---

Childcare Bill

moved Amendment No. 51:"Page 7, line 26, after ““and”” insert ““accredited””" The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 51 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 73, 83 and 86, which are grouped with it. I will speak separately about Amendment No. 64, and in support of Amendment No. 73A. Amendments Nos. 51, 73, 83 and 86—and, in a way, Amendment No. 73A—insert the word ““accredited”” to ensure that training commissioned and delivered by local authorities will be accredited for the purposes of ensuring quality. I welcome the duty on local authorities under Clause 13 to provide training, but have concerns that there is no duty on them to use accredited training to develop the workforce. Many children’s organisations share those concerns, and I am grateful to them for their briefings on the matter. Improving the workforce’s knowledge, skills and understanding of early childhood practice is essential for providing quality experiences for children. However, if the training is not accredited as being of a high standard, it will have little impact on quality. Training devised and delivered by the local authority may be very good—but it may not. Training is accredited by recognised institutions such as the Council for Awards in Children’s Care and Education, or any other awarding body which will have qualifications linked to the integrated qualifications framework rather than local authorities commissioning ad hoc training. We need more obvious joining up of the workforce strategy with this Bill. Given the creation of the new integrated qualifications framework, I am seeking an assurance that the training provided will fit with this initiative and be of a high quality. Training should also support the continuing professional development of individual workers as they move around the children’s workforce to improve the quality of childcare delivered to all children. Poorly delivered training can be more of a hindrance than a help to raising standards. As Anna Gillespie Edwards notes in her paper, Relationships and Learning:"““There are many reasons to offer staff opportunities for accredited learning in order to offer high-quality care. Practitioners need high-quality initial and in-service training, particularly in the inter-related areas of child development, young children’s learning and thinking and observation of children””." She goes on to mention the advantages of accredited learning to practitioners. She says,"““Accredited learning offers powerful recognition to the learner which raises self-esteem and provides motivation to further learning. It enhances motivation and confidence generally and it opens up possibilities for career development. Accredited learning is particularly effective in valuing the learner and the learning””." Of course, we all know that it also helps staff retention and the stability of the workforce that children need. I would like guidance to encourage the use of specific and consistent quality improvement processes, such as training needs analyses, continuing professional development and quality assurance schemes in order to ensure some consistency in development of workforce standards across the country. Support for the accredited approach also comes from the National Autistic Society. In its briefing, it points out that training for childcare providers in autism and managing behaviour is vital if children with autism and their families are to access services. Ofsted research shows that the best providers give training to raise awareness and change staff attitudes as well as developing their skills. But the same research showed that childcare training is inconsistent without accreditation or a clear route. No mention is made in the Bill of the quality and quantity of training that authorities must secure for childcare providers. If local authorities are to secure childcare suitable for children with ASD—autism spectrum disorder—they must also take into account how adequately trained the current workforce is and how much additional training would be necessary. What is said about children with ASD applies also to children with other kinds of disabilities. In Commons Standing Committee D on 20 December, the Minister, Maria Eagle, said:"““I am not convinced that including the term ‘accreditation’ would add anything. It raises the question: accredited by whom?””." I have answered the question about who I mean when I refer to those giving the accreditation. The Minister then went on to say,"““Rather than worry about accreditation within the Bill, we should recognise that it can be dealt with within the regulations. We shall consult as to the content of the regulations after the House has considered the Bill, and that will allow people with concerns about accreditation and appropriate qualifications to have input before and after the regulations are drafted.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 20/12/05; col. 294.]" I believe that before the Bill completes its passage through the House, we need to have the principle about accreditation included in it. I have already given an example of who would carry out the accreditation. Amendment No. 64 would include a new clause providing that,"““A person applying to register as an early years’ childminder is required to complete an accredited pre-registration course in childminding practice before registration””." This is mandatory before registration for childminders in Wales. This is outlined in standard 12.4 of the National Minimum Standards for Childminders of the Welsh Assembly Government. This states:"““From 1 January 2003, the childminder has successfully completed a pre-registration course before registration””." Completion of the course requires the submission and passing of an assignment. The National Childminding Association is seeking the same minimum requirements of pre-registration training to be made standard for anyone registering as a childminder in England. That is what the new clause would achieve. It would enable learners to accumulate units that build towards a full qualification. It is to be hoped that it would also encourage them to undertake further training in the future. Over time, this would support the development of a professional childminding workforce. The NCMA informs me that most childminders in England already undertake accredited training as part of their induction as new childminders. This training, which is often the introduction to childminding practice—a level 1 qualification—encourages many of them to continue learning and to undertake further training in their later career. It is the view of the association that the new minimum requirement I am requesting would not act as a barrier to people registering as childminders. That may be a concern of the Minister, but the association believes that it would not be a barrier. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to look kindly on the amendment and bring English childminders in line with those in Wales. I beg to move.