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

I beg to move amendment No. 287, in page 43, line 25, at end insert,

‘ ; and on progress on the professional development of those employed in childcare provision, including qualifications and income levels.’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 17—Requirement to complete accredited course in childminding practice—

‘A person applying to register as an early years or later years childminder shall be required to complete an accredited course in childminding practice before registration.’.

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

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 (Whip, Whips; South West Bedfordshire, Conservative)

In the Christmas spirit.

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

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:

“From 1 January 2003, the childminder has successfully completed a pre-registration course before registration.”

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

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   on the experiences that they have every day in their child care settings, which depends on the training, experience and quality of staff.

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.   Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), it is a better balance. I hope that she agrees.

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

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.