr. Williams: I beg to move amendment No. 303, in page 13, line 4, after ‘section’, insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 305, in page 13, line 23, at end insert—
Mr. Williams: Under amendment No. 303, local authorities would have a duty to comply with the Welsh Language Acts 1967 and 1993, as they should and, indeed, will do. I am sure that the Minister will assure me that the National Assembly in Cardiff and, indeed, the National Assembly Government will insist on local authorities complying with the law. The amendment is, however, another reminder of the fact that information should be provided in a form that is understandable and of best value to families that speak Welsh as their first language in the home. Amendment No. 305 would ensure that local authorities provide information in a form that protects vulnerable children and young persons. I am reminded of an incident that was related to me by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) in which her local authority sent tender forms to transport providers which indicated where disabled children lived. Such information could be taken advantage of by people who want to make contact with vulnerable children. Therefore, a duty must be placed on local authorities not to disperse information that could be misused by people who do not have young people’s best interests at heart. 6.30 pmBeverley Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that section 6 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 requires public bodies—Welsh local authorities are classified as such—to treat the Welsh and English languages equally in connection with the provision of services. That covers his aspirations with amendment No. 303. In addition, section 28 of the 2004 Act requires local authorities in Wales to have regard to
in the discharge of their duties. That covers the hon. Gentleman’s concerns in relation to amendment No. 305. Legislation is already in place. I am aware of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that they are being examined. The law to deal with such situations exists, but practice may fall short of what is expected. I therefore ask him not to press the amendments. Column Number: 231 Mr. Williams: Given the Minister’s reassurance on those matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 28 Inspection Amendment made: No. 137, in page 13, line 37, after ‘by’, insert ‘or under’.—[Beverley Hughes.] Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 12 Repayment of financial assistance: right of appeal
Brought up, and read the First time. Mr. Williams: I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time. The new clause is intended to ensure that the relationship between local authorities and child care providers is maintained at the best level and that disputes in which local authorities want to reclaim moneys from child care providers for their services, on the basis that they have not provided that which they contracted to provide, can be resolved in a more low-key manner than through the courts or other processes. The new clause provides that if there is a dispute as to whether a repayment or part of a repayment should be made, it should be done through a tribunal set up for that purpose by the National Assembly for Wales. That should enhance the relationship between local authorities and providers. Maria Eagle: I was becoming a little worried. I am certainly slightly disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not make it clear whether he had consulted the Welsh Assembly Government or the Welsh Assembly about the frankly burdensome requirement that he seeks to place on them to set up a special tribunal to hear appeals from providers against a Welsh local authority’s decision to ask the providers to repay funding that the authority had given them. Perhaps the fact that he did not say that he had consulted them means that we can assume that he did not. Mr. Williams indicated assent. Maria Eagle: He did not, which disappoints me, given his previous strictures. None the less, we discussed setting up separate appeals processes for
I appreciate that providers should be able to seek redress if they believe that the local authority has not acted properly. In the first instance, of course, one would expect them to sort out their differences with the local authority as amicably as possible. Providers who have had contractual arrangements with local authorities will have recourse through the courts if they want to challenge a local authority’s demands to repay funding, but it is important that the authorities have the power to require funding to be repaid to ensure that they can get value for money. The power is a lever for value for money in contractual arrangements with providers who are not maintained providers. Providers always have the option of complaining to the public services ombudsman for Wales if they are not happy with the local authority’s response to their complaint. Depending on the circumstances, they can also always take action through the courts by way of judicial review if they believe that the local authority has acted illegally or irrationally. Given those safeguards, it would an inefficient use of funds to require the Welsh Assembly to set up an entire tribunal system to consider such complaints, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the motion. Mr. Williams: I have listened very carefully to the Minister. I assure her that my intention was to make the process and the relationship between providers and local authorities better and more productive, but I shall heed her advice in future and ensure that I consult the Welsh Assembly and even the Welsh Assembly Government, if I am allowed to approach those exalted bodies, before I have the temerity to table an amendment or even a new clause. The point has been made. I am sure that we will be able to resolve the matter in the Welsh context, perhaps by regulation, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 31 General functions of the Chief Inspector Amendments made: No. 138, in page 15, line 8, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’. No. 139, in page 15, line 9, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.—[Beverley Hughes.] Column Number: 233 Mr. Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 15, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
I will not detain the Committee long given the hour and that it is dark outside. The amendment goes back to the debate about regulation and the powers of the executive order. It merely tries to replace subsection (5), which gives the Secretary of State the power by order to extend the number of functions for Ofsted and replaces that with a regulation that can be prayed against or debated under the affirmative procedure. That will mean we have a chance to debate whether we extend the remit of Ofsted. There will be serious concerns if Ofsted’s role extends too far beyond the educational sphere. Beverley Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman’s concern is to ensure that significant additional functions are not added to those of the chief inspector without first being subject to the scrutiny of Parliament, I understand that. I reassure him straight away that the provision is not intended to be used for any substantive change to the functions of the chief inspector. It is important that the Secretary of State can act in response to issues or concerns that may arise. It is difficult by definition to predetermine when that might be. Regulations governing such requirements could be prepared only once a particular issue had emerged. Obviously, the amendment would place considerable constraint on our ability to respond quickly to changing circumstances. The main argument is that the provision is not new. It replicates the provisions of section 2 of the Education Act 2005, which were carried forward from previous legislation, which was the School Inspections Act 1996, from a Conservative Administration. The arrangements are long standing and have been used well and proportionately under different Administrations. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman withdraws the amendment. Mr. Gibb: I am sure that Labour Members raised such points at the time of the original Act. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, but her reassurance is on the record, which is helpful. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 32 Maintenance of the two childcare registers Amendment made: No. 140, in page 15, line 39, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.—[Beverley Hughes.] Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 234 Annette Brooke: In representations that we have received on the issue of the two child care registers, a number of organisations were concerned that it might be confusing to have two. Will the Minister comment on how that would be dealt with, so that there is no confusion? 6.45 pmBeverley Hughes: Once people become familiar with the new regulation inspection framework, they will see that the matter makes sense in the panoply of new arrangements that the Bill is putting forward. There will be an early-years register for all providers of care for children under five, who will be compelled to register. There will also be the Ofsted child care register for children aged over five but under eight. That will be split into two parts. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will know, child minders will be required to register, and providers for those aged over eight may register voluntarily. That reflects the new structure of regulation and inspection in the Bill, which reflects the early-years foundation stage and so on, and it makes sense in the light of the new arrangements that we are debating. Clearly, Ofsted will do its best to ensure that people understand the new arrangements. They will become familiar with the arrangements once they become well known, and they are fairly well known already. Question put and agreed to. Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 Requirement to register: early years childminders Mr. Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 121, in page 16, line 7, leave out subsection (2). The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 34, page 17, line 10, leave out subsection (3). No. 284, in clause 34, page 17, line 12, leave out subsection (4). No. 123, in clause 51, page 25, line 8, leave out subsection (2). No. 124, in clause 52, page 26, line 10, leave out subsection (3). No. 202, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert
No. 203, in clause 98, page 49, line 24, at end insert
No. 206, in clause 98, page 49, line 25, at end insert
Mr. Gibb: The principle that I shall talk about in relation to amendment No. 121 also applies to amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 17 in relation to clauses 51, 52 and 34 respectively. Amendment No. 121 would remove subsection (2) from clause 33. That subsection gives the Secretary of State the power by regulation to enable a child minder
The paper talks, for example, about child-minding provision that operates for less than two hours a day or on fewer than six days a year. It says that nannies and babysitters should be exempted. However, those are exempted under existing legislation. The list goes on to talk about child minding provided between 6 pm and 2 am, which means babysitting, either in the child’s home or other domestic premises. Also on the list are babysitting in hotels; crèches that enable parents to go shopping or engage in sporting activities; and activity-based provision, such as that which involves drama, dance, arts and crafts and sport, where the child is looked after while the activities take place. I am reassured by the piece of paper circulated last night about what the exemptions are all about, but why does the Minister feel that the broad provision in the Bill is necessary? Why does she not incorporate those specific exemptions in the Bill or in regulation? She could have published that at the same time as the Bill. Amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 206 relate to regulations under what will be sections 33, 34 and 51. These simple amendments would ensure that any such regulations were subject to the affirmative procedure. Beverley Hughes: I am glad that, having seen the note that we circulated, which reflects the current position and how we apply it in the light of the new arrangements in the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has accepted both the principle of exemption and that the examples that we have included are—[Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that he does not accept the principle. I must have misunderstood him; I thought that he was saying he was reassured by what he had read in the note and that the exemptions were reasonable. The principle is important. With regard to exemptions, we are talking about situations, which, were they not exempted, would be required to go through the whole panoply of registration and inspection by Ofsted. They would be required to deliver the early-years framework if caring was for children under five. The situations that we have defined—where provision operates for less than two hours a day, or on fewer than six days a year, or where nannies and babysitters are caring for children in their own homes—reflect the fact that there is part of the arena of child care that is within the province of parents. I have heard the argument put by Conservative Members on many occasions that within the more private and
I hope that hon. Members agree that it would be disproportionate to require that settings in which children are looked after for such short periods, or in their own home, should be registered. At present, Ofsted has to decide whether a particular provision counts as child care and therefore needs to be registered, and that is often a difficult decision for Ofsted to make. Care does not happen in isolation: care and early education happen simultaneously. However, at present, care is required to be registered and education is not. When older children play football at an after-school club, is that child care that needs to be registered, or is it activity-based provision, which does not? The Bill’s new approach will take away that grey area about what is or is not required to be registered. I hope that hon. Members have been reassured by the paper that we circulated. Amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 206 would constrain our ability to adjust the Bill to meet the needs of changing times. They would require exemption orders to be approved by both Houses before they came into force. We take seriously the need for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, but for the exceptions, the arrangements that we are proposing are proportionate and satisfactory. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendments. Mr. Gibb: Of course the Bill does not clarify the grey area, or it would not be necessary to include the list of activities not covered by the requirement to register activities. It would be absurd for a babysitter or a nanny, or the chap who looks after children playing football on a Saturday morning, to have to register. We agree with the Minister on that. Perhaps the legislation should be drafted so that it does not include those activities in the first place. If that is not possible, it would be better if that were incorporated either on the face of the Bill to make it clear that the activities are not covered by the requirement to register, or by regulation published now with the Bill to make it absolutely clear. That would remove the grey areas. The matter has been aired, and we have it on the record that those activities are not meant to be registrable child-minding activities, which I think is helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Cawsey.] Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Seven o’clock till Thursday 15 December at Nine o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 15 December 2005 |