| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is relieved to see the Minister of Agriculture behind the Chair. May we have confirmation that, contrary to one rumour that ran through the Lobby, he has not resigned?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member's point of order takes the matter even further away from those on which the Chair rules. The record will be evident to everyone tomorrow.
PETITION
Under-age Drinking
11.42 pm
Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey): It is my pleasure to present this petition, which has been signed by 1,200 of my constituents. It concerns the tragic death of 14-year-old John Knowles. It states:
- The petition of the citizens of Pudsey Constituency
Declares that we support Mr. and Mrs. John Knowles of Calverley, Pudsey, and our MP Paul Truswell in their campaign to amend the Licensing Act 1964 following the death of 14-year-old David Knowles. David died when he ran across the Stanningley Bypass, Pudsey, after consuming three cans of lager. He had purchased the alcohol for himself and a friend on two occasions from an off licence in Pudsey. Following police investigations, the Crown Prosecution Service initiated proceedings against those who had sold David the alcohol. This prosecution could not proceed because of the precedent set by the appeal of Russell v. DPP, December 1996. This case confirmed that people selling to persons under 18 can be found guilty under section 169(1) of the Act only if they are the licensee or the directly employed servants of the licensee.
In David's case, those who sold him the alcohol were employed by a national off licence chain, and not by the person whose name appears on the licence operating at their place of work. They were therefore immune from prosecution.
The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons amend the Licensing Act 1964 to correct this major defect in the law which no longer provides the protection to people under 18 originally intended.
And the Petitioners remain etc.
Child Care Workers (Registration)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Dowd.]
11.44 pm
Mrs. Jackie Ballard (Taunton): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter. I understand that the Government are committed to a national child care strategy, and I applaud that end. They have also said many times that the provision of child care is crucial to their welfare-to-work strategy. However, there is an urgent need to ensure that there are adequate resources to regulate and monitor child care standards and that parents can have access to information about the people to whom they are entrusting their precious children.
Many working parents juggle with a variety of child care providers, including friends and relatives, live-in nannies--who are no longer only the province of the very rich, but often the resource of the moderately well-off--after-school clubs, child minders, holiday play schemes, creches and nurseries. With that in mind, I hope that the Government will be persuaded to introduce a system of national registration for all child care workers regardless of the setting in which they work.
As I am sure the House knows, a reasonably thorough system for the registration of child minders is carried out by local authorities. However, child minders can move to other local authority areas and seek registration there without revealing any problems that may have occurred in their original local authority area. There is no way of checking unless they admit to having been registered elsewhere.
There are no registration procedures, even locally, for people who work as nannies in the child's home. That is to the detriment of all the parties concerned: the child, the parent and the person providing the child care. The child is being cared for by someone who will not have been subject to any police checks and who may not even have had any relevant training. Parents have no way of checking a prospective nanny's background, such as by contacting previous employers--unless the nanny divulges their names--or by checking for relevant criminal convictions. They can get no independent view of whether the person whom they are considering for looking after their child would be suitable. They have only the references that the nanny chooses to supply.
Nannies are left to negotiate whatever terms and conditions they can with prospective employers. There is often no limit to the hours of work or time on call expected. They are often exploited by employers because there is no legal framework or registration system that could help to protect their employment conditions or rights. Last year, the case of Louise Woodward showed the potential risks of asking a young, inexperienced woman to work long hours looking after two demanding young children. Surely that is a case--and there are many others--which shows that a fairly simple change in the law could significantly reduce the risk of further incidents of harm to young children.
A national registration system for child care workers would also help prevent unsuitable people from being able to move from one local authority area to another. If someone works at a children's home in one area and leaves after complaints, but is not convicted of any
offence, there is often no way in which another local authority can be aware of it when considering whether to offer that person employment. A national registration scheme would allow people to be struck off in a manner similar to doctors if found guilty of professional misconduct.
Such a scheme could also help to increase the status of child care workers and give them recognition for the valuable role that they perform. On gaining a recognised qualification, people would apply to a national body for registration. The registration system could have a requirement for the individual to notify the body of any changes in his or her circumstances. There could also be a requirement for the individual to keep updated and take part in regular training. As the Secretary of State for Social Security said recently:
Mr. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green):
I must acknowledge the sincere concern of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) about these matters. However, I wonder whether she is being a little too narrow in concentrating so much on nannies. As she acknowledges, we already have registration for child minders and nurseries, under the auspices of local authority licensing. Tragically, as we saw recently in the case of Alex Rae in Bolton, that form of registration affords little protection if the child minder and nursery owner do not choose to follow the local authority recommendations.
I also wonder exactly how nannies would be registered under the hon. Lady's proposals. It seems to be a complex issue. About 150,000 people are engaged in all sorts of child care, some in their own homes and some in local authority, voluntary and private settings. We also know that about 70 per cent. of those engaged in residential child care have no qualifications.
The hon. Lady said that she wanted a register to which people would apply on receipt of qualifications. If we had that sort of register, we would exclude hundreds of thousands of people who are already engaged in child care. I wonder whether that is the way forward.
"Childcare is a fundamental part of Britain's infrastructure, on a par with transport or communications."
The Professional Association of Nursery Nurses is totally in support of the registration of child care workers and so is the Playpen Nanny Registration campaign, which was launched last July in the wake of the Louise Woodward case. It tells me that, in opposition, the Labour party was also very supportive of the idea of a national child care registration scheme, so I hope that the Government will consider a scheme for national registration as it would significantly increase the protection offered to children cared for in a variety of settings and to the workers providing that care.
11.50 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |