Childcare Bill |
|
The Chairman: To come clean on the disparity about the amendment, the Committee has probably realised that there has been quite a turnover of Clerks. We shall not make a great fuss about what has gone on. It will all come out in the wash. 2.45 pmMr. Gibb: It is important that the inspectors are qualified in early years child care and infant care. Child care experts, such as OXPIP, to which we have talked and to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred, have raised their concerns about the type of inspectors who will carry out the inspections. They believe that the inspectors need to be experts in infant mental health and to have good skills, including observation skills. They say that a secure attachment, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is vital in the first two years of a child’s life. Therefore, an early years inspector looks for different things than a school inspector. Early years inspectors need to ensure, for example, that a key worker is attached to each child. They should look at the way in which staff greet parents and children at the start of the day, how they help the child’s transition from parent to nursery, how they deal with the separation issue when the child leaves the parent, and how they manage the children leaving the nursery at the end of the day. The inspectors should consider how the staff handle a child’s favourite toy. Do they simply bundle it away in a cupboard to prevent it from being lost or damaged, or ensure that the child has it safely throughout the session? They must take into account things such as the strength of the key worker role, support for the key worker in the day care provision and staff turnover. How would an inspector judge, for example, child care provision that appeared to countenance a lot of crying? Would they regard crying as an important part of a child’s emotional development or would they judge more highly a setting in which there was no noise at all? Experts say that crying among very young children is an important part of their emotional development: if there was no crying in a centre, that might be a problem rather than a sign of something good. To assess such matters properly, an inspector must be qualified and experienced, particularly in secure attachment and infant mental health. Maria Eagle: I understand why the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole tabled the amendments and made the points that she has. I do not disagree with anything that she said about the importance of the provision. She also recognised that the quality of Ofsted’s inspection work must develop continually. The clause requires the chief inspector to carry out inspections of early years provision at regular intervals and gives him the flexibility to do so at any other time or when the Secretary of State requests. The amendments would place a statutory duty on the chief inspector to ensure that the inspection of early years provision was carried out by inspectors with specific early years qualifications and expertise. Column Number: 282 We fully support the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure high-quality inspections and appropriately qualified staff. There is no doubt that, without a robust and professional inspection system, we will not be able to show that we have met the key objectives. Therefore, the inspection system is an essential part of raising standards in early years settings. It will enable us to demonstrate that we have done so and to see whether we have met the aspirations for outcomes that we debated on clause 1. I am aware that Ofsted has devoted a good deal of time and effort to ensuring that its inspectors are trained and made aware of latest developments, and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to it keeping up with theory and development in the field. All members of Ofsted’s staff who carry out early years inspections have now been trained to inspect against the Department’s “Birth to Three Matters” framework, which will be a key element of the early years foundation stage. However, that is not enough: there will have to be further training. Ofsted must ensure that it can meet the high standards required by the amendments. My Department will continue to work with Ofsted between now and 2008, when we expect the Bill to be fully implemented, and beyond, to make sure that its inspectors are sufficiently qualified and trained to do their new job. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole rightly expected me to say that the Bill is perhaps not the place to be so specific about the qualifications. We do not wish to curtail the chief inspector’s ability to deploy staff as he sees fit, with his knowledge of their good and bad points. However, we agree with the sentiments and intention behind the amendment. The discussion has been worth while and I hope that she feels reassured. Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for her comments. Yes, I do feel reassured. I cannot overestimate how important this strand is. We are discussing a continuum. As we progress to having a graduate in every children’s centre, it will be right that the inspectors have at least equivalent qualifications, which is not always the case at present. With those words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 49 Report of inspections Mr. Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 24, line 8, after ‘children’, insert ‘and parents’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 58, in page 24, line 9, leave out ‘in connection with’ and insert ‘which directs’. No. 274, in page 24, line 10, at end insert—
Column Number: 283 Mr. Gibb: Amendment No. 57 probes the extent to which child care is also meant to assist parents, and whether that ought to be an aspect of the report. We discussed the importance of child care for working parents, which the report should reflect. Amendment No. 58 makes a semantic point about the focus of leadership and management. Annette Brooke: Amendment No. 274 is another one of the “nots” that I am endeavouring to put into the Bill. The very fact that the Government have two “nots” in clause 41 shows that there is value in not being too prescriptive. Obviously, adding the amendment would be reassuring. As the newspaper articles that I referred to were, in fact, in The Guardian, I was surprised that Labour Members, as well as some Opposition Members, suggested that they were from the tabloids. That was the problem: the quality press made the Bill the main story the day after its launch. The amendment would ensure that we do not start getting league tables of any sort. That does not mean that Ofsted reports should not be published and made fully accessible, but things develop as part of the desire to drive up standards. That would be incredibly undesirable in this sector. Beverley Hughes: Amendment No. 57 seeks to ensure that parents’ needs are taken into account and reported on in the report that inspectors produce after they complete an inspection. I agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that to ensure that a particular setting properly meets the needs of children, and that it is delivering the early years foundation stage and adhering to the principles behind it, providers will have to establish good relationships with parents. As we know, parents are the single most important factor, for better or worse, in determining outcomes for children. Therefore, practitioners will need to work with parents to ensure that children’s needs are met. The hon. Gentleman repeated some of the comments that I made about practitioners and parents building relationships, how that determines and shapes the experience of the child, how the child should be handed over from one adult to another at the beginning of the day and how the child sees that there is a relationship—all of that is important. However, the early years foundation stage is about ensuring that children’s needs are met and that their well-being is promoted. Although the active involvement of parents is integral to that, the early years foundation stage itself is not about meeting parents’ needs, which is how subsection (1)(c) would be phrased with the amendment. I hope that he will accept that the chief inspector should not be required to report on whether parents’ needs are being met, although he will need to report on the extent to which practitioners involve parents in what is going on in the setting and whether relationships between practitioners and parents are strong and sound. Amendment No. 58 concerns the extent to which the inspector reports on the quality of leadership and management, which is also important. Such reporting will include a number of factors, including staff
Amendment No. 274 would prevent Ofsted from including a grade or an indication of grading in an inspection report. I disagree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on that. I am sorry that she linked it—unhelpfully—to the idea of league tables, because it is not about league tables. She acknowledged that there is a well developed inspection practice across many fields, including probation, prisons, education and the health sector, and a considerable body of best practice. In none of those instances do inspectors ascribe a single benchmark—a pass or fail standard—as a result of their inspection. The provision is predominately about parents and information for parents, so it is essential that in education and child care across the board there is a system whereby parents can understand where the setting in which their children are being cared for sits in the quality spectrum. We want everybody, ultimately, to reach the highest standards, but the process of getting there will involve different settings at different points, albeit above a broadly satisfactory standard. Parents must have that information. The hon. Lady might know that Ofsted publishes its inspection reports on the website, which is very good. The number of visits to that website—more than 17,000 a day—shows the extent of interest in the performance of early years provision and schools by the parents who use them. Annette Brooke: I should perhaps qualify my remarks. I said that it was important for parents to read the Ofsted report. Transparency, openness and access to information are all important. Once we get down to a single mark or grade, people will be concerned that league tables might come into the frame. Beverley Hughes: We are certainly not talking about a single mark, as I think the hon. Lady knows. However, while parents can read inspection reports, they are not necessarily familiar with and expert in the way in which Ofsted inspectors assess and judge the criteria that enable them to come to a conclusion about a setting. Parents should have a simple yardstick to enable them to interpret the detailed findings in a report. The hon. Lady knows that the grades are satisfactory, good or outstanding, and that there are two grades for settings that are judged to be inadequate. Both those grades have different
3 pmThat is quite important information for parents to have and I should not like Ofsted to move to a simple grading of satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Our focus should be on parents and not on some misguided attempt to neutralise the impact of inspections by reducing the grading simply to satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Parents want to know more. The grading system is simple; it is not over-complicated. It serves its purpose and, for parents, it is important that we retain it. Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out her reasons for rejecting the amendment. I am convinced by much of what she has to say. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 24, line 17, at end insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in page 24, line 19, leave out ‘he considers appropriate’ and insert
No. 286, in page 24, line 19, at end insert—
Mr. Gibb: The amendment requires Ofsted to publish all its reports, except for the sensitive material, on its website. As the Minister said, that is where the reports are published. The amendment merely seeks to include that requirement in the Bill. We had a debate about ensuring that all parents and prospective parents have the widest possible amount of information. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, the Ofsted report is probably the most useful piece of information when a parent is trying to determine whether they feel comfortable putting their trust in a particular child care provider. Amendment No. 60 would alter subsection (2)(d), which states that the chief inspector
The amendment states that the report should be published in a manner
It is important that as many parents and prospective parents as possible are made aware of the reports and encouraged to look at them before forming a view on which child care provider to take their children to. As we do more to disseminate and publicise the fact that these reports are on the website and available to be seen, we will find that a much wider cross-section of parents use the information, which is all to the good. I await the Minister’s response. Annette Brooke: I agree with the sentiments of the Conservative amendments, although I do not know whether they are necessary. Column Number: 286 I have to confess to ignorance in case the Minister tells me that what I propose in amendment No. 286 already happens. I do not think that it does, but I am not 100 per cent. sure. The amendment says “may” not “must”, which is a good start. When there is a school inspection, the team of inspectors returns and discusses the report, usually with the governors and senior members of staff. I imagine that it would be impractical always to do that with the many nursery and day care inspections, but I would have thought that face-to-face feedback from the inspector could serve a useful purpose in the same way that it does in a school. This is a probing amendment, because I am not too sure of my ground, but I think that what I am saying is desirable. I wait to hear the response. Beverley Hughes: I hope that I can assure Opposition Members that the amendments are unnecessary because what they try to achieve is already in place. On amendment No. 29, I said that the inspection reports are on the website and freely available. The number of visits that I cited suggests that parents are well aware of that and take the opportunity to visit the website and read them. Perhaps I should say that there may be some instances when it is not appropriate to publish a particular report on the website. The obvious example is when registered child care is provided in a women’s refuge and the need for the whereabouts of that setting to remain confidential is paramount. I agree with the sentiments behind amendment No. 60. Parental involvement in the inspection process and their access to information are important. It is the practice of Ofsted to send a copy of the inspection report automatically and without charge to all parents of children attending a child care setting. For parents whose children are already at the setting, they receive a copy of the report; for other parents who seek information, the website is the point of access. On amendment No. 286, the process will be similar to that which Ofsted adopts at a school. It will inspect a child care setting. When the inspection has finished, it will discuss its general and detailed findings with the providers and staff in the setting, and then write its report. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole accepts that although the discussion is important—not least to track any factual errors—Ofsted needs to reserve the right to write its report and come to the judgment that it thinks fit. If, after the report is received, there are issues about the improvement that is deemed necessary, as there is in some cases, there would be a further exchange between Ofsted and the provider. Mr. Gibb: Given the Minister’s assurance that the Ofsted reports relating to early years provision will be and will continue to be placed on the website, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 287 Clause 51 Requirement to register: later years childminders for children under eight Mr. Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 25, line 18, leave out ‘it appears’ and insert ‘the evidence demonstrates’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 62, in page 25, line 19, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’. Mr. Gibb: The amendment seeks to sharpen up the wording of the clause to ensure that when the chief inspector of schools intends to issue an enforcement notice on a child care provider because they are providing child care without having registered, the enforcement is based on evidence, not just whether it appears that someone is providing child care. Amendment No. 62 therefore changes “may” to “must”. The amendments go together. If the evidence demonstrates that somebody is providing child care and they are not registered, the chief inspector must issue an enforcement notice that the child care provider should desist, or that the child care provider should be registered. Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that the amendments sharpen up the provisions. They certainly change the action that Ofsted would have to take when it thinks that a child minder is operating without registration. The amendments seek to change the processes that Ofsted would follow. To clarify matters for Committee members, a person acts as a child minder if they care for a child who is not a relative for reward for periods exceeding two hours a day. When Ofsted receives a complaint that somebody is acting as a child minder without registration, it will usually try first to contact the person to establish whether that is the case. Often, people are simply unaware of the requirement to be registered, and when they are contacted, they will either cease operating or apply for registration. When it appears that there is an issue, Ofsted, where appropriate, likes to offer individuals the chance to register if they wish to do so. If we were to accept the hon. Gentleman’s “must” rather than “may”, a matter on which we have had a few debates today, Ofsted would have to dive straight in, close down the setting and stop the person doing any child minding. Although in certain circumstances that might be exactly the right thing to do, it would not be possible for us to argue that it always would be. Of course, Ofsted needs to balance the potential difficulty and danger of allowing a child minder to continue without proper registration against the use of immediate enforcement to prevent the child minder from looking after those children. That is why Ofsted tends to observe settings to decide how best to proceed. One might refer to that as evidence, but “evidence” has a very legalistic interpretation and we might end up in
There is no doubt that Ofsted will, in practice, balance the suspicion—it might have been brought to its attention by way of a complaint—that there is a breach of the requirement to register against a determination of whether it is such a serious matter that it has to close down the setting immediately or make the individual apply to register. It is right to give Ofsted the discretion to do that and it has made the nature of its normal process quite clear. In its August 2004 report, it said:
it does not say by whom. It goes on:
In a small number of cases, where there is ongoing evidence that individuals are providing unregistered care and not taking steps to regularise their position, it issues an enforcement notice. The report continues:
That is a well-known process giving inspectors sufficient leeway to ensure that they are not diving in and prosecuting people who have inadvertently not got it right, which would also put an end to child care availability as well. They must use their discretion and professionalism to get the balance right. I fear that the amendments might take away that flexibility in such instances and we would not be in favour of that. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s wish to improve the quality and sharpness of the legislation, he might create one or two potential consequences he did not expect when he tabled the amendment. With that explanation of what happens in practice, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wish to leave the wording as it is and seek leave to withdraw the amendment. The Chairman: Order. I should like to advise the Committee of the result of the investigations concerning the confusion over the amendment. I am delighted to advise the Committee that it was not the fault of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and nor was it the fault of our excellent Clerk. We have checked every correction sent to the Editorial Supervisor of the Vote and found that no one authorised the change. It was an editorial error. Mr. Gibb: I am relieved to hear that I have been exonerated, Mr. Amess. Regarding the Minister’s response on the amendments, I would like to think that an Ofsted inspector would have evidence for anything they do or any judgment they make, even if it were not of High Court quality. The Minister set out in great detail the very thorough procedures that lead an inspector to
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 52 Requirement to register: other later years providers for children under eight 3.15 pmMr. Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 26, line 5, leave out from ‘made’ to ‘and’ in line 6 and insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 244, in page 26, line 6, after ‘school’, insert
Mr. Gibb: These two amendments try to bring into the exceptions from having to register later years child minding—the situation where the child minding is provided by a school, so it would not be required to be registered is one such exception—the situation where the child care is provided by a third-party child minder but within the school premises and approved by the proprietor of the school. Will the Minister consider whether that should also be included in the list of exceptions? Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman says, where a provision on a school site is provided directly by the governing body—the proprietor—it will come within the province of Ofsted’s general inspection of the education facilities on the site. However, as he rightly says, there will be occasions when responsibility for that provision on a school site using school premises may not lie clearly with the school. Therefore, it will not be picked up in the inspection process, because it is not being provided directly by the governing body. It will be provided through a contract with a third party, using some of the school’s rooms or facilities, but with no accountability direct to the governing body. That is the key point. In such situations and to ensure that provision complies with agreed criteria and children are safe, non-school providers, if I may call them that for a moment, must be required to register with the new Ofsted child care register that we have discussed.
3.17 pmCommittee suspended for a Division in the House. 3.27 pmOn resuming— |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 16 December 2005 |