Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 131, in page 7, line 30, leave out ‘register’ and insert ‘be registered’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 132, 133, 138 to 144, 146 and 148.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

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.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 134, in clause 13, page 7, line 42, at end insert—

‘(1A)An English local authority may, in addition to securing the provision of information, advice and training which they are required to secure under subsection (1), provide other information, advice and training to any persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of that subsection.’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 135.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

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.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Education; Bognor Regis & Littlehampton, Conservative)

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 (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford & Urmston, Labour)

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.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 8, line 4, at end insert—

‘(4)An English local authority must ensure all persons providing childcare in their area who are registered under Part 3 are provided with free access to, or funding in order to undertake, Local Safeguarding Children Board approved child protection training, within one year of their registration.’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 217, in clause 43, page 21, line 37, at end insert—

‘(i)the requirement of all early years providers (childminders and other providers) in England to have undertaken Local Safeguarding Children Board approved child protection training within one year of registration.’.

Amendment No. 218, in clause 53, page 27, line 4, at end insert—

‘(f)the requirement of all later years childminders in England to have undertaken Local Safeguarding Children Board approved child protection training within one year of registration.’.

Amendment No. 219, in clause 54, page 27, line 29, at end insert—

‘(f)the requirement of all later years providers in England to have undertaken Local Safeguarding Children Board approved child protection training within one year of registration.’.

New clause 10—Requirement to undertake Safeguarding training—

‘A person applying to register as an early years or later years childminder is required to complete an accredited Local Safeguarding Children Board child protection training course before registration.’.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

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.

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 (PPS (Rt Hon Alistair Darling, Secretary of State), Scotland Office; Stockport, Labour)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Children and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

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 local safeguarding children boards. The boards come into existence next April, taking over from the area child protection committees.

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   comes not only from this Bill, but from the 2004 Act and the establishment of the local safeguarding children boards.

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 (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

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.