---

Childcare Bill

We have had a short but important debate on the requirements to register. I am afraid that I will have to resist the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. There will not be a meeting of minds this afternoon on this. Clause 96 defines early years provision as,"““the provision of childcare for a young child””." The term ““early years provider”” therefore includes anyone who cares for a young child, from schools to nurseries, and from childminders to babysitters and nannies. As the definition of early years provision is so wide, the Bill includes powers at Clauses 33(2) and 34(3) for the Secretary of State to exempt by order certain providers from the requirement to register. We have made a paper available to Members of the Committee to illustrate the types of childcare providers that we intend to exempt. This will include childcare provided in the child’s own home and childcare provided only for short or infrequent periods of time. We have drawn the line carefully between what will and what will not be required to be registered to ensure that we put in place a regulatory regime that is proportionate and risk-based. The effect of Amendments Nos. 63 and 65 would be to disapply the lists in Clauses 33(3) and 34(4) in respect of childcare which is provided on a regular basis. From the noble Baroness’s remarks, it would appear that the intention is to remove the ability to exempt from registration any provision that is provided regularly. In addition, the definition of ““regular”” is not clear, and that would cause problems when this legislation is put into practice. For example, a half-term club that lasts for two days every year would occur ““regularly”” but we would not require it to register because involving Ofsted in provision that is so short would not represent a proportionate approach. As our paper shows, the Bill will enable us to draw the line for registration on the early years register in what we believe to be a sensible place. That will mean that we can use our resources where they can have the greatest effect—registering and inspecting provision which children attend for significant periods and which provides them with learning and development opportunities over a sustained period. We believe that the Bill reflects those priorities. Providers such as nannies, of course, do care for children over sustained periods. However, to require the compulsory registration of nannies, and to require nannies to deliver the EYFS, would be an unacceptable intrusion into family life. It is not the role of government to regulate what goes on in private homes. However, as both the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Walmsley, said, nannies will be able to choose to join the voluntary Ofsted childcare register in order to demonstrate that have they met minimum standards and so that parents are able to claim tax credits or benefit from the tax and national insurance concessions granted to employer-supported childcare schemes. I hope that that answers one of the noble Baroness’s questions. Other early years providers who will be exempt from registration on the early years register, such as those offering provision for short or infrequent periods of time, will also be able to join the voluntary register, provided they meet the registration requirements. We have also made a paper available on those requirements. Finally, under the duty in Clause 12 to provide information to parents about childcare in the local area, local authorities will make a distinction between providers who are registered and those who are not. They will also help them to understand the difference between providers registered on the early years register and those registered on the OCR. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will withdraw Amendment No. 63 and not press Amendment No. 65. Clause 59 provides that regulations governing the activities of providers registered voluntarily on the OCR may relate to a number of matters—for example, the suitability of persons providing later years provision, qualifications and arrangements for safeguarding. By replacing ““may”” with ““must””, as required by Amendment No. 82, all matters listed would have to be covered, but there may be circumstances where that might not be appropriate. I shall give an example later. In addition, Clause 62 provides that registration requirements for childminders registering on the voluntary element of the Ofsted childcare register may relate to a number of matters; for instance, the applicant, the premises and the arrangements for providing the childminding. Again, by replacing ““may”” with ““must””, as required by Amendment No. 85, all matters listed would have to be covered, whether or not that is the most appropriate approach. Registered providers on the OCR will be subject to registration requirements, which they will have to meet prior to being registered, as well as requirements set in regulations governing their ongoing activity. We want to consult to find the best way of designing the scheme. That means that we need the flexibility provided for by ““may”” in both sets of regulation-making powers to avoid lack of clarity and duplication of requirements. An example is the complaints procedure that providers will be required to have. Having a complaints procedure could be either a registration requirement or a regulation governing the activity, and we want to consult about the most appropriate way of including it. One option would be for providers to have a complaints procedure that is checked at registration. Alternatively, the system may work better if providers are required to have a complaints procedure only once they are operational. The flexibility that the current drafting of these clauses provides enables us to design an optimal system. This flexibility would be removed if both sets of requirements had to include the things listed. In addition, since these amendments refer to the registration requirements for the voluntary element of the scheme, but not the regulations governing activities for the compulsory element, if accepted we would not have a coherent system. We may have to develop different systems for the two elements, and that is not desirable. My noble friend has provided a paper outlining our proposals for the Ofsted childcare register which demonstrate the areas that we propose should be covered. We attach importance to these matters and we hope that this will reassure noble Lords that the amendment will not be necessary. Amendment No. 84 seeks to require all later years childcare which is required to be registered with Ofsted to face inspection at a period of not less than every three years. We fully understand the purpose behind this amendment—the desire to secure for children provision which is suitable, safe and of good quality. We all share that aim. The Government are reforming and extending the regulatory framework for childcare. We are putting in place a system which is proportionate and risk-based where Ofsted’s resources are directed to where they will have the greatest impact. That fits within the Government’s drive to reduce the burden of inspection so that, where appropriate, funding can be directed more effectively to the front line. It also takes account of the growth and development of the childcare market over recent years. Ofsted plays a vital role in ensuring that childcare provision is safe and suitable for children. Registration with Ofsted ensures providers meet specified standards and criteria. That will continue to be the case. In addition, we intend to require that every year providers will need to demonstrate to Ofsted that they continue to meet the registration criteria. We believe that this will ensure that provision continues to meet the standards for safety and suitability. Ofsted will be able to inspect any provider on the Ofsted childcare register, and will do so where concern exists or a complaint has been received rather than on an automatic cycle. In this way attention and resource will be more focused to where it is needed. Automatic, periodic inspection of all registered provision would, on the other hand, incur high costs but there is no evidence of the benefits it would bring. I believe that there is some ambiguity over the wording of the amendment, with the danger that we would appear to be limiting inspection activity by preventing inspections from happening within an interval of three years. For these various reasons—particularly the desirability of a proportionate and risk-based inspection regime—I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the Ofsted inspection of OCR provision. We clearly want to ensure that Ofsted responds to complaints about providers and inspects those providers, but I want to assure the Committee that Ofsted will not have to wait for a complaint to inspect a provider on the OCR; Ofsted will be able to inspect OCR providers where it judges that it is justified to do so. So it does not have to be a response to a complaint. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about her various questions, including the other part of her ““nanny”” question. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that in considering the risk-based assessment, which we are keen to promote, we have looked at the crèche settings. Currently 2,500 settings are registered as crèches. In a three-month period at the end of 2004, only 1 per cent were subject to complaint, investigation or enforcement action by Ofsted, compared with 6 per cent of full daycare settings. It is that low level of complaint which leads us to promote the risk-based philosophy.