Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Arrangements for childcare providers to safeguard and promote welfare of older children—

‘(1)Each person and body to whom this part applies must make arrangements for ensuring that—

(a)their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children; and

(b)any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of their functions are provided having regard to that need.

(2)Each person and body to whom this section applies must in discharging their duty under this section have regard to any guidance given to them for the purpose by the Secretary of State.

(3)In the case of a children’s services authority in England, the reference in subsection (1) to functions of the authority does not include functions to which section 175 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) applies.’.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

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

“their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”.

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,   Mr. Amess, you will recall that section 11 sets out duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children as they apply to a range of providers, including the children’s services authority of a local authority, district councils, strategic health councils, primary care trusts and other NHS trusts, police authorities and the probation board. Its purpose was to emphasise the fact that all of us have a duty to safeguard the welfare of children. None of those bodies is set out in the Bill, but in our discussions we have mentioned several different organisations and agencies that are affected and which will come into contact with children every day.

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.

Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

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.

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

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.

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

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 (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing & Shoreham, Conservative)

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.