Childcare Bill |
|
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Arrangements for childcare providers to safeguard and promote welfare of older children— Column Number: 311
Tim Loughton: I thought that I had better say something this morning, so I will have a go at new clause 1. Such is the strength and force of the new clause that, in your wisdom, Mr. Amess, you have also selected new clause 3 for consideration, which is identical. You have chosen not to select other new clauses, which I thought were really rather good and which are not identical. However, on that basis, we had probably better focus on new clause 1, because it would completely mess up the Bill if it were included twice—in the highly unlikely scenario that we get the Government to accept it. The new clause deals with including welfare safeguards for children and for them to pertain to everyone involved in child care provision. In the dim and distant past, in the early stages of our consideration, we spoke about the requirements on local authorities to promote the welfare and well-being of children. We all agreed that that was essential, although we had different versions of how we thought that it could be achieved. New clause 1 is intended to place a duty on everyone who is affected by the Bill and particularly child care providers—everybody who comes into contact with children who access those services—to have regard to the welfare and well-being of the children themselves. As the Bill is phrased, those requirements are limited to the local authority, which is a weakness. New clause 1, which would probably be inserted after clause 42 in part 3, would therefore place a requirement on everyone else to make arrangements to ensure that
That suggestion has been supported by several children’s charities, which welcome the requirements on early years providers to include the welfare requirements as specified in clause 43, although much of that relates to the provisions on administrative and more mechanical, practical matters. They recommend that there should be a requirement to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, for example, recommends that the Bill includes welfare requirements on later years providers for children under eight. It, too, believes that there should be a requirement to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. In many respects, we want to replicate the sort of considerations that are integral to the Children Act 2004. Given your inside knowledge of that legislation,
In order to replicate some of the safeguards for children in the 2004 Act, a welfare requirement should be placed on other parties so that everyone is mindful of, and has a duty to safeguard, the welfare and well-being of children as they come into contact with them. That is what the Act, which followed the Laming report, was all about. The suggestion is straightforward and helpful. It adds to the Bill, especially to the joined-up approach that we have all agreed is essential when dealing with children and with vulnerable children in particular. Much of the Bill is, of course, aimed at more disadvantaged children from disadvantaged families who may be more vulnerable than others. Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I also tabled new clauses 1 and 3. We are concerned that there is a requirement not only on local authorities, but on everyone who comes into contact with children to safeguard and promote their welfare. When we discussed the 2004 Act in Committee, I tabled an amendment to the effect that examination boards should have that responsibility. We are not talking about examination boards now, but we did so then because of an unfortunate incident during a drama examination in a school in Wales. It was ruled out of order, but, like the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I believe that a wider range of organisations should bear greater responsibility, so that the welfare of children and young people is safeguarded and promoted. My hon. Friend and I support the new clause for those reasons. 10.15 amAnnette Brooke: Hon. Members who served on the Committee that considered the Children Act 2004 may recall that we were concerned that schools were not picked out as individual bodies. Schools are particularly relevant, not only because they will—perhaps—be given greater independence but because their governing bodies have a great deal of power. We are talking about a considerable expansion of child care for all ages on school sites. We spoke the other day about the ability of governing bodies to decide whether to set up child care facilities. The Children Act covers only local authorities; it does not specifically mention schools. Column Number: 313 The Minister might say that everything is covered by the Children Act and will therefore be carried across, but I want to reinforce the point that I made when that Act was being considered. We were very concerned about the fact that schools and their governing bodies were not specified in the legislation. Although they are particularly important in respect of child care, they are omitted from this Bill also. Beverley Hughes: I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments behind the amendments. It is crucial that we actively safeguard children who are in the care of a child care provider. They should be protected from harm and neglect. Hon. Members will be aware that early years providers who are required to deliver the early years foundation stage are subject to the welfare requirements listed in clause 43. Clause 58 contains an identical list of requirements in relation to those who provide for later years children. The first item requires that the regulations will include specifics about the welfare of children and will deal with the suitability of people to care for them. Although hon. Members make the point about the Children Act, there is a crucial difference: the list in the Children Act concerns strategic bodies. However, there is a similar requirement in relation to schools in the Education Act 2002. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, any child care provision provided under the aegis of a local authority is subject to that authority’s safeguarding duty. Because there appear to be inconsistencies in the provisions, if hon. Members are minded to withdraw their amendment I shall give the assurance that I will consider the issue and will return on Report with a view as to whether there is a gap that we must close by amending the Bill. The Children Act is concerned with strategic organisations, not, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, with individual providers, so I might return and say that I am satisfied. However, I feel that I should consider the issue. If the Committee is happy with that, I shall be happy to do it. Tim Loughton: Christmas spirit has broken out. This is the closest that we have come to the Government’s accepting something, or at least agreeing to consider it before they come back with a good reason for not accepting it—although they might have led us to believe that they might accept it because it is this side of Christmas and we are all feeling very charitable. On that basis, not wishing to throw back the Minister’s suggestion in her face, and in the expectation of seeing an even better and shiner new clause with the Government’s fingerprints all over it in the new year, I am happy to beg to seek leave of the Committee to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. Column Number: 314 New Clause 11 Requirement for providers of children to provide information
Brought up, and read the First time. Annette Brooke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am sure that the Minister knows that, as a result of a constituency case, I have been trying throughout the Bill to put some protection into the system without the need for more regulation. Something has to be done, given that there was nearly an horrendous incident in Poole town centre. It may be almost an obsession, but that is not to the detriment of the point that I am trying to make. I suspect that the Minister will say that the new clause is too airy-fairy about the conditions under which such child care is provided. However, I want parents to be informed when they deposit their children with the provider of any form of child care, perhaps by a notice on the wall, that the carer is not regulated or registered. Parents should know exactly the terms under which children are being cared for. In an open and competitive market, child care providers who are fully registered will automatically provide such information; it will be to their advantage to give parents the fullest encouragement to leave their children there. However, we have such a long list of exemptions that I believe that it would be right to require providers to tell parents, in some form or other, that they are exempted. They may also wish to say, “Nevertheless, all our staff have x, y and z qualifications.” It would be open to the provider to decide what additional information to give. That might be another safeguard to help deal with a situation that I have described many times before. Maria Eagle: I was puzzling over the wording of the new clause when preparing for the debate. The hon. Lady uses the word “conditions”. Under the new clause, providers of early years child care would have to inform the parents of children in their care of the conditions under which the care was provided. In the Bill, “conditions” has a particular meaning. It is used to describe the restrictions that can be placed upon carers in order for them to be registered. It may include requirements relating to the applicant, the premises or the care arrangements, including the hours of operation or the number and ages of the children cared for. It seems clear from what the hon. Lady said that that is not what she means. Introducing a different meaning to a word that already has a particular meaning would cause ambiguity, and I am sure that she does not seek that. I agree with the hon. Lady that, when parents leave their children in the care of others, they will want to know that the children will be safe and well looked after and that certain standards will be met. Information about the conditions attached to the registration will enable parents to raise issues with the
The current regulations require Ofsted to issue a certificate of registration confirming that the provider has met the standards for registration. In addition to the name of the provider, the certificate has to contain the address at which the care is to be provided as well as any specific conditions—I intend the meaning in the Bill—that are applicable to the registration. Typically, those include the hours of opening and the number and age of children that can be cared for. We will continue that requirement in the regulations to be made under the Bill. The new regulations to govern providers’ activities will also require that the certificate must be displayed for parents to see. That will go some way towards meeting the hon. Lady’s aims, although it will not deal with those who are not registered—who perhaps do not have to be registered. However, it will mean that that information will be displayed for parents to see. If it is not there, they will know that it is not a registered setting. In a sense, that meets the requirements that she seeks to make with her new clause. Despite having some sympathy with her reasoning and regarding the constituency case that she talked about, which has given rise to the new clause, the use of the word “conditions” makes the meaning so ambiguous that it would not be very sensible to accept the new clause. I hope that on the basis of that explanation the hon. Lady can see that we are going three quarters of the way to meeting the requirements that she seeks to place in the Bill and that she will therefore be happy not to press her new clause. Annette Brooke: I have spoken a great deal about the training and professional development of child care workers. I am beginning to feel that Members of Parliament might need some training in the writing of new clauses and amendments. I wrote the new clause in—I hope—fairly clear English, and I did not anticipate that the wording would be perfect but I wanted to ensure that the matter was thoroughly discussed. I thank the Minister for her comments; both Ministers have been very understanding about the point that I have been trying to make about all the child care settings that are not registered and the fact that parents do not know that they are not registered. I am still deeply concerned about that, but I have received some reassurance. I got the greatest reassurance from when we were talking about the advice and information that local authorities will be required to give to parents; that will probably be the crucial area. I hope that this issue will be picked up in relevant regulations, so that that information is available for parents. I anticipated that I would withdraw the motion because I tabled it simply to make this specific point, but I would like the Minister still to consider how parents will know about all the exemptions, and whether they will assume that there is more safeguarding of those settings in the Bill than there is. I am still concerned about the problem, but I have raised the issue in every relevant part of the Bill that I could find. I think that raising it in relation to the
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 2 Minor and consequential amendments Maria Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 155, in page 56, line 5, at end insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 156 to 169, 171 to 175, 151 and 152. Maria Eagle: This could take quite some time unless I speak quickly. I am happy to take any questions, but the amendments are minor and consequential drafting points, and none of them represent any change in policy. They are all to ensure that references are correct and that any legislative cross-referencing uses the appropriate wording. I could go through each of them, but if I assure the Committee that I will take any questions on any particular one, perhaps it is enough for me to leave it there. Amendment agreed to. 10.30 amAmendments made: No. 156, in page 56, line 42, at end insert—
No. 157, in page 57, line 30, leave out from ‘provided’ to end of line 36 and insert No. 158, in page 58, line 29, at end insert—
Column Number: 317
No. 159, in page 58, line 29, at end insert—
No. 160, in page 58, line 37, leave out from ‘provided’ to end of line 43 and insert
No. 161, in page 59, line 6, at end insert—
No. 162, in page 59, line 9, after ‘education)’, insert ‘—
No. 163, in schedule 2, page 59, line 10, at end insert
No. 164, in page 59, line 31, leave out from ‘provided’ to end of line 37 and insert
No. 165, in page 60, line 3, at end insert—
Column Number: 318
No. 166, in page 60, line 39, at end insert—
No. 167, in page 60, line 39, at end insert—
No. 168, in page 60, line 39, at end insert—
No. 169, in page 60, line 39, at end insert—
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to. Column Number: 319 |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 21 December 2005 |