| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab):
The Minister will recall that in Committee I was concerned that there appeared to be a loophole on the safeguarding provisions for child care operators in chapter 4—that is, those with voluntary registration. I therefore welcome her statement on safeguarding and the read-across to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. I want to emphasise on the record that that Bill now stipulates the following:
9 Mar 2006 : Column 989
"Under the new scheme, where work, whether paid or unpaid, involves frequent teaching, caring for or otherwise working closely with children, the employer will be required to check that their employees are not barred from working with children, and they will be committing an offence and will face penalties if they employ a person so barred. This will include those working in childcare not registered by Ofsted."
I am most grateful for that tightening up of the situation.
Annette Brooke: I, too, was generally pleased with the amendments. Again, there were no accompanying notes. I picked up the word "health" and I was not sure what it covered, but I believe that the same expression is used in the Protection of Children Act 1999—POCA—list. There may be additional information that I have not had time to find. It would therefore have been helpful to have the information. I have asked a series of parliamentary questions about checks on child care and I imagine that the written statement, which I have not seen, will add to the information that I have gleaned.
I, too, am pleased that the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill will apply to child care and that the list or lists—however it ultimately works out—will have to be checked. However, it prompts the question why criminal record checks are not required in unregulated settings, such as in a crèche that provides under two hours of child care, which I keep mentioning. I had hoped that amendment No. 49 would pick up that point, but its approach is from a slightly different angle. I am still worried that parents do not know that criminal record checks are not carried out on those in unregulated settings. However, I agree that it is helpful to know that the lists will have to be checked before anybody can work with young people.
I am pleased with the safeguarding amendments—Nos. 19, 20 and 21. They tie in with other parts of the Bill. However, in Committee, we discussed at great length whether the measure should include the word "may" or "must". The amendments, which refer to
apply to subsections of clauses that state:
for the following matters. On safeguarding, the word should be "must", as we argued in Committee. The safeguarding amendments make it even more important to revisit the "may" and "must" argument, which I will not discuss at great length because we spent much time on it in Committee. However, it is worth raising it again because we have changed the measure and our awareness is heightened about the necessity of safeguarding and protecting. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to reconsider the matter.
Maria Eagle: I thank hon. Members for being positive about the changes that amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 would make to include safeguarding in the Bill. I am glad that the proposals have been generally welcomed.
Let me deal with the comments of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on amendment No. 49. Towards the end of his remarks, he suggested that, although we might not be able to incorporate it in the Bill, we might take a great deal of interest in its substance. I am happy to give him that
9 Mar 2006 : Column 990
assurance. It is important that parents have full information about child protection and safeguarding. Information services clearly play a key role in ensuring that parents can make informed decisions on the suitability of various child care providers for their children. We will publish regulations and guidance to try to ensure that that is clear to parents.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) stressed the importance of parents understanding the difference between regulated and unregulated settings. I agree. It is our intention that information services can and must tell parents about the registration status of providers and the implications of that, the difference between a registered and a non-registered setting and the checks that registered providers and their staff undergo as opposed to those that staff in unregulated settings may—or may not—undergo.
Information services will need to inform parents about the questions that they should ask when they choose provision. In regulations, we intend to require information services to provide information about keeping children safe in the community. The information might include what parents should do if they have concerns, for example, about child protection or children's welfare. It might also include initiatives or publications from the local safeguarding children boards. Their role in the community is to keep children safe in all sorts of settings in many different places.
We hope that hon. Members agree that the obligations are comprehensive. The guidance and regulations will include holding such information centrally. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able not to press amendment No. 49, with the understanding that we have fully taken on board the points that Opposition Members made about the importance of information for parents and its centrality to what parents require when they choose provision.
Let me deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Worthing—
Tim Loughton: East Worthing and Shoreham.
Maria Eagle: All the easts, norths and wests can be confusing. [Interruption.] Not to mention highs, souths and so on. I am having one of those days. I shall simply refer to the "hon. Gentleman"—that is easier.
The hon. Gentleman made some points about the ill health provisions, which relate to List 99, to try to tease out precisely what was intended. He gave a couple of examples, including HIV infection and minor mental health problems. The provisions will mirror List 99. There will not be a separate list so that a minor health problem could suddenly be taken into account to ban somebody from a child care setting. Ill health will be taken into account only when it is already sufficient to prompt questions about an individual's suitability for teaching children. The provisions will apply to individuals who could already go on List 99 if they are in an education setting. That does not therefore include HIV infection or minor mental health problems. We are considering examples, such as those that I gave earlier, of serious debility arising from ill health that could make somebody completely unsuitable for looking after children in a child care setting.
Tim Loughton:
I am grateful for that elaboration but does the Under-Secretary accept that, because the
9 Mar 2006 : Column 991
provisions refer simply to "health", an authority, or an individual in it who was so minded, could exclude people in the two categories that I mentioned? That would be neither fair nor appropriate. The provisions give a broad licence to authorities. Will the guidance notes to local authorities state that they were not intended to apply to the examples that I gave?
Maria Eagle: We can make that clear. The provisions apply only to those in an education setting who end up on List 99. They are not intended to be any wider.
The hon. Gentleman raised a constituency case to show the potential dangers of barring on the basis of cautions. He made legitimate points about the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, the way in which we intend to make the new barring and vetting process work and the impact that it will have. He gave the example of a mother who intervened to save a child from being pushed around and ended up with soft information on a Criminal Records Bureau record that caused her problems in working in child care. Those issues are central to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill and establishing the new barring and vetting scheme. We have given the matter considerable thought. We do not intend to provide that any caution would lead to being barred from the children's work force. We would not have such a work force, which could deal with all the jobs and roles in it, if we cast the net too wide. Obviously, it is important to cast it in the appropriate place, however, and that is certainly our intention. It would be our intention to bar on the basis of cautions only for serious sexual or violent offences. We would not want to see people being barred from the child care work force if they had, perhaps sensibly, received a caution for a very minor matter that would not make them a risk to children.
2 pm
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right to draw the comparison, which is sometimes age-related, between circumstances that might relate to a similar offence. He used the example of a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old having a relationship, and compared it to the case of a paedophile downloading child porn then wanting to work in the child care work force. Common sense would suggest to most hon. Members that there is a huge difference between those examples.
When the hon. Gentleman sees the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill in all its glory, he will understand that we are dealing with precisely where the lines should be drawn in what are sometimes grey areas. However, I do not think, from what he says, that he disagrees too strongly with where we have tried to draw the line. The provisions that we are putting into this Bill try to make consistent the place at which the bar will fall between the education work force and the child care work force. We are trying to tidy up and make consistent the places where the line is drawn in that regard.
I regret that we cannot give the hon. Gentleman the full details of all the relevant measures, but some of them are in another piece of legislation, which we shall consider in the not-too-distant future. I can assure him, however, that we have in mind the issues that he has raised in regard to proportionality. There will also be
9 Mar 2006 : Column 992
provision for appeals and for people to make representations in appropriate cases. It is perhaps regrettable that those measures are in a Bill that has yet to come before the House. I am asking hon. Members to take on trust some of those issues in relation to the Childcare Bill. I can assure them, however, that its provisions will be consistent with those of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill in regard to the new barring and vetting scheme, which the House will have plenty of opportunity to consider in great detail in the not-too-distant future.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |