Childcare Bill |
|
Clause 62 Applications for registration on the general register: childminders Amendments made: No. 147, in page 31, line 37, leave out ‘wishes’ and insert ‘proposes’. No. 148, in page 32, line 1, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.—[Beverley Hughes.] Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 63 to 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 66 Regulations governing activities Mr. Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 34, line 37, at end insert—
This is a probing amendment. It would include in the Bill the inspection and reporting requirements of the later years child minding provisions for providers of child care who register voluntarily. If a provider registers voluntarily and informs parents that he or she is registered, the very fact of registration gives the impression that there is some quality assurance—something that the Minister hinted at earlier. If those who register voluntarily are to gain the benefits of registration, the consequences of registration, too, should follow. The amendment follows the less stringent later years provisions as the model for registration and reporting requirements rather than the more stringent early years provisions. Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment would require all later years providers registered with Ofsted to face compulsory inspection, including those who register voluntarily. In that sense, it rehearses our arguments on clause 59. Registration with Ofsted, whether compulsory or voluntary, will ensure that all providers have to meet the same specified standards and criteria. As I said earlier, they will need to demonstrate annually that they continue to meet safety and suitability standards. Indeed, many providers eligible for voluntary registration may be on the early years register because they care also for younger children, and as a result they will already be inspected by Ofsted. Providers of care for five to eight-year-olds will be registered compulsorily, and providers for the over-eights will register voluntarily, but they will be registered under the Ofsted child care regime that I
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will not be a third tier of inspection for those registering voluntarily. They will experience the same level of oversight and have the same demands made of them as those who are compulsorily registered on the Ofsted child care register. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment. Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister. She has in effect assured us that registering voluntarily will still give rise to inspections by Ofsted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 67 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 77 Requirement for consent to entry Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 149, in page 42, line 35, at end insert—
The amendment allows a condition to be placed on a person’s registration so that the occupier of the premises in which they work must give consent to entry. That applies where children are looked after in their own home or that of a friend or relative. Clause 77 requires that the chief inspector gain consent from the occupier before gaining entry to the premises. The amendment is needed so that the chief inspector may impose a condition on the registration that the registered person may not carry out child care in respect of those premises when they are registered as a child minder, or cancel the registration when they are registered in respect of the premises. Our intention is simply to ensure that Ofsted can enter the premises to inspect the child care when necessary. The amendment will enable Ofsted to place a condition at registration to require that the applicant should inform the person who owns or occupies the premises that Ofsted may need to enter the premises and should secure the occupier’s consent to such entry prior to registration. That consent will have to be obtained in writing and shown to Ofsted as part of the registration process. Amendment agreed to. Clause 77, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 304 Clause 79 Information to be included in annual reports Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 287, in page 43, line 25, at end insert,
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 17—Requirement to complete accredited course in childminding practice—
9.45 amAnnette Brooke: Although the wording of amendment No. 287 may not be perfect—I will protect my back before I start—I notice that the title of clause 79 is “Information to be included in annual reports”, so there can be no obvious rebuttal that we would be adding something that might not be appropriate to the Bill. The amendment is consistent with the line that I have taken throughout the Bill that we need to ensure quality at every stage. We have agreed that continuous professional development of the child care work force is crucial to obtaining the Bill’s objectives. Therefore, there should be a requirement in the clause, perhaps not as I have expressed it, that a section of the annual report should deal with the qualifications of staff. I am sure that the inspectors would be in a position to draw some conclusions from the reports that they make throughout the year. As the Minister has not yet accepted any amendments, I hope that this could be the one. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): In the Christmas spirit. Annette Brooke: In the Christmas spirit. Given the consensus in the Committee about the need to monitor the professionalisation of the child care force, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I am not sure why we are dealing with new clause 17 here, but I am grateful that we are dealing with it. Originally, it was tabled after clause 34, and I am not sure how it applies to clause 79. However, it is important. It is supported by several organisations, including the National Childminding Association, the Pre-School Learning Alliance and the Daycare Trust. The Minister might suggest that it would create an onerous requirement, but it has widespread support among providers and experts in the field. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) will be interested in it, as pre-registration training is mandatory for child minders in Wales. Standard 12.4 of the Welsh Assembly Government—let us get that right—publication “National Minimum Standards for Child Minders” states:
Column Number: 305 I am arguing for the requirement on an equality as well as a common-sense basis. The new clause would achieve the same in England as in Wales and ensure that in the future child minders are required to undertake further accredited training. In recent years, the training and development of the child minding work force has been a credit to everybody concerned: local authorities, the Government, child minders and the NCA. Obviously, the pre-registration course could be part of the accumulation of units towards a full qualification, and that, of course, relates to the development of a professional child minding work force. The NCA’s experience is that most child minders in England already undertake accredited training as part of their induction as new child minders. The introduction to child minding practice, which is a level 1 qualification, encourages many of them to continue with further training in their later career. The NCA believes that the new minimum requirement for training would not act as a barrier to people registering as child minders. We have discussed barriers, and I am mindful of them, but I believe that the new clause is totally in the spirit of what has been happening in the work force—the recent trends in qualifications and training for child minding—which is greatly to be commended. I would like to make a point on the clause, as I do not believe that I will be able to raise it anywhere else in the Bill. I have referred to quality assurance on many occasions. In his reports on particular child care settings and providers, it may be fitting for the inspector to pick up on how many inspections involved settings where there is quality assurance. In the original consultation before the Bill, a specific question was asked about whether funding should remain for Investors in Children. Although I have mentioned this several times, I have not had a commitment regarding what is happening to the recognised kite mark of Investors in Children. The responses have been published and there seems to be a great deal of support for the matter, but will the Minister comment on the future of quality assurance? Beverley Hughes: The fact that I have not yet accepted any amendments does not mean that I have disagreed with the hon. Lady. She has made some important points, as I have acknowledged. It is just that we tend to have thought of them already and believe that they are accommodated in the arrangements. In that sense, there has been a consensus on the important issues. That is also the case in relation to amendment No. 287. The key phrase used by the hon. Lady was the need to monitor the professionalisation of the child care profession. I am with her four-square on the need to improve the level and quality of training and on the need to monitor it so that we know what is achieved. The Government have put a great deal in place to ensure that we go in the right direction. I have said several times that the quality outcomes and quality experience for children are fundamentally dependent
Those objectives are indivisible, which is why we established the Children’s Workforce Development Council under Baroness Morris of Yardley and why we published the strategy for consultation, which we shall respond to shortly. It is why the Government have committed £125 million for each of the next two years to the transformation fund, which we will use to provide employers with incentives to improve the quality of their work force in a way that does not affect its affordability or its cost to parents. The question is how we fulfil the need to monitor the professionalisation of the work force. What is the best way to do that? I cannot see how inspectors could include such information in their inspection reports, which they will complete in a cycle for early years providers and in an ad hoc way for later years providers. It would be very difficult to extract that data for those purposes. Perhaps I can reassure her by explaining what we are doing instead. We are carrying out regular surveys of child care and early years providers—in fact, one was published recently. The surveys include details of the professional development of the child care work force, including levels of training, the qualifications achieved and pay levels. The details are collected and collated by the Department regularly using a survey of those providers, the aim of which is to provide data to help us to monitor—as the hon. Lady wants—progress of the child care work force and to provide valuable information to inform policy decisions. I hope I can reassure her that the system for data collection and the other measures under the Children’s Workforce Development Council are in place to advance and push for the progress that we want. The new clause would make training mandatory for child minders prior to registration. The hon. Lady is correct: in Wales, child minders must have completed such a course before registration. In England, there is the same kind of course, but people have six months in which to complete it. We have made that provision so that there is no barrier and child minders do not have to complete the course before they are registered. There is a check. When Ofsted conducts the first inspection, it will check the child minder’s progress on that course. The inspection takes place within seven months of registration. The balance is better than in Wales. Child minders have to undertake a course, and they must have completed it before the first Ofsted inspection. However, we are not setting a hurdle for women—it is often women—who want to start their business and need the support of their local authority. With the authority, they can start the course, but they will not have to complete it before registration. That provision strikes a better balance between ensuring that the training is done and enabling flexibility in the first six months. It means that training will not be an insuperable barrier to many people who want to start businesses. With great respect to the hon.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the Investors in Children scheme. I am still considering it. Working with a major voluntary organisation, I hope to explore the possibility of a similar scheme—albeit sector-based and administered—to quality assure the quality assurance scheme. The original objectives of the Investors in Children scheme were better rationalisation and a kite mark that parents would recognise, because the scheme would reduce the proliferation of individual quality assurance schemes. Those objectives have not been achieved. It has not reduced the number of quality assurance schemes, nor has it become a widely recognised kite mark for parents to identify good quality provision. Increasingly, parents look to Ofsted. However, I agree that there is value in the continuous improvement that a quality assurance scheme brings to professional training. There is a strong case for such a scheme having more credibility and recognition if it were administered by the sector. We are discussing that with one of the major children’s organisations. Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for her comments, particularly her last ones, because I have wanted to know the answer to that throughout our discussions. I am disappointed by her response to amendment No. 287. At various points, we have tried to change “may” to “must”, but throughout the Bill provides that requirements for registration “may” include qualifications and training. The inspector should consider that, and I am mindful of how much significance we place on Ofsted’s annual reports on main school periods in which there is often a specialist section on a matter of great concern to us. For example, special educational needs was a feature in the previous annual section report. I want the annual reports on child care to be just as significant, if not more significant than the later years Ofsted reports, given the importance of early years as a foundation. I am a little unsatisfied because the amendment’s provisions would make a useful incorporation to the annual report. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 80 and 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 82 General power to make information available 10 amMaria Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 150, in page 44, line 23, at end insert—
Column Number: 308 I hope that the hon. Lady enjoys this. The amendment changes clause 82, which allows the chief inspector to make prescribed information about registered persons available to such persons and in such manner as he deems appropriate for the purpose of assisting parents in choosing a child care provider. The amendment changes the “may” in the clause to “must”. Although it is not the same as her amendment, I hope that she enjoys the fact that such an amendment has been tabled and that we accept the prospect of such a change. To explain what may be seen as a bit of a volte-face by the Government, I assure the Committee that our reason for tabling the amendment is that Ofsted does not want to have to exercise discretion on whether to provide the information in certain circumstances. It wants a duty to do so, so that it will not get caught up in arguments with providers or be challenged about whether it should hand over information in certain circumstances. The amendment gives us the power to make a regulation requiring Ofsted to hand over information. The provision relates to the passing of information to bodies such as the police and local authorities, and to parents, in certain circumstances. It is currently dealt with in the Child Minding and Day Care (Disclosure Functions) (England) Regulations 2004, but that needs to be re-enacted because of changes made by the Bill. The measure will contribute to the protection of children while ensuring that Ofsted does not get caught up in arguments about what it does. Given what I said about “may” and “must” earlier, I hope that the hon. Lady enjoys the fact that she has, in a way, triumphed, even if the context is slightly different from that of her original amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 83 to 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 4 Procedure for making certain orders specifying learning and development requirements
Column Number: 309
Brought up, and read the First time. Maria Eagle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 5—Determination of whether prescribed requirements for registration are satisfied. Maria Eagle: The two new clauses deal with slightly different things. New clause 4 requires the Secretary of State to consult representative organisations and to provide all those with an interest in early years with an opportunity to make representations on the order specifying the early learning goals or educational programmes under clause 39(1)(a). I hope that the new clause will be welcomed by members of the Committee and others with an interest in the matter. It is based on section 96 of the Education Act 2002, which sets out a similar process for the Secretary of State to follow when making certain orders and regulations in relation to the national curriculum, including the current foundation stage. It seemed sensible to have such an arrangement and a duty replicated as far as possible in respect of the development of the early years foundation stage. That is why we want to include the new clause. I hope that it will reassure hon. Members that the Government intend fully to consult those who have an interest. There has been a lot of interest in the early years foundation stage. I hope that the new clause provides an extra assurance that we intend to consult properly. New clause 5 sets out that Ofsted may, if regulations so provide, deem a person to be unsuitable and to cancel or refuse registration when consent for third party checks is refused or withdrawn. That means that if Ofsted wants to check information from a third party which requires the consent of the individual seeking to be registered and that consent is refused or withdrawn, it need not look further but can, at that point, deem a person to be unsuitable and cancel or refuse the registration without having to go through the entire process to the end and have potential appeals. That retains the status quo. Without the provision, it is impossible for Ofsted to make decisions about the suitability of a person for registration if it cannot get hold of the third party information—for example, through Criminal Records Bureau checks—that it needs. In such cases, it seems sensible that Ofsted can refuse to register the person. Column Number: 310 These matters were overlooked—I suppose that is the best way of putting it—during the complicated business of writing legislation to tight deadlines. With those explanations, I hope that the Committee will accept the new clauses. Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 5 Determination of whether prescribed requirements for registration are satisfied
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 1 Arrangements for childcare providers to safeguard and promote welfare of young children
Brought up, and read the First time. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 21 December 2005 |