Childcare Bill |
|
Annette Brooke: I hope that I might be forgiven for believing that the hon. Gentleman had moved amendments Nos. 114 and 115 at the same time, having listened to the speeches. Mr. Ian Cawsey (Brigg and Goole) (Lab): The hon. Lady is forgiven. Annette Brooke: That makes me feel so much better. Obviously, a baby’s sense of self is incredibly important, but it is one part of the framework in “Birth to Three Matters”. That is why I hesitated to offer my support. I see that we have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to how much detail we include. As has been mentioned, I am also enthusiastic about pursuing the implications of attachment theory and what we can do to overcome any problems in early emotional development. That is why I thought that we were considering the areas of learning and development. I want to raise one point with the Minister about subsection (3). If I remember rightly, the list of areas of learning and development is the same as for the current foundation stage. I am not raising the same issue as I did about the word “taught”, but, thinking about nought to three-year-olds, I hesitated when I saw the word “literacy”. I thought hard about how a mother or a child care worker would look at books and work through the issues, but I remained faintly troubled about “literacy”. I did not have the time or the inclination to get out all my old books to see what literacy included, but it would be helpful if the Minister could address literacy in relation to nought to two-year-olds. Beverley Hughes: I will not repeat the points that I made in my response to the previous amendment. [Interruption.] The Chairman: Order. We are finding out what this knocking noise is all about. People are looking concerned. We will have more information. Beverley Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Amess. I was more startled by your intervention than by the knocking noise. To respond specifically to the hon. Gentleman’s points, I have to say what he expected. A baby’s growing, and then differentiated, sense of self, if I can put it like that, is an important part of their development. It is included in the personal, social and emotional strand of development and, as he thought, is contained in the frameworks that we are bringing together for the foundation stage. Column Number: 272 However, important as that is, I am not sure how one would judge a young child’s sense of self outside of what they do and how they behave, and “Birth to Three Matters” attempts to translate that for practitioners. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one strand of “Birth to Three Matters” is “A strong child”, which is very much about sense of self. Clearly it does not mean physically strong, but refers to a child with a strong sense of their own identity and the way in which they should interact with others. However, that must be translated into behaviour and practice, so under the heading “Developing Self-assurance”, the focus is on such things as becoming able to trust and rely on their own abilities, gaining self-assurance through a close relationship, and demonstrating that they are becoming confident in what they can do and are feeling self-assured and supported. Those strands are translated in “Birth to Three Matters” into effective practice that practitioners/carers must demonstrate if they are to inculcate in a young child the sense of self and the behaviour that comes from it. Carers must have clear and consistent expectations and must trust in a child’s ability. They must help the child to increase his self-confidence, feel valued and know that his efforts are appreciated. That is what we are doing now, and it will be carried through into the amalgamation of “Birth to Three Matters” with the early years foundation stage. The areas of learning to which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole referred are replicated in the foundation stage. As she rightly said, they are the strands of learning and development. Even more important than the definition is what those strands mean in practice for children’s behaviour and the learning and development that we want to see and what practitioners must do to support those strands. I hope that, with those assurances, Opposition Members will be satisfied that the provision is important, is contained in what we already do and will continue to be so. Tim Loughton: I do not wish to detain the Committee further. I am again grateful for the Minister’s explanation. I think that that detail will read well outside the Committee. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Annette Brooke: I shall certainly not repeat the debate that we have had, but I want to say why I still have concerns about the word “taught”. If there had been more time this morning, I would have said that teaching and learning are always bracketed together throughout key stages 1 and 2. Once more, I ask the Minister to reflect on the wording in subsection (2)(b), as I am convinced that it can be improved. I hope that she accepts that. Does subsection (4) refer to an affirmative order? That is important, should there be a change to what has been laid down for some considerable time. Column Number: 273 I raised the principles behind the early years foundation stage on Second Reading. Thanks to the Minister, we now have an outline of the vision and some examples of the principles involved. They will probably be far more important than anything else that is said. I am concerned that because the two sets of principles are different—the stage is divided into two—it will be difficult to get one comprehensive set of principles that does not involve prescription but that is relevant to the whole age group. Some interesting points have been made. For example, many providers will be pleased to have an emphasis on the outside as well as the inside environment. I assume that there will be a full consultation on the principles. It would be good to have a public seminar involving many people, as that is so important. Still on the principles, I ask the Minister whether in that discussion—perhaps I am making my representation now—this matter could be addressed. The term “family background” is included in the vision and in what we have been getting so far, but I do not see the same mention of family as appears in “Birth to Three Matters”. Again, I do not have a prescriptive view about what format the family should take, but we should not separate parents and children when we discuss child development. We must consider the whole family unit, and I would be heartened to see that picked up. Beverley Hughes: I noted the hon. Lady’s reference to key stages 1 and 2, but it is not relevant to imply that there is a parallel between the foundation stage and key stages 1 and 2 in terms of methodology. We have made that point throughout. The hon. Lady is right: key stages 1 and 2 begin a more formalised process of learning. It is not very formal, but it is more formalised. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have been at pains to give evidence from current practice and the documents that the Government have provided that the early years foundation stage—“Birth to Three Matters” and the current foundation stage—is not about formal learning processes. Because we are being specific in putting forward a rational and coherent concept around learning and development, which is what the areas of learning identified in the clause are—they attempt to conceptualise learning and development in a way that is not new, as the hon. Lady acknowledged, as that is done in the foundation stage already—it does not mean that the experience of children in settings as they go about activities that will contribute to those areas of learning will be formalised. It will not. It will be as now: informal, but a mixture of practitioner or teacher-guided activity and free activity. 2.15 pmThe practitioner will take a robust and coherent approach both to observing what individual children do and how it relates to their level of ability in those areas of learning and development, and to thinking about the next steps and opportunities that will take that young child in a play-based way through the next stages of development that they have demonstrated an
The order will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and as I have repeatedly said, the early years foundation stage will be subject to extensive consultation. As with everything that has been done so far, not only do we want to use the experience of experts and practitioners, we want to take them with us. Consultation will be extensive and genuine. Question put and agreed to. Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 42 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45 Power to enable exemptions to be conferred Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 233, in page 22, leave out line 25. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 234, in page 22, leave out line 30. Annette Brooke: These two amendments were put forward by a group of child care experts. They are probing amendments on matters about which people would like clarification from the Minister. They propose that certain lines should be left out of the Bill, and I am sure that by justifying why they should be left in, the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what their significance is. The National Children’s Bureau and the Early Childhood Forum are concerned that groups of providers could be exempt from the need to meet the learning and development requirements. They say:
The second amendment in this group is significant because those same groups are concerned that the Bill might mean that severely disabled children, for example, could be taken out of the equation. Their question is: should not this framework be a challenge for all? I can understand why the exemption was used for the previous foundation stage. Blind children were exempted from handwriting tests. That seems perfectly reasonable, but I seek clarification from the Government about the circumstances in which they envisage this provision being used. I would not want a general bracketing with a child with specific disabilities. It would be a lot easier to exempt them but I do not think that the Government are trying to take the easy option as far as children with disabilities are
Beverley Hughes: This is an important clause. As we have stressed, the point of the early years foundation stage, and the new regulatory and inspection framework that supports it, is quality. The bringing together of the existing frameworks is crucial to deliver high-quality outcomes for children. As a result, all schools and registered providers, other than those exempted under the clause, will be required to deliver the early years foundation stage. For the first time, regardless of what setting they attend, that will ensure that all children receive high-quality, integrated education and care provision. Initially for some individual providers this may be challenging. The exemptions power in subsection (1) will enable, on an exceptional basis, the Secretary of State to exempt providers from having to deliver all aspects of the foundation stage. Such exemptions would be made only in exceptional circumstances: for example, on a time-limited basis during which period we would expect local authorities to use their powers under clause 13 to support providers in improving the quality of their practice and to give them training so that they are able to deliver the foundation stage. We do not want to use that power to exempt providers for a long period of time or indefinitely to exclude them from the general direction of travel, because it is all a matter of quality. However, there may be circumstances in which an individual provider could be released from all the requirements for a period under close observation and with support from the local authority to allow it to come up to the right standard. Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations permitting providers to disapply some of the learning and development requirements for a particular child, which would depend on particular circumstances. It would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, rather than a category one. The benchmark for us would be what was in the best interests of an individual child. However, as we take forward the development of the early years foundation stage, we must ensure that we can provide for human rights implications and the rights of parents to ensure that—within appropriate boundaries—their children are cared for in accordance with their own philosophies and beliefs. Subsection (2) provides this flexibility to be able to take account of specific circumstances, philosophies or parental values. We have to have this flexibility in the Bill to take account of some of those exceptional circumstances, but I reassure the hon. Lady that we regard any exemption as being exceptional and mostly for a time-limited period to enable people to reach the ability to deliver the early years foundation stage in full. For the reasons I have outlined, we need the power to have that flexibility in the Bill. Column Number: 276 Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister. She really did cover my concerns thoroughly in that response. I was quite pleased that the local authority’s role and quality were acknowledged. I think that we exchanged looks at that point. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 46 and 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 1 Amendments relating to the curriculum Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 153, in page 53, line 9, leave out ‘“maintained nursery school” ’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 154 and 170. Beverley Hughes: These three Government amendments are wholly technical. Amendments Nos. 153 and 170 ensure that the definition of maintained nursery schools in section 76 of the Education Act 2002 is retained, as there are still references to maintained nursery schools in that Act. Amendment No. 154 is needed to clarify the wording of paragraph 9. The words “ceases to have effect” are unnecessary. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 154, in page 53, line 37, leave out ‘ceases to have effect’.—[Beverley Hughes.] Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. Clause 48 Inspections Mr. Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 23, line 18, after ‘prescribed’, insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 56, in page 23, line 39, leave out from beginning until ‘an’. No. 205, in clause 98, page 49, line 25, at end insert—
Mr. Gibb: Amendment No. 27 relates to subsection (2)(a), which says that the chief inspector of schools
The amendment suggests that there should be not less than three years between inspections. It is important that the inspections are frequent, perhaps even more often than every three years, but certainly not less often. There tends to be quite a high turnover of staff in early years provision. As a consequence, the quality of the care provided could change quite a lot and rapidly in those three years. Column Number: 277 I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about that. If she cannot accept the amendment, perhaps she will assure the Committee that the regulations that ultimately emerge will prescribe a period and that it will be of that order. Amendment No. 205 applies to clause 98, which introduces the affirmative resolution procedures to certain specified order-making clauses. The amendment would apply the affirmative resolution procedure to clause 48, which seems to have four different order-making powers—quite a lot for one clause. Subsection (2)(a) gives the power to prescribe intervals at which inspections should be made, which we have just discussed; subsection (3) relates to regulations to prescribe circumstances in which the chief inspector is not required to inspect early years provision; and subsection (4) deals with regulations that can prescribe the regulatory regime of early years provision at independent schools. As all those regulation-making powers relate to important issues, Opposition Members believe that they should be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I wait to hear what the Minister has to say. 2.30 pmThe Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Maria Eagle): As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause covers the inspection of early years provision. Subsection (2)(a) requires the chief inspector to undertake inspections at prescribed intervals, creating a regular cycle of inspections of all providers. Subsection (2)(b) requires the chief inspector to carry out an inspection at the request of the Secretary of State, and subsection (2)(c) allows the chief inspector to carry out an inspection at other times if he considers it appropriate. That gives him the flexibility that he needs to deal with numerous types of consequences and sets of circumstances that he may face. I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about what he thought amendment No. 27 meant. The way in which it is worded means that the minimum interval that could be set between regular inspections is three years. He appeared to suggest—he will intervene and tell me if I have got this wrong—that he quite liked the idea of inspections taking place more regularly than that, but that a regular period should be prescribed. That was his main point. I could not quite discern whether he wants inspections to take place no more regularly than every three years, which would be the effect of the amendment. If so, he would be changing the current legislation from prescribing a maximum period of three years to prescribing a minimum period of three years. That may or may not be what he intended, but it did not seem to be what he was arguing. If the hon. Gentleman’s concern is that the inspections take place at regular intervals and that that is specified in the regulations, I assure him that that is what we intend to do. One of the impacts of the amendment would be to remove the chief inspector’s flexibility to inspect more regularly if necessary, using
The clause allows us the flexibility to reorganise inspection cycles without changing primary legislation. For example, it might be sensible to ensure that inspections of child care on school sites form part of the school inspection. It may therefore be sensible to have a minimum of slightly less than three years between those inspections in a particular instance in respect of a particular school. Given that we want to keep the burden of inspections to a minimum commensurate with safety and safeguarding, we would not want to prevent the inspector from being able to use his flexible good sense in a reasonable manner to make that kind of judgment in any individual case. Amendment No. 27 would have that effect, but I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman intended. Mr. Gibb: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I have been baffled by the Minister’s comments and I thought that perhaps I had got my double negatives in a twist, but I just noticed that there are two versions of the amendment. There is a version dated 13 December, which says that the intervals are
which is what I was talking about, and then there is a version dated 15 December, which says that the intervals
I am baffled about why there are two versions. The earlier one is correct, not the later version. The Chairman: I am advised that there may have been a printing change. Tim Loughton: Where does that leave us? The Chairman: We will take further advice, but we will have to deal with the amendment as it stands. Maria Eagle: I am glad to see that the synapses of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton are clearly in fine working order. [Interruption.] Here I am, doing my best to be kind to him and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham tries to take all the credit. I suppose that that is the way these things sometimes work. I have no doubt that we will clear it up. However, given the confusion, and given what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton set out as his aim, the current wording does the job. There will be consultation on the regulations. There will be plenty of opportunity for him or anybody else who is interested to make representations about what the interval should be. He will have noted that it is three years for schools, and therefore we are probably not too far apart, in practice. Column Number: 279 Amendment No. 205 would require that regulations in respect of early years inspections and the treatment of independent schools be approved by both Houses before they come into force. Of course we need to take seriously the need to ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. We had a bit of a debate this morning on whether the negative or affirmative resolution procedure is the right one in various cases. Without repeating too much of what I said, there are provisions for orders to be made under both the affirmative and the negative resolution procedures for different proposed regulations. The way in which we choose which one to use for each power is in line with current practice across the House and across legislation. The most important regulations—those that are most likely to have the biggest impact on how the early years foundation stage and other parts of the Bill are implemented—are, of course, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but the type of regulation to which the hon. Gentleman referred is normally subject to an order under the negative resolution procedure. Such orders are laid on the Table of the House, and it is perfectly open to any Member to pray against the order and bring about a fuller debate. I hope that I have convinced and reassured the hon. Gentleman that it is not necessary to use the affirmative resolution procedure in this instance. The Chairman: It appears that there is a discrepancy in the wording of the amendments. We shall take further advice as the Committee develops to find out exactly how it happened. Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to you, Mr. Amess. I suspect that the blame lies somewhere in my court, but I am not sure. Whatever the explanation is, the intention of the amendment that we should have been debating was that the interval should not exceed three years. I am grateful for the Minister’s response to the substantive point, and that she will take on board representations when the regulations are drafted, as it is important that inspections are regular—certainly not less regular than inspections of schools—given the problems that many child care providers have with staff turnover and, indeed, the importance of the quality of child care. It is important that schools have high-quality teaching and raise standards, but there is a particular sensitivity in respect of young children. We must ensure that they are looked after in a safe environment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 273, in page 23, line 19, after ‘applies’, insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 285, in page 23, line 25, at end insert— Column Number: 280
Annette Brooke: As I have said all along, quality must run through the whole package—quality in terms of the sufficiency and the early years foundation stage creating a framework for delivery of a quality curriculum, or whatever word we want to use for it. That must be backed up by qualified staff but, equally, the inspection process is important. Several people who work in the sector have expressed concerns about the quality and consistency of inspections of early years facilities. As we move into the new phase, it is important to ensure that the inspection is of the highest possible quality across the board. Although I imagine that the Minister might say that it is inappropriate to put that amount of detail in the Bill, which I accept, I want her to address the problem to ensure that we take forward all aspects of early years provision, including the quality of the inspectorate. Although I wrote the amendments, I have a briefing that was provided by the Early Childhood Forum. Its experts say:
The briefing continues:
On Second Reading I asked: when there is an inspection in the context of a school, will the inspector be an early years specialist? I asked that without knowing the answer. As we move forward, the answer will be important. The ages of three to five are inspected within the whole framework, but with early years, it becomes even more important to have an early years background among the team of inspectors. The Early Childhood Forum points out that the early outcomes framework, which was published only in September, has a number of targets and indicators. It is used by inspectors through joint area reviews. The forum says:
We might agree that that should be one objective, but it is rather narrow. All members of the forum are concerned about that. The briefing says:
the members—
My example illustrates that we must get right the inspection process as well as the other processes. Inspection processes are developing in all sorts of service provision and best practice must be emerging. The amendments pose questions to which I should like some answers. I also want some reassurance that just as with all other aspects of the Bill, there will be a developmental process with regard to inspection. Column Number: 281 |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 16 December 2005 |